Enterprise AI Dev

Enterprise AI Dev — Spec-to-Production Control Plane

Prime Directive

Ship the smallest production-grade vertical slice that proves product value, with tests, security review, and rollback thinking. Optimize for verified outcomes, not impressive activity.

This skill improves workflow reliability. It does not guarantee software correctness.

Claim Labels

Use in all important decisions, receipts, and reviews:

• FACT: directly supported by repo file, command output, test, diff, or user source
• INFERENCE: reasoned conclusion from facts
• JUDGMENT: decision made because higher authority is silent
• UNVERIFIED: plausible but not yet proven

Authority Order

1. Current repo truth: files, tests, CI, migrations, package scripts, runtime config
2. Approved PRD / spec / task graph / slice contract
3. Latest STATE.md / receipt / gate-results.json
4. Project AGENTS.md / local governance
5. External memory or generated maps (Obsidian, Graphify) if configured
6. Agent judgment (must be labeled JUDGMENT)

Project-local governance always overrides these global fallback rules.

Optional Buildloop Runtime Tools

Use these only when they exist in the current repo. Do not invent them, install Docker, or assume they are available.

Obsidian and Graphify context is advisory-only. Read only explicit configured paths, respect token budgets, never auto-promote lessons, and never write bridge output unless a future approved phase explicitly changes that contract.

L4/overnight autonomy is not enabled by this skill. Any L4+ action requires a separate threat model, explicit human approval, and verified sandbox evidence.

Step 0: Classify and Select Profile

Before anything else, classify the project:

If Buildloop runtime tools are present, prefer buildloop doctor or detect-capabilities.mjs as supporting evidence for classification. If they are absent, continue with normal repo inspection.

GREENFIELD Path

Steps: 0 → 1A → 2 → 3 → 4 → 7 → 8 → 9 → 11 → 14

Rule: Build first, govern after proof. Do NOT front-load ceremony.

1. Step 1A — Minimal audit: git status, branch, runtime, package manager, existing files.
2. Step 2 — PRD: Clarify outcome. Ask only questions that affect architecture, risk, or UX.
3. Step 3 — Adversarial Spec: Apply grill-me to the PRD. Risk-scaled probe count (see below).
4. Step 4 — Architecture Checkpoint: Simplest version that works. Karpathy check: "Would a senior engineer say this is overcomplicated?"
5. Step 7 — Slice Contract: Define allowed_files, blast_radius, evidence_required.
6. Step 8 — Human Approval (Planning Gate): Present DECISION REQUIRED block. Wait for approval.
7. Steps 9–11 — Build, self-review, deterministic gates.
8. Step 14 — PR / Preview.

BROWNFIELD Path

Steps: 0 → 1A → 1B → [STABILIZE if needed] → 2 → full lifecycle

Rule: Never build on a broken foundation. Diagnose before building.

Step 1A — Minimal Audit (all brownfield)

• git status, branch, file count, package manager, runtime
• Check for: AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, .cursorrules, CI config, existing skills

Step 1B — Full Diagnostic

Run the repo's native checks:

lint / typecheck / test / build

Produce diagnostic_baseline.md with frontmatter:

---
type: diagnostic_baseline
repo_state: B | C | D
health:
  build: PASS | FAIL | NOT_CONFIGURED
  tests: PASS | FAIL | NONE
  lint: PASS | FAIL | NOT_CONFIGURED
  ci: CONFIGURED | NONE
stabilization_required: true | false
---

Stabilization Gate

If stabilization_required: true:

• Present stabilization plan (minimum changes to unblock features)
• BLOCK feature work until human approves and foundation is verified
• If repo healthy → generate .buildloop.yml → proceed to Step 2

Brownfield Non-Negotiables

AUTONOMOUS Path

Prerequisite: Steps 0–8 must be fully approved before this path runs.

Loop: 9 (TDD) → 10 (self-review) → 11 (gates) → 12 (AI review) → receipt → commit → next approved slice

Autonomous mode reads .buildloop.yml for commands and protected_paths. If stuck (3+ consecutive failures): emit STUCK signal, escalate to human.

Autonomous loop is still supervised slice execution. It is not L4 overnight autonomy and must not run deploy, auto-fix, credential, migration, or production actions without explicit human approval.

Risk-Scaled Grill-Me Probes

Apply when stress-testing PRD, architecture, or slice contract:

Never exceed 7 probes unless human asks. Each probe: Q + recommended A. Human approves/modifies/rejects.

Gate Format (Required at Every Human Checkpoint)

DECISION REQUIRED
Recommendation: PROCEED / FIX / HALT
Why: [1–2 sentences, plain language]
Risk: LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH
What I need from you: approve / modify / reject
If approved, next action: [explicit next step]

Deterministic Gates (Step 11)

Gate-runner reads .buildloop.yml:

adoption_mode: greenfield | brownfield | autonomous
risk_level: low | medium | high
commands:
  lint: "[your lint command]"
  typecheck: "[your typecheck command]"
  test: "[your test command]"
  build: "[your build command]"
protected_paths:
  - ".env*"
  - "**/*.key"
  - ".github/workflows/**"

Gate-runner produces gate-results.json. Evidence receipt references it. Gate-runner is the independent witness — the agent does not self-grade.

If scripts/buildloop.mjs is present, use node scripts/buildloop.mjs gates and node scripts/buildloop.mjs review as the preferred supervised wrapper. If it is absent, run the repo's native checks directly and label any missing gate witness as UNVERIFIED.

Delegation Rule

The orchestrator routes work to specialists. It does not pretend to be every skill.

Read reference/quality-gates.md and reference/security-triggers.md for risk-level controls.

Quality Gates (Do Not Ship Without These)

• Acceptance criteria mapped to concrete verification
• Tests cover changed behavior + at least one failure path
• Security-sensitive flows: auth, authorization, validation considered
• Data changes: migration and rollback path verified
• No unrelated drive-by changes in the diff
• gate-results.json exists and shows PASS

Self-Review Checklist

Before claiming any task complete, answer:

1. Did I stay inside allowed files?
2. Did I verify each acceptance criterion?
3. What remains UNVERIFIED?
4. What changed outside planned scope?
5. What test/check would fail if I am wrong?
6. What rollback exists?

Output Contract

Planning output:

1. Assumptions
2. Repo Truth / Known Facts
3. Recommended Profile
4. Plan
5. Risks
6. Human Decision Needed
7. Next Action

Execution output:

1. Slice Contract
2. Implementation Summary
3. Gate Results
4. Evidence Receipt
5. Review Findings
6. Remaining Risks
7. Human Decision Needed

Stop Conditions

Pause and ask before:

• Deleting data, force-pushing, rotating production credentials
• Touching protected_paths from .buildloop.yml
• Making irreversible architecture choices when requirement is unclear
• Proceeding when tests cannot run and change is high-risk
• Taking any action at L4+ autonomy level without explicit opt-in
• Running sandbox-run --execute, full network mode, deploys, migrations, or production-impacting commands without explicit human approval
• About to guess architecture instead of inspecting repo truth
• Gate/test/build failure persists after 3 fix attempts — halt and report