name	spec-workflow-orchestrator
description	Orchestrate comprehensive planning phase from ideation to development-ready specifications using 4 specialized agents
allowed-tools	Task, Read, Glob, TodoWrite, Write, Edit
version	1.0.0

Spec Workflow Orchestrator

Purpose
When to Use
Orchestration Workflow
- Planning Phase
- Progress Tracking During Workflow
Agent Roles
Quality Gates
File Organization
Best Practices
Examples
- Template: Web Application Planning
- Example Walkthrough: Task Management Application

Purpose

Transform ideas into development-ready specifications through:

Comprehensive planning with requirement analysis and architecture design
Quality-gated iterative refinement of specifications
Complete handoff documentation for development teams
Orchestration across planning phase with 4 specialized agents

When to Use

Auto-invoke when user requests:

Planning: "Plan [application]", "Design [system]", "Spec out [feature]", "Create requirements for [service]"
Architecture: "Architecture for [project]", "Technical design for [application]", "Design specifications"
Requirements: "Requirements for [project]", "Analyze requirements", "User stories for [feature]"
Pre-Development: "Ready for development", "Spec-based planning", "Development specifications"

Do NOT invoke for:

Actual code implementation (this skill stops at planning)
Quick prototypes or experiments
Single-file scripts
Tasks that need immediate coding

Orchestration Workflow

Planning Phase (spec-analyst → spec-architect → spec-planner)

Scope: Complete planning and analysis phase (ideation → development-ready specifications)

Key Activities (from battle-tested Phase 1):

Requirements gathering and analysis
System architecture design
Task breakdown and estimation
Risk assessment and mitigation planning

Quality Gates:

Requirements completeness and clarity (>85%)
Architecture feasibility validation
Task breakdown granularity check
Risk mitigation coverage

The orchestrator manages sequential execution of three specialized agents with quality gate validation.

Step 1: Query Analysis

Parse user's planning request and validate suitability:

Identify project scope, constraints, and stakeholders
Confirm request is suitable for planning workflow (not immediate coding)
Determine if sufficient information provided (or elicit more details)
Output: Planning scope definition ready for spec-analyst

Step 1.5: Project Naming & Existing Project Detection

Part A: Determine Project Slug

Determine project directory name for organizing deliverables:

Derive project slug from user request (e.g., "Session Log Viewer" → "session-log-viewer")
Or ask user: "What should we call this project? (for organizing planning files)"

Example Project Slugs:

"Build a task manager" → task-manager
"Session log viewer web app" → session-log-viewer
"E-commerce product catalog" → ecommerce-product-catalog

Part B: Check for Existing Project

Step B1: Check if project exists

Use Bash tool to check if project directory exists:

if [ -d "docs/projects/{project-slug}" ]; then
  echo "existing"
else
  echo "new"
fi

If NEW PROJECT (no directory exists):

# Create fresh directory structure
mkdir -p "docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning"
mkdir -p "docs/projects/{project-slug}/adrs"
echo "Fresh directories created"

Then use workflow_state.sh to save state:

.claude/utils/workflow_state.sh set "{project-slug}" "fresh" ""

Proceed to Step 2 with fresh planning mode.

If EXISTING PROJECT (directory exists):

Step B2: Ask user for choice

Use AskUserQuestion tool to ask:

{
  "questions": [{
    "question": "Project '{project-slug}' already has planning specifications. How would you like to proceed?",
    "header": "Refine Specs",
    "multiSelect": false,
    "options": [
      {
        "label": "Refine existing specs",
        "description": "Agents will read current files and improve them iteratively"
      },
      {
        "label": "Archive + fresh start",
        "description": "Move existing specs to .archive/{timestamp}/ and create new specs from scratch"
      },
      {
        "label": "Create new version",
        "description": "Create {project-slug}-v2/ directory for new planning iteration"
      },
      {
        "label": "Cancel",
        "description": "Stop the workflow without making changes"
      }
    ]
  }]
}

Step B3: Handle user choice

Store user's answer from AskUserQuestion response in variable USER_CHOICE.

If USER_CHOICE = "Refine existing specs":

Save state as refinement mode:

# Capture user's additional requirements from conversation context
USER_INPUT="[Extract new requirements from user's latest messages]"

# Save to state file
.claude/utils/workflow_state.sh set "{project-slug}" "refinement" "$USER_INPUT"

Set WORKFLOW_MODE = "refinement"
Proceed to Step 2 with refinement mode prompts

If USER_CHOICE = "Archive + fresh start":

Run archive utility:

# Archive existing specs with timestamp
.claude/utils/archive_project.sh "{project-slug}"

# This script:
# - Creates .archive/{timestamp}/ directory
# - Copies planning/ and adrs/ to archive
# - Verifies integrity
# - Deletes originals
# - Creates fresh planning/ and adrs/ directories
# - Returns exit code 0 on success, 1 on failure

Check exit code and handle errors:

if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then
  echo "Archive successful, proceeding with fresh planning"
else
  echo "Archive failed, aborting workflow"
  exit 1
fi

Save state as fresh mode:

.claude/utils/workflow_state.sh set "{project-slug}" "fresh" ""

Set WORKFLOW_MODE = "fresh"
Proceed to Step 2 with fresh planning mode prompts

If USER_CHOICE = "Create new version":

Detect next available version:

# Run version detection utility
NEW_SLUG=$(.claude/utils/detect_next_version.sh "{project-slug}")

# This returns: "{project-slug}-v2" or "{project-slug}-v3" etc.
# Exit code 0 on success, 1 if version limit reached (v99)

Handle version detection result:

if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then
  echo "Next version: $NEW_SLUG"
  PROJECT_SLUG="$NEW_SLUG"
else
  echo "ERROR: Version limit reached (v2-v99 all exist)"
  echo "Consider using 'Archive + fresh start' instead"
  exit 1
fi

Create new versioned directory:

mkdir -p "docs/projects/$PROJECT_SLUG/planning"
mkdir -p "docs/projects/$PROJECT_SLUG/adrs"

Save state with new slug:

.claude/utils/workflow_state.sh set "$PROJECT_SLUG" "fresh" ""

Update PROJECT_SLUG variable to new version slug
Set WORKFLOW_MODE = "fresh"
Proceed to Step 2 with fresh planning mode prompts

If USER_CHOICE = "Cancel":

Clear any partial state:

.claude/utils/workflow_state.sh clear

Inform user:

Workflow cancelled. No changes made to existing project specs.

Exit workflow gracefully (return to user)

Output:

PROJECT_SLUG (final slug, may be versioned)
WORKFLOW_MODE ("fresh" or "refinement")
USER_INPUT (additional requirements if refinement mode, empty string otherwise)

Step 1.6: Placeholder Substitution

Before spawning agents, substitute placeholders in prompt templates with actual values:

Required Substitutions:

{project-slug} → Actual project slug (e.g., "task-tracker-pwa" or "task-tracker-pwa-v2")
[PROJECT_NAME] → User-friendly project name extracted from original request (e.g., "Task Tracker PWA")
[ADDITIONAL_REQUIREMENTS_FROM_USER] → (Refinement mode only) User's new requirements from conversation
[CHANGES_FROM_REQUIREMENTS] → (Refinement mode only) Summary of requirement changes for architect

How to Extract Values:

PROJECT_NAME: Parse from original user request
- Example: "Build a task tracker PWA" → PROJECT_NAME = "Task Tracker PWA"
- Example: "Plan an e-commerce catalog" → PROJECT_NAME = "E-Commerce Catalog"
USER_INPUT for Refinement (saved in state file):

# Retrieve from state file
USER_INPUT=$(.claude/utils/workflow_state.sh get "user_input")

If empty (user just said "refine specs"), use generic guidance:

USER_INPUT="Review all sections for completeness, update metrics to be measurable, enhance clarity"

Perform substitution before spawning each agent:

# Pseudocode for substitution
prompt_template = "Analyze requirements for [PROJECT_NAME]..."
actual_prompt = prompt_template
actual_prompt = actual_prompt.replace("{project-slug}", PROJECT_SLUG)
actual_prompt = actual_prompt.replace("[PROJECT_NAME]", PROJECT_NAME)
actual_prompt = actual_prompt.replace("[ADDITIONAL_REQUIREMENTS_FROM_USER]", USER_INPUT)

Example Substitution:

Before:

prompt: "Refine requirements for [PROJECT_NAME].
IMPORTANT: Read existing file at docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/requirements.md first.
4. Enhance based on new user input: [ADDITIONAL_REQUIREMENTS_FROM_USER]"

After (for task-tracker-pwa, user wants "add offline support"):

prompt: "Refine requirements for Task Tracker PWA.
IMPORTANT: Read existing file at docs/projects/task-tracker-pwa/planning/requirements.md first.
4. Enhance based on new user input: Add offline support with service workers and local storage"

Step 2: Spawn spec-analyst Agent (Requirements Gathering and Analysis)

Use Task tool to spawn requirements analysis agent to perform Phase 1 Activity 1:

IMPORTANT: Apply placeholder substitution from Step 1.6 before spawning.

For Fresh Planning Mode:

subagent_type: "spec-analyst"
description: "Analyze requirements for {PROJECT_NAME}"
prompt: "Analyze requirements for {PROJECT_NAME}. Generate comprehensive requirements.md with:
- Executive Summary (project goals and scope)
- Functional Requirements (prioritized with IDs: FR1, FR2, etc.)
- Non-Functional Requirements (performance, security, scalability with metrics)
- User Stories with Acceptance Criteria (measurable criteria for each story)
- Stakeholder Analysis (identify all stakeholder groups and their needs)
- Assumptions and Constraints (technical, business, timeline)
- Success Metrics (how to measure project success)

Save to: docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/requirements.md"

For Refinement Mode:

subagent_type: "spec-analyst"
description: "Refine requirements for {PROJECT_NAME}"
prompt: "Refine requirements for {PROJECT_NAME}.

IMPORTANT: Read existing file at docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/requirements.md first.

Your task:
1. Analyze existing requirements document
2. Identify gaps, weak sections, or outdated content
3. Preserve well-written sections (don't rewrite what's already good)
4. Enhance based on new user input: {USER_INPUT}
5. Add missing sections or details
6. Update metrics to be more measurable
7. Ensure acceptance criteria are concrete and testable

Maintain document structure but improve quality and completeness.

Save updated version to: docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/requirements.md"

Note: Replace {USER_INPUT} with actual value from state file or generic guidance.

Wait for completion → Read output: docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/requirements.md

Expected Output: Comprehensive requirements document (typically 800-1,500 lines)

Step 3: Spawn spec-architect Agent (System Architecture Design)

Use Task tool to spawn architecture design agent to perform Phase 1 Activity 2:

For Fresh Planning Mode:

subagent_type: "spec-architect"
description: "Design system architecture for {PROJECT_NAME}"
prompt: "Design system architecture for {PROJECT_NAME} based on requirements at docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/requirements.md.

Generate:
1. architecture.md with:
   - Executive Summary
   - Technology Stack (with justification for each choice)
   - System Components (with interaction diagrams and relationships)
   - Interface Specifications (APIs, CLIs, SDKs, data contracts as appropriate)
   - Security Considerations (relevant security requirements and design patterns)
   - Performance & Scalability (optimization strategies and scaling approach)
   - Deployment Architecture (hosting, distribution, installation approach)

2. ADRs with Architecture Decision Records for key decisions:
   - ADR format: Status, Context, Decision, Rationale, Consequences, Alternatives
   - Create separate ADR for each major architectural decision
   - Examples: technology choices, data storage strategy, communication patterns, security model

Save to: docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/architecture.md, docs/projects/{project-slug}/adrs/*.md"

For Refinement Mode:

subagent_type: "spec-architect"
description: "Refine system architecture for {PROJECT_NAME}"
prompt: "Refine system architecture for {PROJECT_NAME}.

IMPORTANT: Read existing files first:
- docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/architecture.md
- docs/projects/{project-slug}/adrs/*.md
- Updated requirements at docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/requirements.md

Your task:
1. Review existing architecture and ADRs
2. Identify architectural gaps or areas needing improvement
3. Check if technology stack decisions still make sense
4. Enhance based on new/refined requirements: {USER_INPUT}
5. Add missing architectural components or considerations
6. Update existing ADRs if decisions have changed (mark old as 'Superseded', create new ADRs)
7. Preserve well-designed sections

Maintain consistency with existing ADRs but improve where needed.

Save to: docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/architecture.md, docs/projects/{project-slug}/adrs/*.md"

Note: Use same {USER_INPUT} value from analyst step.

Wait for completion → Read outputs: docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/architecture.md, docs/projects/{project-slug}/adrs/*.md

Expected Output: Architecture document (600-1,000 lines) + 3-5 ADRs (150-250 lines each)

Step 4: Spawn spec-planner Agent (Task Breakdown and Risk Assessment)

Use Task tool to spawn implementation planning agent to perform Phase 1 Activities 3 & 4:

For Fresh Planning Mode:

subagent_type: "spec-planner"
description: "Create implementation plan for {PROJECT_NAME}"
prompt: "Create implementation plan for {PROJECT_NAME} based on:
- Requirements: docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/requirements.md
- Architecture: docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/architecture.md

Generate tasks.md with:
1. Overview (total tasks, estimated effort, critical path, parallel streams)
2. Task Breakdown by Phase:
   - Each task with: ID, complexity, effort estimate, dependencies, description
   - Acceptance criteria for each task (concrete, measurable)
   - Tasks should be atomic and implementable (1-8 hours each)
3. Risk Assessment:
   - Technical risks with severity, probability, impact
   - Mitigation strategies for each risk
4. Testing Strategy:
   - Unit test coverage targets
   - Integration test scenarios
   - End-to-end test requirements

Save to: docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/tasks.md"

For Refinement Mode:

subagent_type: "spec-planner"
description: "Refine implementation plan for {PROJECT_NAME}"
prompt: "Refine implementation plan for {PROJECT_NAME}.

IMPORTANT: Read existing files first:
- docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/tasks.md
- Updated requirements at docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/requirements.md
- Updated architecture at docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/architecture.md

Your task:
1. Review existing task breakdown and risk assessment
2. Update tasks based on refined requirements/architecture changes
3. Add new tasks for new requirements
4. Remove or modify tasks that are no longer relevant
5. Re-assess effort estimates if architecture changed
6. Update risk assessment with any new technical risks
7. Preserve completed tasks or well-defined tasks
8. Ensure task dependencies are still accurate

Maintain task numbering continuity where possible.

Save to: docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/tasks.md"

Wait for completion → Read output: docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/tasks.md

Expected Output: Task breakdown document (500-800 lines with 15-30 tasks)

Step 5: Quality Gate Validation (Planning Phase Gate)

Orchestrator validates planning completeness using battle-tested Gate 1 criteria (see Quality Gates section):

Validation Process (from actual spec-orchestrator.md):

Review all planning artifacts (requirements.md, architecture.md, tasks.md, adrs/*.md)
Assess completeness against 4 core criteria checklist (100 points total):
- Requirements Completeness and Clarity (30 pts)
- Architecture Feasibility Assessment (30 pts)
- Task Breakdown Adequacy (25 pts)
- Risk Mitigation Coverage (15 pts)
Validate technical feasibility (can this actually be built?)
Calculate total score: Sum of all criteria points / 100
Compare to threshold: ≥ 85% to pass (adapted from original 95%)

Decision:

If score ≥ 85%: Proceed to Step 7 (Deliverable Handoff)
If score < 85%: Proceed to Step 6 (Iteration Loop)

Step 6: Iteration Loop (Max 3 Iterations)

When quality gate fails, apply battle-tested feedback framework from actual spec-orchestrator.md:

1. Failure Analysis Process

Identify Root Causes: Analyze why quality gate failed (which of the 4 criteria?)
Impact Assessment: Determine scope of required corrections (1 agent or multiple?)
Priority Classification: Categorize issues by severity (critical gaps vs. minor improvements)
Resource Allocation: Decide which agent needs re-spawning (spec-analyst, spec-architect, or spec-planner)

2. Corrective Action Planning

Create specific, actionable improvement tasks listing gaps
Set realistic expectations (iteration should improve score +10-15%)
Establish validation criteria (must address specific point deficiencies)
Plan verification (re-run quality gate after re-spawning agent)

3. Communication Protocol

Notify user of quality gate failure with specific score (e.g., "68/100, needs improvement")
Provide clear explanation of corrective measures (which agent re-spawning, why)
Update iteration count (attempt 1/3, 2/3, or 3/3)
Set expectation: iterative refinement is normal, not a failure

4. Concrete Feedback Generation (Execution)

Identify which checklist categories failed (< expected points)
Determine root cause (requirements gap, architecture issue, tasks unclear)
Generate specific, actionable feedback listing gaps with point values
Re-spawn agent with previous output + feedback + gap list

Example Feedback for spec-analyst:

"Requirements analysis incomplete. Score: 68/100

Gaps identified:
- Non-functional requirements missing performance metrics (0/5 points)
  → Add specific metrics: API response time, throughput, concurrent users
- User stories lack measurable acceptance criteria (2/5 points)
  → Provide concrete, testable criteria for each story
- Stakeholder analysis incomplete (2/5 points)
  → Identify admin users, end users, external integrations

Please regenerate requirements.md addressing these specific gaps."

Re-spawn agent with feedback → Wait for revised output → Return to Step 5 (Quality Gate)

Iteration Limit Enforcement:

Track iteration count per agent (max 3 total iterations)
If iterations = 3 and score still < 85%: Escalate to user with current artifacts
User decides: accept current quality OR provide manual guidance

Step 7: Deliverable Handoff

Generate planning summary and return artifacts to user:

Planning Summary Includes:

Project scope and objectives (from requirements.md)
Key architectural decisions (from ADRs)
Implementation roadmap (from tasks.md with effort estimates)
Technical risks and mitigation strategies (from tasks.md)
Quality gate score (e.g., "92/100 - Planning phase complete")
Next steps for development team

Deliverables Returned:

📄 docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/requirements.md
📄 docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/architecture.md
📄 docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/tasks.md
📄 docs/projects/{project-slug}/adrs/*.md (3-5 Architecture Decision Records)

Status: "✅ Planning phase complete. Development-ready specifications available."

Handoff: Development team can begin implementation using planning artifacts as source of truth

Progress Tracking During Workflow

Use this battle-tested status report format (from actual spec-orchestrator.md) to track planning phase progress:

# Planning Workflow Status Report

**Project**: [Project Name]
**Started**: [Timestamp]
**Current Step**: [Agent in progress]
**Overall Progress**: [Percentage]

## Agent Execution Status

### ✅ spec-analyst (Complete)
- Requirements analysis completed
- Output: docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/requirements.md (~1,200 lines)
- Duration: 45 minutes
- Status: ✅ COMPLETE

### 🔄 spec-architect (In Progress)
- Architecture design in progress
- Current task: Creating ADRs for technology stack decisions
- Output: docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/architecture.md + docs/projects/{project-slug}/adrs/*.md
- Duration: 30 minutes elapsed
- Status: 🔄 IN PROGRESS

### ⏳ spec-planner (Pending)
- Waiting for architecture completion
- Will create: docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/tasks.md
- Status: ⏳ PENDING

## Quality Gate Status
- Planning Gate: ⏳ Pending (waiting for all agents to complete)
- Threshold: ≥ 85%
- Iterations used: 0/3

## Artifacts Created
1. ✅ `docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/requirements.md` - Complete requirements specification
2. 🔄 `docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/architecture.md` - System architecture design (in progress)
3. 🔄 `docs/projects/{project-slug}/adrs/*.md` - Architecture Decision Records (2/5 complete)
4. ⏳ `docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/tasks.md` - Task breakdown (pending)

## Next Steps
1. Complete spec-architect agent (architecture + remaining ADRs)
2. Spawn spec-planner agent for task breakdown
3. Execute quality gate validation
4. [If needed] Iterate based on feedback

## Risk Assessment
- ✅ All agents on track, no blocking issues identified

TodoWrite Integration: Use TodoWrite tool to maintain real-time task list tracking agent spawning and completion.

Agent Roles

Planning Phase (3 specialized agents):

The skill orchestrates these agents sequentially:

spec-analyst (Step 2): Requirements gathering and analysis
- Generates comprehensive requirements.md with functional/non-functional requirements
- Creates user stories with measurable acceptance criteria
- Documents stakeholder analysis and success metrics
- Output: docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/requirements.md (~800-1,500 lines)
spec-architect (Step 3): System architecture design and ADR creation
- Designs technology stack with justifications
- Defines system components, API specifications, security considerations
- Creates Architecture Decision Records for key choices
- Output: docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/architecture.md + docs/projects/{project-slug}/adrs/*.md (3-5 ADRs)
spec-planner (Step 4): Task breakdown, risk assessment, and testing strategy
- Breaks requirements and architecture into atomic implementation tasks (1-8 hours each)
- Identifies task dependencies and effort estimates
- Assesses technical risks with mitigation strategies
- Defines testing strategy (unit, integration, E2E)
- Output: docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/tasks.md (~500-800 lines with 15-30 tasks)

Note: The skill itself (this SKILL.md) acts as the orchestrator, managing sequential execution, quality gates (85% threshold), iteration loops with feedback, and deliverable handoff. There is no separate spec-orchestrator agent.

Quality Gates

Planning Gate (85% Threshold)

Purpose: Validate planning completeness before handoff to development team

Core Validation Criteria (from battle-tested Gate 1):

1. Requirements Completeness and Clarity

Weight: 30 points

Verify requirements artifacts are comprehensive and unambiguous:

✅ All functional requirements documented with clear IDs (FR1, FR2, etc.) - 10 pts
✅ Non-functional requirements specified with quantitative metrics - 8 pts
✅ User stories with measurable acceptance criteria - 7 pts
✅ Stakeholder needs identified and documented - 5 pts

Validation:

Review requirements.md for completeness
Check that all requirements are testable and unambiguous
Confirm NFRs have specific metrics (e.g., "< 200ms" not "fast")

2. Architecture Feasibility Assessment

Weight: 30 points

Validate technical design is sound and implementable:

✅ System architecture addresses all functional requirements - 10 pts
✅ Technology stack justified with clear rationale (ADRs) - 8 pts
✅ Scalability and performance design documented - 7 pts
✅ Security and compliance considerations addressed - 5 pts

Validation:

Review architecture.md and adrs/*.md
Assess if architecture can realistically deliver requirements
Verify technology choices align with team expertise and constraints

3. Task Breakdown Adequacy

Weight: 25 points

Ensure implementation plan is actionable and well-estimated:

✅ Tasks are atomic and implementable (1-8 hours each) - 12 pts
✅ Dependencies clearly identified with task IDs - 8 pts
✅ Effort estimates provided with complexity ratings - 5 pts

Validation:

Review tasks.md for granularity (too large = hard to estimate)
Check dependency graph has no cycles
Verify estimates are realistic based on task complexity

4. Risk Mitigation Coverage

Weight: 15 points

Confirm technical risks are identified with mitigation strategies:

✅ Technical risks identified with severity and probability - 8 pts
✅ Mitigation strategies documented for each risk - 7 pts

Validation:

Review risk assessment section in tasks.md
Verify high-severity risks have concrete mitigation plans
Check that risks are technical (not business/organizational)

Scoring Method:

Score each criterion using point values above (total: 100 points)
Calculate: Score = Sum of all points / 100
Threshold: ≥ 85% to pass quality gate (adapted from original 95% for planning-only scope)

Validation Process (battle-tested 4-step method):

Review all planning artifacts (requirements.md, architecture.md, tasks.md, adrs/*.md)
Assess completeness against checklist above
Validate technical feasibility (can this actually be built?)
Confirm stakeholder alignment (does this meet the project goals?)

Maximum Iterations: 3 attempts per planning session

Feedback Loop Process

When Quality Gate Fails (Score < 85%):

Step 1: Failure Analysis

Categorize gaps by severity:

Critical (0-50% score): Fundamental gaps requiring complete rework
Major (51-74% score): Significant improvements needed
Minor (75-84% score): Small refinements to reach threshold

Step 2: Root Cause Identification

Map failures to responsible agent:

Requirements incomplete or unclear? → Re-spawn spec-analyst
Architecture infeasible or under-specified? → Re-spawn spec-architect
Tasks too vague or poorly estimated? → Re-spawn spec-planner
Multiple issues? → Address in priority order (requirements first)

Step 3: Generate Specific Feedback

Create targeted feedback for agent re-spawning with:

Current score and gap breakdown
Specific items missing (reference checklist categories)
Actionable improvements needed
Concrete examples of what's expected

Example Feedback Templates:

For spec-analyst (Requirements Gap):

"Requirements analysis incomplete. Score: 68/100

Gaps identified:
- Non-functional requirements missing performance metrics (0/5 points)
  → Add specific metrics: API response time < 200ms p95, throughput > 1000 req/s,
     concurrent users > 500
- User stories lack measurable acceptance criteria (2/5 points)
  → Provide concrete, testable criteria for each story
  → Example: 'AC1: User can create task within 2 seconds' (not 'AC1: Task creation works')
- Stakeholder analysis incomplete (2/5 points)
  → Identify: admin users, end users, API consumers, external integrations
  → Document needs and priorities for each stakeholder group

Please regenerate requirements.md addressing these specific gaps."

For spec-architect (Architecture Gap):

"Architecture design incomplete. Score: 72/100

Gaps identified:
- Scalability not addressed (0/5 points)
  → Design for 10x growth: horizontal scaling strategy, database sharding plan
  → Address: load balancing, caching layers, CDN for static assets
- Security considerations incomplete (1/5 points)
  → Add: authentication mechanism (JWT/OAuth), authorization model (RBAC),
     data encryption (at rest and in transit), input validation strategy
- ADRs missing key decisions (2/5 points)
  → Create ADR for: database choice (SQL vs. NoSQL), real-time architecture
     (WebSockets vs. polling), deployment platform (cloud provider choice)
  → Format: Status, Context, Decision, Rationale, Consequences, Alternatives

Please regenerate architecture.md and adrs/ addressing these gaps."

For spec-planner (Task Breakdown Gap):

"Task breakdown incomplete. Score: 76/100

Gaps identified:
- Tasks too large and not atomic (4/10 points)
  → Break down: 'Build authentication system' is too broad
  → Should be: 'T2.1: Create user registration API endpoint (4h)',
     'T2.2: Implement JWT token generation (3h)', etc.
- Dependencies not clearly identified (2/5 points)
  → Use task IDs: 'Dependencies: T1.3, T2.1' (not 'depends on auth')
  → Ensure topological order (no circular dependencies)
- Risk mitigation incomplete (3/5 points)
  → For each risk, provide concrete mitigation strategy
  → Example: 'Risk: WebSocket scaling' → 'Mitigation: Implement Redis adapter
     early in Phase 2, test with 1000 concurrent connections'

Please regenerate tasks.md addressing these gaps."

Step 4: Re-spawn Agent with Feedback

Execute re-spawning process:

Use Task tool to spawn same agent again
Provide prompt with:
- Previous output file path (to build upon, not start from scratch)
- Specific feedback with gap list
- Target improvements needed to reach 85% threshold
Wait for revised output
Read revised artifact

Example Re-spawn for spec-analyst:

Agent: spec-analyst

Prompt: "Improve requirements.md based on feedback.

Previous version: docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/requirements.md

Feedback:
[Insert feedback from Step 3]

Please revise requirements.md to address all identified gaps. Focus on:
1. Adding quantitative non-functional requirements
2. Providing measurable acceptance criteria for all user stories
3. Completing stakeholder analysis with needs documentation

Target: 85% quality gate score"

Step 5: Re-validate

Return to Step 5 of Orchestration Workflow (Quality Gate Validation):

Re-run quality gate checklist on revised artifacts
Calculate new score
Compare to previous score (expect improvement)
Decision:
- If new score ≥ 85%: Proceed to next agent or Step 7 (Deliverable Handoff)
- If new score < 85% AND iterations < 3: Repeat Step 6 (Feedback Loop)
- If iterations = 3: Escalate to user with current artifacts

Iteration Limit Enforcement

Maximum 3 iterations per planning session to prevent infinite loops:

Iteration 1: Initial attempt (typically 60-75% score)
- Agents work from user's initial request
- Common gaps: vague requirements, missing NFRs, incomplete architecture
Iteration 2: Refinement with feedback (typically 75-85% score)
- Agents improve based on specific gap feedback
- Focus on addressing major gaps from Iteration 1
- Most planning sessions reach 85% threshold here
Iteration 3: Final optimization (target 85%+ score)
- Last chance to reach threshold
- Address remaining minor gaps
- If still < 85%: Escalation needed

After 3 iterations, if score < 85%:

Return current artifacts to user with status report:

"Planning quality gate not reached after 3 iterations.

Current score: 82/100

Remaining gaps:
- [List specific gaps still present]

Artifacts available:
- requirements.md (mostly complete, minor gaps)
- architecture.md (complete)
- tasks.md (needs minor refinement)

Options:
A) Accept current quality level and proceed to development
B) Provide manual guidance to close remaining gaps
C) Restart planning with clearer initial requirements"

User decides next action (orchestrator waits for user input)
Document lessons learned for process improvement:
- What gaps were hardest to close?
- What initial information would have helped?
- Update agent prompts or checklist based on findings

File Organization

Active Project Structure

docs/projects/{project-slug}/planning/*.md: Planning phase outputs (requirements, architecture, tasks)
docs/projects/{project-slug}/adrs/*.md: Architecture Decision Records per project
Each project gets its own directory to prevent overwrites across planning sessions
Handoff ready for development team to implement

Archive Structure (When Refining Existing Projects)

When user chooses "Archive old + fresh start" for an existing project:

docs/projects/{project-slug}/
├── .archive/
│   ├── 20251120-094500/    # Timestamp: YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS
│   │   ├── planning/
│   │   │   ├── requirements.md
│   │   │   ├── architecture.md
│   │   │   └── tasks.md
│   │   └── adrs/
│   │       └── *.md
│   └── 20251118-153000/    # Previous archive (if multiple refinements)
│       └── ...
├── planning/               # Current/active specs
│   ├── requirements.md
│   ├── architecture.md
│   └── tasks.md
└── adrs/                   # Current/active ADRs
    └── *.md

Archive Benefits:

Complete history of all planning iterations preserved
Easy rollback if new specs don't work out
Compare evolution of planning over time
No data loss when starting fresh

Best Practices

Project Coordination Principles (Battle-Tested)

These 5 principles from actual spec-orchestrator.md, adapted for planning-only workflow:

Clear Phase Definition
- Planning phase has specific goal: Development-ready specifications
- Success criteria: 85% quality gate score (adapted from 95%)
- Deliverables: requirements.md, architecture.md, tasks.md, adrs/*.md
- Handoff point: Complete specifications ready for implementation team
- Timeline: Typically 2-4 hours for small projects, 1-2 days for complex systems
Quality-First Approach
- Never compromise on 85% threshold for handoff (established quality standard)
- Better to iterate 2-3 times than hand off incomplete planning
- Each iteration should show measurable improvement (+10-15% score)
- Quality gate ensures development team has what they need to succeed
- Incomplete planning = expensive rework during development
Continuous Communication
- Maintain transparent progress reporting using TodoWrite tool
- Update user on agent completion status (✅ spec-analyst → 🔄 spec-architect → ⏳ spec-planner)
- Report quality gate scores with specific gaps identified
- Communicate iteration progress (attempt 1/3, score improvement)
- Set clear expectations about planning timeline and quality requirements
Adaptive Planning
- Adjust planning based on emerging requirements from user
- If user provides new constraints during workflow, incorporate into feedback
- Architecture may need revision if requirements change mid-stream
- Flexibility to restart specific agents if scope changes significantly
- Balance between following process and responding to new information
Risk Management
- Proactively identify technical risks during planning (spec-planner responsibility)
- Document mitigation strategies for each identified risk in tasks.md
- Surface risks to user during handoff (top 3-5 critical risks)
- Don't hide uncertainty; flag unknowns for investigation during development
- Risk assessment is part of quality gate validation (15 points)

Process Improvement Guidelines (Battle-Tested)

From actual spec-orchestrator.md, applicable to planning workflow:

Document successful patterns for reuse: Save high-quality planning artifacts as templates
Analyze failures to prevent recurrence: Review failed quality gates to identify common gaps
Regularly update templates and checklists: Evolve validation criteria based on lessons learned
Collect feedback from all stakeholders: Ask users what worked/didn't work in planning handoff
Implement automation where beneficial: Standardize agent prompts, quality gate scoring

Success Factors (Battle-Tested)

From actual spec-orchestrator.md, adapted for planning phase:

Preparation: Thorough planning prevents poor performance → Clarify scope upfront, gather context
Communication: Clear, frequent updates keep everyone aligned → Use TodoWrite, report progress
Flexibility: Adapt to changing requirements while maintaining quality → Iterate with feedback loops
Documentation: Comprehensive records enable future improvements → Save all artifacts, ADRs
Validation: Regular quality checks ensure project success → 85% quality gate threshold enforced

Planning Workflow Optimization

Preparation Phase (Before spawning agents)

User Interaction:

Clarify project scope with user (what's in scope, what's out of scope)
Identify known constraints (budget, timeline, technical stack requirements)
Confirm stakeholders and success criteria (who decides if it's good?)
Elicit domain knowledge (any existing systems, data, APIs to integrate?)

Set Realistic Expectations:

Planning takes 2-4 hours for small projects (e.g., todo app)
Complex systems may need 1-2 days (e.g., e-commerce platform)
Quality gate may require 2-3 iterations (normal, not a failure)
Development-ready ≠ perfect; specs will evolve during implementation

Execution Phase (During agent spawning)

Provide Clear Prompts:

Include context from previous agents' outputs (file paths)
Reference specific files: "Based on requirements.md, design architecture..."
Specify expected output format and file locations
Give concrete examples of what "good" looks like

Allow Sufficient Time:

spec-analyst: 30-60 minutes for requirements analysis
spec-architect: 45-90 minutes for architecture + ADRs
spec-planner: 30-60 minutes for task breakdown
Don't rush agents; thoughtful analysis takes time

Monitor Progress:

Use TodoWrite tool to track agent spawning and completion
Read agent outputs immediately after completion (verify before proceeding)
Check for obvious gaps early (missing sections, incomplete analysis)
Be prepared to provide additional context if agent asks questions

Validation Phase (Quality gate)

Use Checklist Systematically:

Don't skip checklist items (even if you think they're minor)
Score objectively using defined point values (not "feels complete")
Document specific gaps for each failed category
Prioritize critical gaps (0-point items) over minor improvements

Provide Actionable Feedback:

Specific > vague: "Add API response time NFR" not "improve NFRs"
Measurable targets: "85% test coverage" not "good test coverage"
Concrete examples: Show what "measurable acceptance criteria" looks like
Reference checklist categories: "NFR missing performance metrics (0/5 pts)"

Track Iterations:

Iteration 1 score: Baseline (typically 60-75%)
Iteration 2 score: Improvement (expect +10-15% increase)
Iteration 3 score: Final (if needed, should reach 85%+)
If no improvement between iterations: Feedback may be unclear, rephrase

Enforce Max 3 Iterations:

Prevent infinite loops that waste time and resources
After 3 attempts: Escalate to user with current state
User decides: Accept current quality OR provide manual guidance
Learn from 3-iteration failures: What went wrong? How to prevent?

Handoff Phase (After quality gate passes)

Generate Executive Summary:

Project scope and key objectives (1-2 paragraphs)
Major architectural decisions (from ADRs, summarized)
Implementation roadmap (phases, estimated effort from tasks.md)
Critical risks and mitigation strategies (top 3-5 risks)

Highlight Key Artifacts:

requirements.md: Source of truth for what to build
architecture.md: Source of truth for how to build
tasks.md: Source of truth for implementation order and effort
adrs/*.md: Source of truth for why decisions were made

Set Clear Next Steps:

"Review planning artifacts (estimated 30-60 minutes)"
"Set up development environment following architecture.md"
"Implement tasks in priority order from tasks.md"
"Reference ADRs when questions arise about design decisions"
"Treat specs as living documents; update as implementation evolves"

Common Planning Pitfalls (and How to Avoid)

❌ Pitfall 1: Vague Requirements

Symptom: Requirements say "should be fast", "must be secure", "needs to scale"

Impact: Architecture can't make concrete decisions, tasks can't be estimated

Solution: spec-analyst must quantify all non-functional requirements

Performance: "API response time < 200ms p95, throughput > 1000 req/s"
Security: "JWT authentication, HTTPS only, input sanitization for XSS/SQLi"
Scalability: "Support 10,000 concurrent users, horizontal scaling with load balancer"

Quality Gate Catches This: "Non-functional requirements missing metrics (0/5 points)"

❌ Pitfall 2: Over-Engineering Architecture

Symptom: Architecture designed for 1M users when current need is 100 users

Impact: Increased complexity, longer development time, higher costs

Solution: spec-architect must align with actual requirements and constraints

Design for current requirements + 10x growth (not 1000x)
Use ADRs to justify complexity: "Why microservices vs. monolith?"
Start simple, document how to scale later (evolutionary architecture)

Quality Gate Catches This: "Architecture doesn't justify complexity or align with requirements"

❌ Pitfall 3: Tasks Too Large

Symptom: Tasks like "Build authentication system" (days of work, unclear scope)

Impact: Hard to estimate, hard to track progress, hard to parallelize

Solution: spec-planner must break into atomic tasks (1-8 hours each)

"T2.1: Create user registration API endpoint (4h)"
"T2.2: Implement JWT token generation (3h)"
"T2.3: Add authentication middleware for protected routes (2h)"
Each task has concrete acceptance criteria and effort estimate

Quality Gate Catches This: "Tasks not atomic and implementable (< 10 points)"

❌ Pitfall 4: Missing ADRs

Symptom: Technology choices without documented rationale ("We'll use React")

Impact: Future developers don't understand why choices were made, can't evaluate alternatives

Solution: spec-architect must create ADR for key decisions

What: Decision made ("Use PostgreSQL for data storage")
Why: Rationale ("Relational data model, ACID guarantees, mature ecosystem")
Trade-offs: Alternatives considered ("MongoDB: Flexible schema but weaker consistency")
Format: Status, Context, Decision, Rationale, Consequences, Alternatives

Quality Gate Catches This: "Key decisions not documented in ADRs (< 5 points)"

❌ Pitfall 5: No Risk Assessment

Symptom: Plan assumes everything will work perfectly (no risk identification)

Impact: Surprises during implementation, missed dependencies, timeline delays

Solution: spec-planner must identify risks and mitigation strategies

Risk: "WebSocket scaling for real-time features" (Medium severity, High probability)
Mitigation: "Implement Redis adapter early (Phase 2), load test with 1000 concurrent connections"
Risk: "Third-party API dependency" (High severity, Low probability)
Mitigation: "Implement circuit breaker pattern, design fallback behavior"

Quality Gate Catches This: "Technical risks not identified (< 5 points)"

Success Factors

✅ 1. Thorough Requirements Analysis

Invest Time Upfront:

spec-analyst phase is foundation for everything else
Better requirements → better architecture → better tasks → faster development
Don't rush to architecture before requirements are solid (resist temptation)

Quantify Everything:

Functional requirements: Clear inputs, outputs, behaviors
Non-functional requirements: Specific metrics (not "fast" but "< 200ms")
User stories: Measurable acceptance criteria (not "works" but "completes in < 2s")

Validate with Stakeholders:

Confirm understanding: "Did I capture this correctly?"
Identify hidden requirements: "What about error handling? Notifications?"
Prioritize ruthlessly: "What's must-have vs. nice-to-have?"

✅ 2. Justified Architecture Decisions

Document WHY (ADRs), not just WHAT:

Architecture documents describe the design (components, interactions, data flow)
ADRs explain the reasoning (why this choice over alternatives)
ADRs preserve institutional knowledge (future developers understand context)

Consider Alternatives Explicitly:

Don't assume first solution is best (explore 2-3 options)
Document trade-offs: Pros/cons of each alternative
Make decision criteria clear: "We chose PostgreSQL because relational model matches domain and team has expertise"

Architecture Should Be Traceable:

Every component should address specific requirements (traceability matrix)
If architecture includes feature not in requirements: Add requirement OR remove feature
Architecture is servant of requirements, not the other way around

✅ 3. Actionable Task Breakdown

Tasks Must Be Implementation-Ready:

Developer should be able to start immediately (no further decomposition needed)
Clear inputs: What data/files/APIs are available?
Clear outputs: What should be created? What does "done" look like?
Clear acceptance criteria: How to verify task is complete?

Include Effort Estimates:

Helps developers plan sprints and iterations
Realistic estimates: 2-8 hours per task (don't over-optimize)
Complexity ratings: Simple/Medium/Complex (informs who should do it)

Identify Dependencies Explicitly:

Use task IDs: "Dependencies: T1.3, T2.1" (not vague "depends on auth")
Topological order: Ensure no circular dependencies
Critical path: Highlight tasks that block other tasks

✅ 4. Iterative Refinement

Embrace Quality Gate Feedback:

Failing quality gate is not a failure; it's the process working correctly
Feedback identifies specific gaps (saves time vs. manual discovery)
Each iteration should show measurable improvement (+10-15% score)

Address Gaps Systematically:

Priority 1: Critical gaps (0-point items, fundamental issues)
Priority 2: Major gaps (missing sections, incomplete analysis)
Priority 3: Minor gaps (refinements to reach 85% threshold)

Max 3 Iterations Keeps Process Bounded:

Iteration 1: Initial attempt (learn the domain)
Iteration 2: Refinement (address major gaps)
Iteration 3: Final optimization (polish to 85%+)
After 3: Escalate to user (process should work in 3 iterations)

✅ 5. Clear Handoff Documentation

Development Team Should Understand:

Scope: What are we building? What's in/out of scope?
Architecture: How should it be built? What technologies? What patterns?
Roadmap: What order to implement? What's the critical path?
Risks: What might go wrong? What's the mitigation plan?
Success Criteria: How do we know when it's done? What metrics?

Planning Artifacts Are Living Documents:

Specs will evolve during implementation (new insights, changed requirements)
Architecture may be adjusted (technical discoveries, constraints)
Tasks will be added/modified (as implementation progresses)
Planning phase creates starting point, not immutable contract

Handoff Includes Next Steps:

Concrete actions: "Review docs (30 min) → Set up environment → Start Task 1.1"
Timeline expectations: "Estimated 12-15 person-days for implementation"
Communication plan: "Daily standups, reference ADRs for design questions"

Examples

IMPORTANT: This skill is project-agnostic and works for ANY type of software project:

Web applications, mobile apps, desktop software
CLI tools, libraries, frameworks, APIs
Embedded systems, IoT devices, firmware
Data pipelines, ML models, microservices

The examples below show web applications because they're common and illustrative. Your project's specific sections, terminology, and architectural concerns will vary based on your domain. The agents adapt their outputs to match your project requirements.

Template: Web Application Planning (ONE Example Domain)

This template from actual spec-orchestrator.md shows typical planning activities for web applications AS ONE EXAMPLE:

Phase 1: Planning & Analysis Activities

Requirements Gathering and Stakeholder Analysis
- Identify stakeholder groups (end users, business owners, administrators)
- Document functional and non-functional requirements
- Prioritize features using MoSCoW or similar framework
- Define success metrics and acceptance criteria
System Architecture and Technology Stack Selection
- Choose frontend framework (React, Vue, Angular, etc.)
- Select backend technology (Node.js, Python, Go, etc.)
- Decide on hosting/deployment platform (AWS, Azure, GCP, self-hosted)
- Justify technology choices with ADRs (cost, team expertise, scalability)
Database Design and Data Modeling
- Define data entities and relationships (ERD)
- Choose database type (SQL vs. NoSQL based on requirements)
- Design schema with normalization and indexing strategy
- Plan data migration strategy if replacing existing system
API Specification and Contract Definition
- Define REST/GraphQL API endpoints
- Document request/response schemas (OpenAPI/Swagger)
- Specify authentication and authorization requirements
- Version API contracts for future compatibility
Security and Compliance Requirements
- Authentication mechanisms (JWT, OAuth, session-based)
- Authorization patterns (RBAC, ABAC)
- Data protection (encryption at rest and in transit)
- Compliance needs (GDPR, HIPAA, SOC 2)
Performance and Scalability Planning
- Define performance targets (response time, throughput)
- Plan caching strategy (Redis, CDN, browser caching)
- Design for horizontal scaling (load balancing, stateless services)
- Identify potential bottlenecks and mitigation strategies

Deliverables: requirements.md, architecture.md, tasks.md, adrs/*.md

Example Walkthrough: Task Management Application

This detailed example demonstrates the complete planning workflow from query analysis to deliverable handoff.

User Request: "Plan a task management web application with user authentication, real-time updates, and mobile responsiveness"

Step 1: Query Analysis

Scope Identified:

Web application (not mobile native)
User authentication (registration, login, JWT)
Real-time updates (WebSocket or similar)
Mobile responsive (not separate mobile app)

Constraints: Not specified (assume standard web stack)

Stakeholders: End users (task managers), development team

Suitability Check: ✅ Clear scope, well-defined domain, suitable for planning workflow

Step 2: spec-analyst Output

Generated File: docs/projects/task-management-app/planning/requirements.md (abbreviated example)

# Task Management Application - Requirements

## Executive Summary
A web-based task management system enabling users to create, organize, and track
tasks with real-time collaboration features and mobile accessibility.

## Functional Requirements

### FR1: User Management (Priority: High)
- FR1.1: User registration with email/password
- FR1.2: Secure authentication (JWT-based)
- FR1.3: User profile management
- FR1.4: Password reset functionality

### FR2: Task Management (Priority: High)
- FR2.1: Create tasks with title, description, due date, priority
- FR2.2: Update task status (Todo, In Progress, Done)
- FR2.3: Delete tasks
- FR2.4: Organize tasks in projects/categories

### FR3: Real-Time Updates (Priority: Medium)
- FR3.1: WebSocket connection for live updates
- FR3.2: Instant task status synchronization across devices
- FR3.3: Online/offline user presence indicators

### FR4: Mobile Responsiveness (Priority: High)
- FR4.1: Responsive design for mobile, tablet, desktop
- FR4.2: Touch-optimized interactions
- FR4.3: Progressive Web App (PWA) support

## Non-Functional Requirements

### NFR1: Performance
- API response time < 200ms (p95)
- Real-time update latency < 100ms
- Support 1,000 concurrent users

### NFR2: Security
- HTTPS for all communications
- JWT tokens with 1-hour expiration
- Input validation and sanitization
- SQL injection prevention

### NFR3: Scalability
- Horizontal scaling capability
- Database connection pooling
- Stateless API design

## User Stories

**US1**: As a user, I want to create tasks so that I can track my work.
- AC1: User can create task with title (required) and description (optional)
- AC2: Task is saved and appears in task list immediately
- AC3: Task creation fails gracefully with error message if title is empty

**US2**: As a user, I want to see real-time updates when my team changes tasks.
- AC1: When another user updates a task, my view updates within 2 seconds
- AC2: Update animation shows which task changed
- AC3: Connection loss shows offline indicator and queues updates

Initial Quality Check: Requirements document is comprehensive (estimated 90/100)

Step 3: spec-architect Output

Generated Files:

docs/projects/task-management-app/planning/architecture.md
docs/projects/task-management-app/adrs/001-technology-stack.md
docs/projects/task-management-app/adrs/002-real-time-architecture.md

architecture.md (abbreviated):

# System Architecture

## Technology Stack
- **Frontend**: React 18 + TypeScript + Vite
- **Backend**: Node.js + Express + TypeScript
- **Database**: PostgreSQL 15
- **Real-Time**: Socket.io
- **Authentication**: JWT + bcrypt
- **Hosting**: Vercel (frontend) + Railway (backend + database)

## System Components

### Frontend Application
- React SPA with routing (React Router v6)
- State management: React Query + Context API
- UI components: Tailwind CSS + Shadcn/ui
- Real-time: Socket.io client

### Backend API
- RESTful API for CRUD operations
- WebSocket server for real-time updates
- JWT middleware for authentication
- PostgreSQL connection pool

### Database Schema
- users (id, email, password_hash, created_at)
- tasks (id, user_id, title, description, status, due_date, priority, created_at, updated_at)
- projects (id, name, user_id)
- Indexes on user_id, status, due_date

## API Specification

### REST Endpoints
- POST /api/auth/register - Create new user
- POST /api/auth/login - Authenticate user (returns JWT)
- GET /api/tasks - List user's tasks (with filtering)
- POST /api/tasks - Create new task
- PATCH /api/tasks/:id - Update task
- DELETE /api/tasks/:id - Delete task

### WebSocket Events
- connection, task:created, task:updated, task:deleted, disconnect

## Security
- HTTPS enforced in production
- JWT tokens in httpOnly cookies
- CORS configured for frontend origin
- Rate limiting: 100 requests/15min per IP
- Password hashing with bcrypt (cost factor 10)

## Performance & Scalability
- Database connection pooling (max 20 connections)
- Stateless API design allows horizontal scaling
- WebSocket sticky sessions or Redis adapter for multi-instance

ADR 002-real-time-architecture.md:

# ADR 002: Real-Time Architecture with Socket.io

## Status: Accepted

## Context
Application requires real-time task updates across devices. Options:
1. Polling (HTTP requests every N seconds)
2. Server-Sent Events (SSE)
3. WebSockets (Socket.io)

## Decision
Use WebSockets with Socket.io library.

## Rationale
- Bi-directional communication (client ↔ server)
- Low latency < 100ms (meets NFR1)
- Socket.io benefits: automatic reconnection, fallback to polling
- Horizontal scaling possible with Redis adapter

## Consequences
- **Positive**: Real-time UX, efficient bandwidth usage
- **Negative**: Persistent connections (scalability consideration)
- **Mitigation**: Implement Redis adapter for multi-instance

## Alternatives Considered
- **Polling**: Simple but wasteful (60 req/min per user)
- **SSE**: Uni-directional only (server → client)

Initial Quality Check: Architecture document is solid (estimated 88/100)

Step 4: spec-planner Output

Generated File: docs/projects/task-management-app/planning/tasks.md (abbreviated)

# Implementation Tasks

## Overview
- **Total Tasks**: 24
- **Estimated Effort**: 12-15 person-days
- **Critical Path**: Authentication → Task CRUD → Real-time sync
- **Parallel Streams**: Frontend + Backend after API contract defined

## Phase 1: Project Setup (1 day)

### T1.1: Initialize Frontend Project
- Complexity: Low | Effort: 2h | Dependencies: None
- Create React + Vite + TypeScript project with Tailwind
- AC: npm create vite working, Tailwind configured, React Router setup

### T1.2: Initialize Backend Project
- Complexity: Low | Effort: 2h | Dependencies: None
- Create Node.js + Express + TypeScript with PostgreSQL connection
- AC: Express server starts, PostgreSQL connection successful

### T1.3: Database Schema Setup
- Complexity: Medium | Effort: 2h | Dependencies: T1.2
- Create SQL migration for users and tasks tables with indexes
- AC: Tables created, foreign keys set, indexes on user_id/status/due_date

## Phase 2: Authentication (2-3 days)

### T2.1: User Registration API
- Complexity: Medium | Effort: 4h | Dependencies: T1.3
- POST /api/auth/register with email validation and password hashing
- AC: Email validated, password hashed with bcrypt, user created, returns 201

### T2.2: User Login API
- Complexity: Medium | Effort: 4h | Dependencies: T2.1
- POST /api/auth/login with JWT generation
- AC: Password verified, JWT generated (1h expiration), returns token + user

### T2.3: JWT Authentication Middleware
- Complexity: Medium | Effort: 3h | Dependencies: T2.2
- Express middleware to verify JWT tokens on protected routes
- AC: JWT extracted from header, verified, user ID attached, returns 401 if invalid

[... 18 more tasks for Task CRUD, Real-time sync, Mobile UI ...]

## Risk Assessment

### Risk 1: Real-time scaling complexity
- Severity: Medium | Probability: High
- Impact: Multi-instance deployment requires Redis adapter
- Mitigation: Implement Redis adapter early (Phase 4)

### Risk 2: WebSocket connection stability
- Severity: Medium | Probability: Medium
- Impact: Users on unstable networks may lose updates
- Mitigation: Socket.io auto-reconnect + optimistic UI updates

### Risk 3: Database connection pool exhaustion
- Severity: High | Probability: Low
- Impact: API unresponsive under high load
- Mitigation: Max pool size 20, connection timeout, monitoring

## Testing Strategy
- Unit Tests: 80% coverage (auth logic, task CRUD, validation)
- Integration Tests: API endpoints with test database, WebSocket flows
- E2E Tests (Cypress): Registration, login, task creation, real-time sync

Initial Quality Check: Task breakdown is actionable (estimated 86/100)

Step 5: Quality Gate Validation

Checklist Scoring:

Requirements Completeness: 22/25 points
- ✅ Functional requirements documented (10/10)
- ✅ Non-functional requirements specified (5/5)
- ✅ User stories with acceptance criteria (5/5)
- ⚠️ Stakeholder needs addressed (2/5) - Missing admin user stories
Architecture Soundness: 23/25 points
- ✅ System design addresses requirements (10/10)
- ✅ Technology stack justified (5/5)
- ✅ Scalability and performance considered (5/5)
- ⚠️ Security and compliance (3/5) - Missing GDPR, detailed rate limiting
Task Breakdown Quality: 20/20 points
- ✅ Tasks atomic and implementable (10/10)
- ✅ Dependencies clearly identified (5/5)
- ✅ Effort estimates provided (5/5)
Architecture Decision Records: 8/10 points
- ✅ Key decisions documented in ADRs (4/5) - Missing database choice ADR
- ✅ Trade-offs and alternatives considered (4/5)
Risk Management: 10/10 points
- ✅ Technical risks identified (5/5)
- ✅ Mitigation strategies documented (5/5)
Handoff Readiness: 9/10 points
- ✅ Documentation clear and comprehensive (5/5)
- ⚠️ Next steps explicitly defined (4/5) - Needs deployment guide

Total Score: 92/100 = 92% ✅ PASS (threshold: 85%)

Decision: Proceed to Step 7 (Deliverable Handoff) - quality gate passed on first attempt

Step 6: Iteration Loop

Not needed - Score of 92% exceeds 85% threshold on initial attempt.

Reason for high score: Task management is a well-understood domain with clear requirements. User provided sufficient detail in initial request.

Step 7: Deliverable Handoff

Planning Summary:

✅ Scope: Task management web app with authentication, real-time updates, mobile responsiveness

✅ Architecture: React frontend + Node.js backend + PostgreSQL database + Socket.io for real-time

✅ Key Architectural Decisions:

ADR 001: React + Node.js stack (familiar, mature ecosystem, TypeScript throughout)
ADR 002: Socket.io for real-time (low latency, automatic reconnection, bi-directional)
(Missing: Database choice ADR - noted in quality gate but acceptable at 92%)

✅ Implementation Roadmap (24 tasks, 12-15 person-days):

Phase 1: Project setup (1 day)
Phase 2: Authentication (2-3 days)
Phase 3: Task CRUD operations (3-4 days)
Phase 4: Real-time synchronization (3-4 days)
Phase 5: Mobile responsive UI (2-3 days)

✅ Risks Identified:

Real-time scaling → Mitigated with Redis adapter
WebSocket stability → Mitigated with auto-reconnect
Database pool exhaustion → Mitigated with connection limits

✅ Next Steps for Development Team:

Review planning artifacts (requirements, architecture, tasks) - 30-60 min
Set up development environment following T1.1, T1.2 instructions
Implement in priority order: authentication → CRUD → real-time
Reference ADRs when questions arise about design decisions
Use tasks.md as sprint backlog (24 tasks mapped to 5 phases)

Deliverables Provided:

📄 docs/projects/task-management-app/planning/requirements.md (~1,200 lines)
📄 docs/projects/task-management-app/planning/architecture.md (~800 lines)
📄 docs/projects/task-management-app/planning/tasks.md (~600 lines with 24 tasks)
📄 docs/projects/task-management-app/adrs/001-technology-stack.md (~150 lines)
📄 docs/projects/task-management-app/adrs/002-real-time-architecture.md (~200 lines)

Status: ✅ Planning phase complete. Development-ready specifications available.

Estimated Development Timeline: 12-15 person-days (approximately 3 weeks for solo developer, 2 weeks for pair)

Key Takeaways from This Example

First-Attempt Success: Quality gate passed with 92% score on initial attempt (no iterations needed)
Sequential Dependencies: Each agent built on previous agent's output:
- spec-analyst produced requirements → spec-architect used them for architecture
- spec-architect produced architecture → spec-planner used it for task breakdown
Quality Gate Value: Even with 92% passing score, quality gate identified minor gaps:
- Missing admin user stories (stakeholder analysis)
- Missing database choice ADR (architecture decisions)
- Missing deployment guide (handoff readiness)
- These could be addressed in future iteration if needed
Realistic Outputs: Agent outputs shown are representative of actual planning artifacts:
- Requirements: Functional/non-functional requirements, user stories, acceptance criteria
- Architecture: Technology stack justification, system components, API specs, security
- Tasks: Atomic tasks (1-8h each), dependencies, effort estimates, risk assessment
Development-Ready: With these artifacts, a development team can immediately begin implementation:
- Clear scope (what to build)
- Technical design (how to build)
- Implementation roadmap (order and effort)
- Risk awareness (what might go wrong)

Note: This skill focuses on planning phase only. It produces development-ready specifications but does not implement code, tests, or validation.

Install Skill

SKILL.md

Spec Workflow Orchestrator

Table of Contents

Purpose

When to Use

Orchestration Workflow

Planning Phase (spec-analyst → spec-architect → spec-planner)

Progress Tracking During Workflow

Agent Roles

Quality Gates

Planning Gate (85% Threshold)

1. Requirements Completeness and Clarity

2. Architecture Feasibility Assessment

3. Task Breakdown Adequacy

4. Risk Mitigation Coverage

Feedback Loop Process

Step 1: Failure Analysis

Step 2: Root Cause Identification

Step 3: Generate Specific Feedback

Step 4: Re-spawn Agent with Feedback

Step 5: Re-validate

Iteration Limit Enforcement

File Organization

Active Project Structure

Archive Structure (When Refining Existing Projects)

Best Practices

Project Coordination Principles (Battle-Tested)

Process Improvement Guidelines (Battle-Tested)

Success Factors (Battle-Tested)

Planning Workflow Optimization

Preparation Phase (Before spawning agents)

Execution Phase (During agent spawning)

Validation Phase (Quality gate)

Handoff Phase (After quality gate passes)

Common Planning Pitfalls (and How to Avoid)

Success Factors

Examples

Template: Web Application Planning (ONE Example Domain)

Example Walkthrough: Task Management Application

Step 1: Query Analysis

Step 2: spec-analyst Output

Step 3: spec-architect Output

Step 4: spec-planner Output

Step 5: Quality Gate Validation

Step 6: Iteration Loop

Step 7: Deliverable Handoff

Key Takeaways from This Example