User request: $ARGUMENTS
Systematically harden a /define task guidance file until manifests built from it produce deliverables that don't need iteration.
If no arguments, ask which task file to harden.
Context
Task files live in claude-plugins/manifest-dev/skills/define/tasks/ and supplement the /define interview with domain-specific guidance:
- Quality Gates — Verifiable output properties. Can split into baselines (always enforced) and selectable (meaningful rigor choices)
- Risks — Process failure modes with probe questions
- Scenario Prompts — Pre-mortem fuel: "imagine this deliverable was rejected — what went wrong?"
- Trade-offs — Competing tensions the user resolves during the interview
New items must match the depth and structural conventions of the parent skill (skills/define/SKILL.md) and existing sibling task files.
Goal
The task file should be comprehensive enough that a /define interview using it surfaces all criteria needed for one-shot quality. "One-shot" = the deliverable passes review without iteration.
Log
Write findings to /tmp/harden-{timestamp}.md after each round. Read full log before each new round — prevents re-proposing rejected items and losing dimension context.
Per-round log structure:
## Round N
### Dimension Map
[dimension → items mapping]
### Gaps Found
[uncovered dimensions]
### Proposals
[item: accepted/rejected by user]
### Reviewer Findings
[finding: agree/disagree, applied/skipped]
Orthogonality Analysis
The core discipline. Map every item in the file to a dimension — an independent axis of concern. A dimension is a top-level concern like "evidence quality" or "audience fit"; items are specific checks within a dimension like "source credibility" or "cross-referencing". Two items share a dimension if improving one naturally helps the other.
User validates the dimension map before gap-filling begins. Gaps = dimensions with no coverage.
Examples of dimension sources: deliverable lifecycle (creation → review → use → maintenance), rejection triggers, wrongness vs incompleteness, base-rate failures for this task class, user interaction points.
If the first analysis finds no gaps, invoke the reviewer once and exit if clean — not every task file needs hardening.
Iteration Loop
Each iteration achieves:
- Gaps identified via orthogonality analysis
- Additions designed — invoke the
prompt-engineering:prompt-engineeringskill before proposing changes - User-approved additions applied (all additions via AskUserQuestion)
- Quality validated — invoke the
prompt-engineering:review-promptskill on the task file after applying changes - Reviewer findings evaluated critically — not all are valid. Present assessment with rationale; user decides
- Log updated after each round
Converged when criteria in Convergence section met.
Section Placement
Each item belongs in exactly one section:
| Section | What it checks | Test |
|---|---|---|
| Quality Gate (baseline) | Output property that should always be true | Would omitting this ever be acceptable? No → baseline |
| Quality Gate (selectable) | Output property representing a meaningful rigor choice | Reasonable to skip for some tasks? Yes → selectable |
| Risk | Process failure mode during execution | About how the work was done, not the output? → risk |
| Scenario Prompt | Specific way the deliverable fails or gets rejected | "Imagine the reader rejected this because..." → scenario |
| Trade-off | Competing tension with no universal right answer | Both sides have legitimate merit? → trade-off |
A concern appears once, in its most natural section. When the same concern appears in multiple sections, keep the stronger version.
Principles
| Principle | Enforcement |
|---|---|
| Orthogonality over volume | Cover all dimensions, not all possible items within a dimension |
| User approves all changes | Propose via AskUserQuestion, never auto-add |
| Critical reviewer evaluation | Evaluate each finding independently — push back with rationale when wrong. When reviewer suggests items in already-covered dimensions, orthogonality wins |
| No redundancy across sections | Same concern in both risks and scenarios = pick one |
| Principles over thresholds | "Corroborated across independent sources" not "verified across 2+ sources" |
| No capability instructions | Don't prescribe verification methods — parent skill handles that |
| Match complexity to domain | Not every task file needs 17 quality gates — match depth to the diversity of ways the deliverable can fail |
Never
- Auto-add items without user approval
- Blindly apply all reviewer suggestions
- Add arbitrary numerical thresholds
- Prescribe verification methods (parent skill handles this)
- Re-propose items the user already rejected (check log)
Convergence
Done when:
- Orthogonality analysis finds no new uncovered dimensions
- Prompt reviewer finds no MEDIUM+ issues
- User confirms satisfaction
Converted and distributed by TomeVault — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.