!bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys automation,workflow,story_granularity,qa.level,testing.strict,system_overrides

Resolved above — use as-is. No block → defaults in .claude/docs/config-resolution.md.

Dev Story

This skill bridges planning and code. It reads a story file in full, assembles all the context a programmer needs, routes to the correct specialist agent, and drives implementation to completion — including writing the test.

The loop for every story:

/qa-plan sprint           ← define test requirements before sprint begins
/story-readiness [path]   ← validate before starting
/dev-story [path]         ← implement it  (this skill)
/code-review [files]      ← review it
/story-done [path]        ← verify and close it

After all sprint stories are done: run /team-qa sprint to execute the full QA cycle and get a sign-off verdict before advancing the project stage.

Output: Source code under the project's code root + test file in tests/. Resolve the code root from engine.name (src/ Godot, Assets/ Unity, Source/<Module>/ Unreal) per .claude/docs/code-root-resolution.md.

Every AskUserQuestion call follows .claude/docs/automation-modes.md (collaborative asks always · guided major-only · autonomous logs and proceeds; automation_always_ask categories always prompt).

Workflow tier: resolved per the story's system (per .claude/docs/workflow-modes.md) — the GDD filename stem of the story's GDD: path (design/gdd/<stem>.md → <stem>), with the [system] segment of its TR-[system]-NNN ID accepted only as a fallback alias: use the system_overrides row for that system if the block lists one, else the project value. Resolve it at the start of Phase 2 (the story header is read there) and apply it to the prerequisite gate.

story_granularity — it sets the expected implementation cycle: multi-day at coarse (give the programmer subagent longer working context), 1–2 days at balanced (default), hours at fine (tighter context). It does not change the prerequisite gate.

qa.level: controls whether the programmer brief carries a test requirement. At minimal, omit the "Test requirement" line (Phase 4 item 7) — tests are not required; at standard, include the per-type test requirement; at full, also pass a coverage target. Distinct from workflow: minimal. When tests are not required (minimal), the Phase 5 testing.strict gate is a no-op.

Phase 1: Find the Story

If a path is provided: read that file directly.

If no argument: check production/session-state/active.md for the active story. If found, confirm: "Continuing work on [story title] — is that correct?" If not found, ask: "Which story are we implementing?" Glob production/epics/**/*.md and list stories with Status: Ready.

Phase 2: Load Full Context

Before loading any context, resolve the workflow tier for this story's system (see the Workflow tier note above), then verify required files exist. Extract the ADR path from the story's ADR Governing Implementation field. The "If missing — full" column is the baseline; the tier columns relax it:

At full, if the TR registry or governing ADR is missing, set the story status to BLOCKED in the session state and do not spawn any programmer agent. At standard/minimal, only a story that references an ADR whose file is missing or Proposed is set BLOCKED; a missing TR registry, or an absent-by-design ADR, does not block — implement against the story's acceptance criteria + the GDD/brief.

Read the story file and the TR registry simultaneously — these two are genuinely independent, unconditional reads. The governing ADR is not part of this batch — do not include it in the same parallel tool-call group as these two. Its own section below is a gate, not a read: whether the ADR gets opened at all depends on a freshness check that itself depends on the story file already being read. Do not start implementation until this phase is fully resolved:

The story file

Extract and hold:

• Story title, ID, layer, type (Logic / Integration / Visual/Feel / UI / Config/Data)
• TR-ID — the GDD requirement identifier
• Governing ADR reference
• ADR Version stamp embedded in story header (absent on pre-stamp stories)
• ADR Decision Summary and Implementation Notes — the distilled ADR guidance; this is the primary source for what the ADR decided
• Manifest Version embedded in story header
• Acceptance Criteria — every checkbox item, verbatim
• Implementation Notes — the ADR guidance section in the story
• Out of Scope boundaries
• Test Evidence — the required test file path
• Dependencies — what must be DONE before this story

The TR registry

Grep the story's TR-ID from docs/architecture/tr-registry.yaml (Grep pattern="id: <TR-ID>" path="docs/architecture/tr-registry.yaml" output_mode="content" -A 6) rather than reading the whole cross-system registry. Read the matched entry's current requirement text — this is the source of truth for what the GDD requires now. Do not rely on any inline text in the story file (may be stale).

The governing ADR

Do not open the ADR by default. /create-stories already distilled it into this story's **ADR Decision Summary** + ## Implementation Notes, and its template states the contract outright: "This is what the programmer reads instead of the ADR." Re-reading the source here discards that work and, on an ADR past the 25k Read cap, costs a failed read plus offset/limit retries before implementation even starts.

Check freshness with one line, not one file. Resolve the ADR path from the story, then:

Grep pattern="^## Last Verified" path="docs/architecture/[adr-file].md" output_mode="content" -A 1

Compare that date against the story's **ADR Version** field:

Never treat an absent stamp as a stale one. A missing field means "unknown", and the fallback for unknown is the story, not a 35k-token re-read — the two staleness gates that already exist (/story-readiness on Manifest Version, /code-review post-implementation) are what make that safe.

On mismatch, use AskUserQuestion — same shape as the Manifest Version check below:

• Prompt: "Story was written against ADR v[story-date]. The ADR is now v[current-date]. Its decision may have changed. How do you want to proceed?"
• Options:
  • [A] Re-read the changed ADR sections and implement against current guidance (Recommended)
  • [B] Implement from the story's summary — I accept the drift risk
  • [C] Stop — I want to review the ADR diff first

If [A]: first check the ADR's size — Bash: wc -c "docs/architecture/[adr-file].md":

• Under ~50KB — read the whole file with one Read call. Measured on this branch: at this size one read is cheaper than the multi-grep path (48.4k vs 52.1k tokens on a 16KB fixture) — per-call overhead outweighs the content saved. Targeted reading only pays for itself on files big enough to threaten the 25k-token Read cap.
• ~50KB or larger — read only the sections that govern implementation, never the whole file:

  Grep pattern="^## (Decision|Engine Compatibility|ADR Dependencies)" path="docs/architecture/[adr-file].md" output_mode="content" -A 40
  

  Escalate to a bounded Read(offset, limit) on one section only if a scanned section cross-references material outside itself.

Then update the story's ADR Version to the current date so the next run is clean. If [B]: proceed on the summary; record it in the Phase 6 "Deviations" summary. If [C]: stop. Do not spawn any agent.

The control manifest

Read only this story's layer from docs/architecture/control-manifest.md — grep that one section (Grep pattern="^## <layer> Layer Rules" path="docs/architecture/control-manifest.md" output_mode="content" -A 40) rather than a full read of every layer. Extract the rules for this story's layer:

• Required patterns
• Forbidden patterns
• Performance guardrails

Check: does the story's embedded Manifest Version match the current manifest header date? If they differ, use AskUserQuestion before proceeding:

• Prompt: "Story was written against manifest v[story-date]. Current manifest is v[current-date]. New rules may apply. How do you want to proceed?"
• Options:
  • [A] Update story manifest version and implement with current rules (Recommended)
  • [B] Implement with old rules — I accept the risk of non-compliance
  • [C] Stop here — I want to review the manifest diff first

If [A]: edit the story file's Manifest Version: field to the current manifest date before spawning the programmer. Then read the manifest carefully for new rules. If [B]: edit the story file's Manifest Version: field to the current manifest date AND add a Manifest-Note: Proceeded with old manifest rules on [date] — non-compliance risk accepted. line to the story header. Read the manifest for new rules anyway. Note the decision in the Phase 6 summary under "Deviations". /story-done will include the Manifest-Note in its deviations section without re-checking staleness. If [C]: stop. Do not spawn any agent. Let the user review and re-run /dev-story.

Dependency validation

After extracting the Dependencies list from the story file, validate each:

1. Glob production/epics/**/*.md to find each dependency story file.
2. Read its Status: field.
3. If any dependency has Status other than Complete or Done:
   • Use AskUserQuestion:
     • Prompt: "Story '[current story]' depends on '[dependency title]' which is currently [status], not Complete. How do you want to proceed?"
     • Options:
       • [A] Proceed anyway — I accept the dependency risk
       • [B] Stop — I'll complete the dependency first
       • [C] The dependency is done but status wasn't updated — mark it Complete and continue
   • If [B]: set story status to BLOCKED in session state and stop. Do not spawn any programmer agent.
   • If [C]: ask "May I update [dependency path] Status to Complete?" before continuing.
   • If [A]: note in Phase 6 summary under "Deviations": "Implemented with incomplete dependency: [dependency title] — [status]."

If a dependency file cannot be found: warn "Dependency story not found: [path]. Verify the path or create the story file."

Engine reference

Read from project.yaml first, falling back to .claude/docs/technical-preferences.md for any key absent or empty:

• specialists.* — the project's chosen specialist agents; read before engine.name when selecting an agent (see Phase 3)
• engine.name (else the Engine: value) — the generic engine specialist, and the fallback when specialists is absent
• naming.* (else Naming conventions) — class names, file names, signal/event names
• performance.* (else Performance budgets) — frame budget, memory ceiling
• Forbidden patterns — from .claude/docs/technical-preferences.md (not migrated to project.yaml)

Mark Story In Progress

Silently update two things before spawning any agent:

1. production/sprint-status.yaml (if it exists): find the entry matching this story's file path and set status: in_progress. Update the top-level updated field to today's date. If the file does not exist, say so in one line — Sprint status not updated: production/sprint-status.yaml absent — and continue. Do not skip silently: /sprint-status reads that file to report progress, so a story that never gets marked in_progress is invisible to the very command a producer uses to ask what is moving.

2. The story file itself: set the story header's Status: field to In Progress, and edit its Last Updated: field to today's date (format: YYYY-MM-DD; if the field does not exist, add it after the Status: line). Setting Status: here is what actually marks the story In Progress — at minimal the sprint-status.yaml in step 1 is absent, so the story file is the only record of progress at that tier.

Phase 3: Route to the Right Programmer

Based on the story's Layer, Type, and system name, determine which specialist to spawn via Agent.

Config/Data stories — skip agent spawning entirely: If the story's Type is Config/Data, no programmer agent or engine specialist is needed. Jump directly to Phase 4 (Config/Data note). The implementation is a data file edit — no routing table evaluation, no engine specialist.

Primary agent routing table

Engine specialist — always spawn as secondary for code stories

Read the specialists block from project.yaml directly — it is not in the resolve_config output at the top of this skill.. resolve_config does not emit specialists.*; the five skills that already consume it (/adopt, /code-review, /design-system, /gate-check, /team-ui) all read the block out of project.yaml themselves, and so does this one. Adding it to the frontmatter key list would fail the gate that asserts every requested key is one resolve_config actually emits.

/setup-engine writes the block, and it is the project's own answer to "which specialist implements here" — resolved from the engine and the language, which engine.name alone cannot tell you. Resolve in this order:

1. specialists.code — the language/code specialist, and the right secondary for an implementation story. This is the value that distinguishes a Godot C# project (godot-csharp-specialist) from a Godot GDScript one (godot-gdscript-specialist); engine.name is Godot for both.
2. specialists.shader when the story touches shaders or materials, and specialists.ui when the story's Type is UI — in addition to, not instead of, specialists.code.
3. The generic <engine>-specialist — derived from engine.name (Godot→godot-specialist, Unity→unity-specialist, Unreal→unreal-specialist) — for architecture-level and broad engine concerns, and as the fallback when the specialists block is absent.
4. If engine.name is also absent or empty, read the Primary line of the ## Engine Specialists section of .claude/docs/technical-preferences.md.

A value of null means UNSET — treat that key as absent and fall through to the generic specialist. Never spawn it as an agent name. The config reader returns the four-character string "null", which is not empty and therefore reads as configured; null, empty and missing are the same state here. (This is the same caveat /code-review Phase 2 carries, for the same reason.)

Spawn the resolved specialist alongside the primary agent when the story involves engine-specific APIs, patterns, or the ADR has HIGH engine risk.

The full roster, for reference when no specialists block exists:

Do not pick from this table when specialists is set. The table lists what exists for an engine; the block records what this project chose. Reading the table instead of the block is how a Godot C# project ends up reviewed by the GDScript specialist.

When engine risk is HIGH (from the ADR or VERSION.md): always spawn the engine specialist, even for non-engine-facing stories. High risk means the ADR records assumptions about post-cutoff engine APIs that need expert verification.

Read the risk, do not trust the story card alone. If the story's Risk field is absent, or says NOT ASSESSED, or disagrees with docs/engine-reference/<engine>/VERSION.md, the VERSION.md rating wins and an unknown counts as HIGH. At minimal there is no ADR, so VERSION.md is the only source; a story card carrying an improvised MEDIUM against a VERSION.md rating of HIGH would skip this spawn without saying so — which is how two wrong engine defaults reached a project unreviewed. /create-stories now derives the field from the same file, so the two should agree; this check is what catches it when they do not.

Phase 4: Implement

Spawn the chosen programmer agent(s) via Agent with the full context package:

Brief the agent with file paths and targeted reading instructions — do not serialize document content into the Agent prompt. The agent reads what it needs directly.

Tier note (from Phase 2): items 2–4 below assume the full baseline. At standard, include the TR registry only if it exists and the governing ADR only where the story references one. At minimal, the TR registry, ADR, and control manifest are typically absent — omit items 2–4 and brief the agent to implement against the story's Acceptance Criteria and the GDD/brief (the story file from item 1). Never instruct the agent to read a file Phase 2 confirmed missing.

Say which items you dropped, and say it to both readers. The rule item 7 already carries applies unchanged to items 2–4: an omitted item and a forgotten one are indistinguishable to the agent. They are equally indistinguishable to the user reading the Phase 6 summary.

• To the agent, in the prompt: "No TR registry entry is passed for this story — docs/architecture/tr-registry.yaml does not exist at this tier. Implement against the story's Acceptance Criteria and the GDD/brief. Do not go looking for it." Same form for an absent ADR or control manifest.
• To the user, one line before spawning: Briefing omits: TR registry (absent), control manifest (absent) — implementing against acceptance criteria + GDD.

Without this, a standard run where the registry legitimately does not exist and one where /architecture-review was supposed to bootstrap it and nobody did produce identical output.

1. Story file: [story-path] — the agent reads this one file; it carries the acceptance criteria, Out of Scope boundaries, and QA test cases
2. GDD requirement: look up TR-ID [TR-XXX-NNN] in docs/architecture/tr-registry.yaml — use the requirement field as source of truth
3. ADR guidance: pass the story's **ADR Decision Summary** and ## Implementation Notes inline in the prompt — do not pass the ADR path. Phase 2 already established that this summary is current; handing the agent a path makes it re-read the whole ADR in its own context, paying the cost this skill just avoided. Pass the path only if Phase 2 hit the mismatch branch and the user chose [C]-style deferral, in which case say which sections to grep.
4. Control manifest: docs/architecture/control-manifest.md — read rules for the [layer] layer only
5. Engine preferences: naming.* and performance.* from project.yaml (for any key absent or empty, fall back to .claude/docs/technical-preferences.md)
6. Test file path: [path from story's Test Evidence section] — this file must be created as part of implementation
7. Test requirement (Logic and Integration stories only; omit this entire item at qa.level: minimal — tests are not required there. When you omit it, tell the agent so explicitly: "Do not write a test file for this story — test evidence is waived at qa.level: minimal." An omitted item and a forgotten one are indistinguishable to the agent, and a programmer briefed with no test instruction may write tests anyway, or may silently assume they were meant to): The test file MUST be created at [path from the story's Test Evidence section]. Write the test alongside the implementation — do not defer it. At qa.level: standard/full the story cannot be closed via /story-done without this file present. Each acceptance criterion must have at least one test function covering it. Test file naming: [system]_[feature]_test.[ext]. Function naming: test_[scenario]_[expected_outcome]. No random seeds, no time-dependent assertions, no external I/O.
8. Explicit instruction: implement this story following the ADR guidelines, respect the manifest rules, stay within the story's Out of Scope boundaries. Write clean, doc-commented public APIs.

The agent should:

• Create or modify files under the resolved code root following the ADR guidelines. Resolve it per .claude/docs/code-root-resolution.md — src/ is the Godot row, Assets/Scripts/<System>/ is Unity's, Source/<Module>/<System>/ is Unreal's. If the code root cannot be resolved, do not write: report it and stop. Selecting the engine specialist above is NOT the same as resolving the code root
• Respect all Required and Forbidden patterns from the control manifest
• Stay within the story's Out of Scope boundaries (do not touch unrelated files)
• Write clean, doc-commented public APIs

Config/Data stories (no agent needed)

For Type: Config/Data stories, no programmer agent is required. The implementation is editing a data file. Read the story's acceptance criteria and make the specified changes to the data file directly. Note which values were changed and what they changed from/to.

Visual/Feel stories

Spawn gameplay-programmer to implement the code/animation calls. The look half of the acceptance criteria — layout, clipping, presence, colour — is verified in Phase 6 step 4 by launching the build and retaining a screenshot; it is not deferred. The feel half — timing, weight, responsiveness — is not something a still can show: say which half the run covered, and leave feel to /team-qa.

Phase 5: Test Evidence Requirements

The test requirement was included in the Phase 4 programmer agent brief (item 7). This phase summarizes what evidence each story type requires — used when collecting the Phase 6 summary.

Skip this phase at qa.level: minimal (resolved earlier) — no test evidence is required, so there is nothing to gate; do not flag the story unverifiable for a missing test.

Say so in the Phase 6 summary. A skipped phase must announce itself in the output, not only in this file (.claude/rules/skill-authoring.md, obligation 3). Emit the line:

Test evidence: waived at qa.level: minimal — no test was required or written for this story.

Without it, a minimal-tier summary that simply lacks a tests row is indistinguishable from a standard-tier run where the programmer forgot to write them — and the permissive reading is the one that gets believed.

Otherwise:

Resolve the gate level for this story's type from testing.strict in project.yaml. BLOCKING means a missing test marks the story unverifiable; ADVISORY means a missing test is noted but does not block:

1. Map the Story Type to a testing.strict key — Logic→logic, Integration→integration, Visual/Feel→visual, UI→ui, Config/Data→config. Take testing.strict.<key> from the the resolved-config block at the top of this skill, not from project.yaml directly. If its value is true (case-insensitive) → BLOCKING; if false → ADVISORY; unset → fall through.

testing.strict.* is locally overridable (/settings --local testing.strict.logic=false). Reading project.yaml on its own ignores project.local.yaml entirely, so the override is accepted and then does nothing. resolve_config merges the two.

2. Else read testing.strict as a plain boolean (legacy single-value form) — if its value is true or false, it applies to every type.
3. Else use the Default Gate Level column below.

Only true and false (case-insensitive) are recognized at steps 1–2. A key that is present but holds any other value — maybe, 1, yes, etc. — is treated as unset: continue to the next step, and surface the unrecognized value to the user.

The test is written alongside the implementation (Phase 4, item 7) regardless of the gate level — strictness controls only how a missing test is reported in the Phase 6 summary. At a BLOCKING level, a missing test is flagged "story unverifiable — test required before /story-done". At an ADVISORY level it is noted as a recommendation. The Default Gate Level column applies when testing.strict is unset.

Visual/Feel and UI default to BLOCKING: for a game the rendered result is the product, and an advisory visual gate gets deferred in favour of whatever does block. A project that genuinely does not need it sets testing.strict.visual or testing.strict.ui to false.

For Visual/Feel and UI stories, include in the Phase 6 summary: "Retained screenshot required at production/qa/evidence/[slug]-evidence.md before this story can be closed — at the default BLOCKING level a story with no screenshot on disk is unverifiable."

Phase 6: Collect and Summarise

First: did the agent actually finish?

Do not assume completion. A programmer agent can stop at its turn limit mid-edit, and the work it leaves behind can be syntactically broken — a helper called but never defined, an import half-moved. Its partial report reads like progress, and this phase's summary would print "Implementation Complete" over code that does not load.

Before collecting anything:

1. Check the agent's own terminal state. If it reported stopping early, hit a turn/step limit, or its report ends mid-task, treat the story as INCOMPLETE.
2. Verify the output parses. Run the cheapest check the engine offers — commands.test or commands.smoke from project.yaml, or for Godot godot --headless --path . --import, which surfaces parse errors without running the game. Report what you ran and what it said.
3. If the engine binary is unavailable, write parse NOT VERIFIED — engine binary not available. Do not infer that the code is fine because it reads correctly; that inference is exactly what this step exists to replace.
4. Run it and look. A parse check is not a run. For every story that changes something a player can see — every Visual/Feel and UI story, and any Logic, Integration or Config/Data story with a surface — launch the build via commands.run, straight into the scene or map the story touched, and retain a screenshot under production/qa/evidence/[story-slug]/. Then Read the image and compare it to the acceptance criteria: clipped text, an overflowing panel, a missing element are defects, and this is the only step that finds them. Procedure per engine, including how to capture unattended in Godot, Unity and Unreal: .claude/docs/run-and-observe.md. Report exactly one line — Run result: OBSERVED — <what was on screen> with the retained path, Run result: NOT VERIFIED — <reason>, or Run result: N/A — <reason> for a story with genuinely nothing observable. NOT VERIFIED is a blocker at the default gate level for Visual/Feel and UI, not a note — /story-done reads this line. This step is not waived at qa.level: minimal; tests are, the look is not.

If INCOMPLETE: say so as the headline, list what exists so far, name the specific breakage, and offer to resume the agent. Do not emit "Implementation Complete", and do not advance the story's status.

Then collect:

• Files created or modified (with paths)
• Verification result — what was run, and its outcome (or why it could not run)
• Test file created (path and number of test functions written) — or, at qa.level: minimal, the waiver line from Phase 5
• Any deviations from the story's Out of Scope boundary (flag these)
• Any questions or blockers the agent surfaced
• Any engine-specific risks the specialist flagged

Present a concise implementation summary:

## Implementation Complete: [Story Title]

**Files changed**:
- `<code root>/[path]` — created / modified ([brief description])
- `tests/[path]` — test file ([N] test functions) — *omit this line at
  `qa.level: minimal` and print the Phase 5 waiver line instead*

**Verification**: [what was run] — [result, or `NOT VERIFIED — <reason>`]
**Run result**: [`OBSERVED — <what was on screen>` + retained path | `NOT VERIFIED — <reason>` | `N/A — <reason>`] — see `.claude/docs/run-and-observe.md`

**Acceptance criteria covered**:
- [x] [criterion] — implemented in [file:function]
- [x] [criterion] — covered by test [test_name]
- [x] [criterion] — OBSERVED in `production/qa/evidence/[slug]/01-[what].png` (Visual/UI look)
- [ ] [criterion] — DEFERRED: requires playtest (Visual/Feel *feel* — timing, weight; a still cannot show it)

**Deviations from scope**: [None] or [list files touched outside story boundary]
**Engine risks flagged**: [None] or [specialist finding]
**Blockers**: [None] or [describe]

**Before running `/story-done`:** run your test suite locally and confirm the tests you wrote pass. *(At `qa.level: minimal` no tests were written — print the Phase 5 waiver line here instead of this paragraph. Telling a user to confirm the passing of tests that do not exist is worse than saying nothing.)* **`/story-done` does NOT re-run them** — its Phase 3 checks that the test FILE exists, with `Glob`, and nothing executes it. A test that exists and fails satisfies that gate. Nothing downstream makes the local run safe to skip. Pass/fail is established by `/gate-check` and `/smoke-check`, both of which execute a suite — and both come later than story closure.

Ready for: `/code-review [file1] [file2]` then `/story-done [story-path]`

Phase 7: Update Session State

Silently append to production/session-state/active.md:

## Session Extract — /dev-story [date]
- Story: [story-path] — [story title]
- Files changed: [comma-separated list]
- Test written: [path, or "None — Visual/Feel/Config story"]
- Blockers: [None, or description]
- Next: /code-review [files] then /story-done [story-path]

Create active.md if it does not exist. Confirm: "Session state updated."

Error Recovery Protocol

First, verify the artifact. If the return contract named a path, check the path exists before treating the phase as done — a named artifact that is not on disk is a failed phase, however fluent the response reads. An agent can burn a full phase and return a plausible preamble having written nothing, which is neither BLOCKED nor an error nor "cannot complete", so the trigger below never fires. Resume it naming the unmet contract; the context is usually still there.

If any spawned agent returns BLOCKED, errors, or cannot complete: surface it immediately, don't proceed past a dependency it blocks, and always produce a partial report. Full procedure: .claude/docs/error-recovery-protocol.md.

Common blockers:

• Input file missing (story not found, GDD absent) → redirect to the skill that creates it
• A referenced ADR's status is Proposed → do not implement; run /architecture-decision first (at standard/minimal a story that references no ADR is not blocked on this — see Phase 2)
• Scope too large → split into two stories via /create-stories
• Conflicting instructions between ADR and story → surface the conflict, do not guess
• Manifest version mismatch → show diff to user, ask whether to proceed with old rules or update story first

Collaborative Protocol

Applies in collaborative mode (the default). For guided and autonomous modes, see .claude/docs/automation-modes.md — the rules below describe what collaborative mode requires, not universal behavior.

• File writes are delegated — all source code, test files, and evidence docs are written by sub-agents spawned via Agent. Each sub-agent enforces the "May I write to [path]?" protocol individually. This orchestrator does not write files directly.
• Load before implementing — do not start coding until all context is loaded (story, TR-ID, ADR, manifest, engine prefs). Incomplete context produces code that drifts from design.
• The ADR is the law — implementation must follow the ADR's Implementation Guidelines. If the guidelines conflict with what seems "better," flag it in the summary rather than silently deviating.
• Stay in scope — the Out of Scope section is a contract. If implementing the story requires touching an out-of-scope file, stop and surface it: "Implementing [criterion] requires modifying [file], which is out of scope. Shall I proceed or create a separate story?"
• Test is not optional for Logic/Integration (at qa.level: standard/full) — do not mark implementation complete without the test file existing. At qa.level: minimal tests are not required and this does not apply.
• Visual/Feel criteria are deferred, not skipped — mark them as DEFERRED in the summary; they will be manually verified in /story-done
• Ask before large structural decisions — if the story requires an architectural pattern not covered by the ADR, surface it before implementing: "The ADR doesn't specify how to handle [case]. My plan is [X]. Proceed?"

Recommended Next Steps

• Run /code-review [file1] [file2] to review the implementation before closing the story
• Run /story-done [story-path] to verify acceptance criteria and mark the story complete
• After all sprint stories are done: run /team-qa sprint for the full QA cycle before advancing the project stage