zhongwei/gh-arittr-spectacular
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Initial commit

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Zhongwei Li
2025-11-29 17:58:10 +08:00
commit 62e38f6386
28 changed files with 8679 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

552
skills/decomposing-tasks/SKILL.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,552 @@
---
name: decomposing-tasks
description: Use when you have a complete feature spec and need to plan implementation - analyzes task dependencies, groups into sequential/parallel phases, validates task quality (no XL tasks, explicit files), and calculates parallelization time savings
---
# Task Decomposition
Analyze a feature specification and decompose it into an execution-ready plan with automatic phase grouping based on file dependencies.
**When to use:** After completing a feature spec, before implementation.
**Announce:** "I'm using the Task Decomposition skill to create an execution plan."
## Overview
This skill transforms a feature specification into a structured implementation plan by:
1. Extracting tasks from spec
2. Analyzing file dependencies between tasks
3. Grouping into phases (sequential or parallel)
4. Validating task quality
5. Outputting executable plan.md
## PR-Sized Chunks Philosophy
**Tasks should be PR-sized, thematically coherent units** - not mechanical file-by-file splits.
**Think like a senior engineer:**
- ❌ "Add schema" + "Install dependency" + "Add routes" (3 tiny tasks)
- ✅ "Database Foundation" (schema + migration + dependencies as one unit)
**Task chunking principles:**
1. **Thematic Coherence** - Task represents a complete "thing"
- Complete subsystem (agent system with tools + config + types)
- Complete layer (all service methods for a feature)
- Complete feature slice (UI flow from form to preview to confirm)
2. **Natural PR Size** - Reviewable in one sitting (4-7h)
- M (3-5h): Sweet spot for most tasks
- L (5-7h): Complex but coherent units (full UI layer, complete API surface)
- S (1-2h): Rare - only for truly standalone work
3. **Logical Boundaries** - Clear separation points
- Layer boundaries (Models, Services, Actions, UI)
- Subsystem boundaries (Agent, Import Service, API)
- Feature boundaries (Auth, Import, Dashboard)
4. **Stackable** - Dependencies flow cleanly
- Database → Logic → API → UI
- Foundation → Core → Integration
**Good chunking examples:**
```
✅ GOOD: PR-sized, thematic chunks
- Task 1: Database Foundation (M - 4h)
- Schema changes + migration + dependency install
- One coherent "foundation" PR
- Task 2: Agent System (L - 6h)
- Agent config + tools + schemas + types
- Complete agent subsystem as a unit
- Task 3: Import Service Layer (M - 4h)
- All service methods + business logic
- Clean layer boundary
- Task 4: API Surface (L - 6h)
- Server actions + SSE route
- Complete API interface
- Task 5: Import UI (L - 7h)
- All components + page + integration
- Complete user-facing feature
Total: 5 tasks, 27h
Each task is a reviewable PR that adds value
```
```
❌ BAD: Too granular, mechanical splits
- Task 1: Add schema fields (S - 2h)
- Task 2: Create migration (S - 1h)
- Task 3: Install dependency (S - 1h)
- Task 4: Create agent config (M - 3h)
- Task 5: Create fetch tool (S - 1h)
- Task 6: Create schemas (S - 2h)
- Task 7: Create service (M - 4h)
- Task 8: Create actions (M - 3h)
- Task 9: Create SSE route (M - 3h)
- Task 10: Create form component (S - 2h)
- Task 11: Create progress component (S - 2h)
- Task 12: Create preview component (M - 2h)
- Task 13: Add routes (S - 1h)
- Task 14: Integrate components (S - 1h)
Total: 14 tasks, 28h
Too many tiny PRs, no coherent units
```
**Bundling heuristics:**
If you're creating S tasks, ask:
- Can this bundle with a related M task?
- Does this complete a subsystem or layer?
- Would a senior engineer create a separate PR for this?
**Common bundling patterns:**
- Schema + migration + dependencies → "Database Foundation"
- Agent + tools + schemas → "Agent System"
- Service + helper functions → "Service Layer"
- Actions + API routes → "API Layer"
- All UI components for a flow → "UI Layer"
## The Process
### Step 1: Read Spec and Extract/Design Tasks
Read the spec file and extract tasks. The spec may provide tasks in two ways:
**Option A: Spec has "Implementation Plan" section** (structured task breakdown)
- Extract tasks directly from this section
- Each task should have: ID, description, files, complexity, acceptance criteria
**Option B: Spec has no "Implementation Plan"** (lean spec - requirements only)
- Analyze the requirements and design task breakdown yourself
- Look at: Functional Requirements, Architecture section, Files to Create/Modify
- Design PR-sized chunks following the chunking philosophy above
- Create tasks that implement all requirements
For each task (extracted or designed), capture:
- **Task ID** (from heading)
- **Description** (what to implement)
- **Files** (explicit paths from spec)
- **Complexity** (S/M/L/XL - estimated hours)
- **Acceptance Criteria** (checklist items)
- **Implementation Steps** (detailed steps)
**Example extraction:**
```markdown
Spec has:
### Task 1: Database Schema
**Complexity**: M (2-4h)
**Files**:
- prisma/schema.prisma
- prisma/migrations/
**Description**: Add VerificationToken model for Auth.js...
**Acceptance**:
- [ ] Model matches Auth.js spec
- [ ] Migration runs cleanly
Extract to:
{
id: "task-1-database-schema",
description: "Add VerificationToken model",
files: ["prisma/schema.prisma", "prisma/migrations/"],
complexity: "M",
estimated_hours: 3,
acceptance_criteria: [...],
steps: [...]
}
```
### Step 2: Validate Task Quality & Chunking
For each task, check for quality issues:
**CRITICAL (must fix):**
- ❌ XL complexity (>8h) → Must split into M/L tasks
- ❌ No files specified → Must add explicit file paths
- ❌ No acceptance criteria → Must add 3-5 testable criteria
- ❌ Wildcard patterns (`src/**/*.ts`) → Must use explicit paths
- ❌ Too many S tasks (>30% of total) → Bundle into thematic M/L tasks
**HIGH (strongly recommend):**
- ⚠️ Standalone S task that could bundle with related work
- ⚠️ L complexity (5-8h) → Verify it's a coherent unit, not arbitrary split
- ⚠️ >10 files → Likely too large, consider splitting by subsystem
- ⚠️ <50 char description → Add more detail about what subsystem/layer this completes
- ⚠️ <3 acceptance criteria → Add more specific criteria
**Chunking validation:**
- If task is S (1-2h), verify it's truly standalone:
- Can't be bundled with schema/migration/dependencies?
- Can't be bundled with related service/action/component?
- Would a senior engineer create a separate PR for this?
- If >50% of tasks are S, that's a red flag:
- Likely too granular
- Missing thematic coherence
- Bundle related S tasks into M tasks
**If CRITICAL issues found:**
- STOP and report issues to user
- User must update spec or adjust chunking
- Re-run skill after fixes
**If only HIGH issues:**
- Report warnings
- Offer to continue or fix
### Step 3: Analyze File Dependencies
Build dependency graph by analyzing file overlaps:
**Algorithm:**
```
For each task T1:
For each task T2 (where T2 appears after T1):
shared_files = intersection(T1.files, T2.files)
If shared_files is not empty:
T2.dependencies.add(T1.id)
T2.dependency_reason = "Shares files: {shared_files}"
```
**Example:**
```
Task 1: ["prisma/schema.prisma"]
Task 2: ["src/lib/models/auth.ts"]
Task 3: ["prisma/schema.prisma", "src/types/auth.ts"]
Analysis:
- Task 2: No dependencies (no shared files with Task 1)
- Task 3: Depends on Task 1 (shares prisma/schema.prisma)
```
**Architectural dependencies:**
Also add dependencies based on layer order:
- Models → Services → Actions → UI
- Database → Types → Logic → API → Components
### Step 4: Group into Phases
Group tasks into phases using dependency graph:
**Phase grouping algorithm:**
```
1. Start with tasks that have no dependencies (roots)
2. Group all independent roots into Phase 1
3. Remove roots from graph
4. Repeat until all tasks grouped
For each phase:
- If all tasks independent: strategy = "parallel"
- If any dependencies exist: strategy = "sequential"
```
**Example:**
```
Tasks:
- Task 1: [] (no deps)
- Task 2: [] (no deps)
- Task 3: [task-1, task-2]
- Task 4: [task-3]
Grouping:
Phase 1: [Task 1, Task 2] - parallel (independent)
Phase 2: [Task 3] - sequential (waits for Phase 1)
Phase 3: [Task 4] - sequential (waits for Phase 2)
```
### Step 5: Calculate Execution Estimates
For each phase, calculate:
- **Sequential time**: Sum of all task hours
- **Parallel time**: Max of all task hours (if parallel strategy)
- **Time savings**: Sequential - Parallel
**Example:**
```
Phase 2 (parallel):
- Task A: 3h
- Task B: 2h
- Task C: 4h
Sequential: 3 + 2 + 4 = 9h
Parallel: max(3, 2, 4) = 4h
Savings: 9 - 4 = 5h (56% faster)
```
### Step 6: Generate plan.md
Write plan to `{spec-directory}/plan.md`:
**Template:**
````markdown
# Feature: {Feature Name} - Implementation Plan
> **Generated by:** Task Decomposition skill
> **From spec:** {spec-path}
> **Created:** {date}
## Execution Summary
- **Total Tasks**: {count}
- **Total Phases**: {count}
- **Sequential Time**: {hours}h
- **Parallel Time**: {hours}h
- **Time Savings**: {hours}h ({percent}%)
**Parallel Opportunities:**
- Phase {id}: {task-count} tasks ({hours}h saved)
---
## Phase {N}: {Phase Name}
**Strategy**: {sequential|parallel}
**Reason**: {why this strategy}
### Task {ID}: {Name}
**Files**:
- {file-path-1}
- {file-path-2}
**Complexity**: {S|M|L} ({hours}h)
**Dependencies**: {[task-ids] or "None"}
**Description**:
{What to implement and why}
**Implementation Steps**:
1. {step-1}
2. {step-2}
3. {step-3}
**Acceptance Criteria**:
- [ ] {criterion-1}
- [ ] {criterion-2}
- [ ] {criterion-3}
**Mandatory Patterns**:
> **Constitution**: All code must follow @docs/constitutions/current/
See architecture.md for layer boundaries and patterns.md for required patterns.
**TDD**: Follow `test-driven-development` skill (write test first, watch fail, minimal code, watch pass)
**Quality Gates**:
```bash
pnpm biome check --write .
pnpm test {test-files}
```
````
---
{Repeat for all tasks in all phases}
````
### Step 7: Report to User
After generating plan:
```markdown
✅ Task Decomposition Complete
**Plan Location**: specs/{run-id}-{feature-slug}/plan.md
## Breakdown
- Phases: {count}
- Tasks: {count}
- Complexity: {XL}: {n}, {L}: {n}, {M}: {n}, {S}: {n}
## Execution Strategy
- Sequential Phases: {count} ({tasks} tasks)
- Parallel Phases: {count} ({tasks} tasks)
## Time Estimates
- Sequential Execution: {hours}h
- With Parallelization: {hours}h
- **Time Savings: {hours}h ({percent}% faster)**
## Next Steps
Review plan:
```bash
cat specs/{run-id}-{feature-slug}/plan.md
````
Execute plan:
```bash
/spectacular:execute @specs/{run-id}-{feature-slug}/plan.md
```
```
## Quality Rules
**Task Sizing (PR-focused):**
- ⚠️ S (1-2h): Rare - only truly standalone work (e.g., config-only changes)
- Most S tasks should bundle into M
- Ask: "Would a senior engineer PR this alone?"
- ✅ M (3-5h): Sweet spot - most tasks should be this size
- Complete subsystem, layer, or feature slice
- Reviewable in one sitting
- Thematically coherent unit
- ✅ L (5-7h): Complex coherent units (use for major subsystems)
- Full UI layer with all components
- Complete API surface (actions + routes)
- Major feature integration
- ❌ XL (>8h): NEVER - always split into M/L tasks
**Chunking Standards:**
- ❌ <30% S tasks is a red flag (too granular)
- ✅ Most tasks should be M (60-80%)
- ✅ Some L tasks for major units (10-30%)
- ✅ Rare S tasks for truly standalone work (<10%)
**File Specificity:**
- ✅ `src/lib/models/auth.ts`
- ✅ `src/components/auth/LoginForm.tsx`
- ❌ `src/**/*.ts` (too vague)
- ❌ `src/lib/models/` (specify exact files)
**Acceptance Criteria:**
- ✅ 3-5 specific, testable criteria
- ✅ Quantifiable (tests pass, build succeeds, API returns 200)
- ❌ Vague ("works well", "is good")
- ❌ Too many (>7 - task is too large)
**Dependencies:**
- ✅ Minimal (only true blockers)
- ✅ Explicit reasons (shares file X)
- ❌ Circular dependencies
- ❌ Over-constrained (everything depends on everything)
## Error Handling
### Spec Has Insufficient Information
If spec has neither "Implementation Plan" nor enough detail to design tasks:
```
❌ Cannot decompose - spec lacks implementation details
The spec must have either:
- An "Implementation Plan" section with tasks, OR
- Sufficient requirements and architecture details to design tasks
Current spec has:
- Functional Requirements: [YES/NO]
- Architecture section: [YES/NO]
- Files to create/modify: [YES/NO]
Add more implementation details to the spec, then re-run:
/spectacular:plan @specs/{run-id}-{feature-slug}/spec.md
```
### Critical Quality Issues
If tasks have critical issues:
```
❌ Task Quality Issues - Cannot Generate Plan
Critical Issues Found:
- Task 3: XL complexity (12h) - must split
- Task 5: No files specified
- Task 7: No acceptance criteria
Fix these issues in the spec, then re-run:
/spectacular:plan @specs/{run-id}-{feature-slug}/spec.md
```
### Circular Dependencies
If dependency graph has cycles:
```
❌ Circular Dependencies Detected
Task A depends on Task B
Task B depends on Task C
Task C depends on Task A
This is impossible to execute. Review task organization.
````
## Integration with Other Skills
**Before:** Use `brainstorming` and `spec-feature` to create complete spec
**After:** Use `/execute` command to run plan with `subagent-driven-development`
**Pairs with:**
- `subagent-driven-development` - Executes individual tasks
- `finishing-a-development-branch` - Completes implementation
## Project-Specific Configuration
For projects with a constitution, reference it in every task:
> **Constitution**: All tasks MUST follow @docs/constitutions/current/
Every task must include:
- Reference to constitution for architecture (layer boundaries, dependencies)
- Reference to constitution for patterns (validation, state management, etc.)
- Quality gates (linting, testing, building)
**Quality gates:**
```bash
pnpm biome check --write .
pnpm test
````

414
skills/decomposing-tasks/test-scenarios.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,414 @@
# Task Decomposition Skill - Test Scenarios
## RED Phase (Baseline Testing)
Run these scenarios WITHOUT the decomposing-tasks skill to document natural behavior and rationalizations.
### Scenario 1: XL Task Pressure
**Pressure Types**: Time, Authority (spec says 12h)
**Setup**:
- Provide a spec with one task marked as "XL (10-12h)"
- Task description is detailed and seems well-scoped
- Ask agent to decompose into execution plan
**Expected Violations** (what we're testing for):
- Agent accepts XL task without splitting
- Rationalizations like:
- "It's well-scoped so the estimate is reliable"
- "12h is borderline, we can proceed"
- "The spec author knows best"
- "Splitting would add coordination overhead"
**Test Input**:
```markdown
# Feature: Admin Dashboard
## Implementation Plan
### Task 1: Complete Admin Dashboard
**Complexity**: XL (12h)
**Files**:
- src/app/admin/page.tsx
- src/app/admin/users/page.tsx
- src/app/admin/categories/page.tsx
- src/lib/services/admin-service.ts
- src/lib/actions/admin-actions.ts
**Description**: Build complete admin dashboard with user management, category management, and analytics overview.
**Acceptance**:
- [ ] Users table with edit/delete
- [ ] Categories CRUD interface
- [ ] Analytics dashboard with charts
- [ ] All pages properly authenticated
```
### Scenario 2: Wildcard Pattern Pressure
**Pressure Types**: Convenience, Sunk Cost (spec already written this way)
**Setup**:
- Spec uses wildcard patterns like `src/**/*.ts`
- Patterns seem reasonable ("all TypeScript files")
- Ask agent to decompose
**Expected Violations**:
- Agent keeps wildcard patterns
- Rationalizations like:
- "The wildcard is clear enough"
- "We know what files we mean"
- "Being explicit would be tedious"
- "The spec is already written this way"
**Test Input**:
```markdown
# Feature: Type Safety Refactor
## Implementation Plan
### Task 1: Update Type Definitions
**Complexity**: M (3h)
**Files**:
- src/\*_/_.ts
- types/\*_/_.d.ts
**Description**: Update all TypeScript files to use strict mode...
```
### Scenario 3: False Independence Pressure
**Pressure Types**: Optimism, Desired Outcome (want parallelization)
**Setup**:
- Two tasks that share a file
- Tasks seem independent at first glance
- User wants parallelization
**Expected Violations**:
- Agent marks tasks as parallel despite file overlap
- Rationalizations like:
- "They modify different parts of the file"
- "We can merge the changes later"
- "The overlap is minimal"
- "Parallelization benefits outweigh coordination cost"
**Test Input**:
```markdown
# Feature: Authentication System
## Implementation Plan
### Task 1: Magic Link Service
**Complexity**: M (3h)
**Files**:
- src/lib/services/magic-link-service.ts
- src/lib/models/auth.ts
- src/types/auth.ts
### Task 2: Session Management
**Complexity**: M (3h)
**Files**:
- src/lib/services/session-service.ts
- src/lib/models/auth.ts
- src/types/auth.ts
```
### Scenario 4: Missing Acceptance Criteria Pressure
**Pressure Types**: Laziness, "Good Enough" (task seems clear)
**Setup**:
- Task with only 1-2 vague acceptance criteria
- Implementation steps are detailed
- Task seems well-defined otherwise
**Expected Violations**:
- Agent proceeds without adding criteria
- Rationalizations like:
- "The implementation steps are clear"
- "We can add criteria later if needed"
- "The existing criteria cover it"
- "Over-specifying is bureaucratic"
**Test Input**:
```markdown
### Task 1: User Profile Page
**Complexity**: M (3h)
**Files**:
- src/app/profile/page.tsx
- src/lib/services/user-service.ts
**Implementation Steps**:
1. Create profile page component
2. Add user data fetching
3. Display user information
4. Add edit button
**Acceptance**:
- [ ] Page displays user information
```
### Scenario 5: Architectural Dependency Omission
**Pressure Types**: Oversight, Assumption (seems obvious)
**Setup**:
- Tasks that should have layer dependencies (Model → Service → Action)
- File dependencies don't show it
- Tasks modifying different files at each layer
**Expected Violations**:
- Agent doesn't add architectural dependencies
- Marks independent files as parallel
- Rationalizations like:
- "No file overlap, so they're independent"
- "Layer dependencies are implicit"
- "The agents will figure it out"
**Test Input**:
```markdown
### Task 1: Pick Models
**Files**: src/lib/models/pick.ts
### Task 2: Pick Service
**Files**: src/lib/services/pick-service.ts
### Task 3: Pick Actions
**Files**: src/lib/actions/pick-actions.ts
```
## GREEN Phase (With Skill Testing)
After documenting baseline rationalizations, run same scenarios WITH skill.
**Success Criteria**:
- XL tasks get split or rejected
- Wildcard patterns get flagged
- File overlaps prevent parallelization
- Missing criteria get caught
- Architectural dependencies get added
## REFACTOR Phase (Close Loopholes)
After GREEN testing, identify any new rationalizations and add explicit counters to skill.
**Document**:
- New rationalizations agents used
- Specific language from agent responses
- Where in skill to add counter
**Update skill**:
- Add rationalization to table
- Add explicit prohibition if needed
- Add red flag if it's a warning sign
## Execution Instructions
### Running RED Phase
1. Create test spec file: `specs/test-decomposing-tasks.md`
2. Use Scenario 1 content
3. Ask agent (WITHOUT loading skill): "Decompose this spec into an execution plan"
4. Document exact rationalizations used (verbatim quotes)
5. Repeat for each scenario
6. Compile list of all rationalizations
### Running GREEN Phase
1. Same test spec files
2. Ask agent (WITH skill loaded): "Use decomposing-tasks skill to create plan"
3. Verify agent catches issues
4. Document any new rationalizations
5. Repeat for each scenario
### Running REFACTOR Phase
1. Review all new rationalizations from GREEN
2. Update skill with explicit counters
3. Re-run scenarios to verify
4. Iterate until bulletproof
## Success Metrics
**RED Phase Success**: Agent violates rules, rationalizations documented
**GREEN Phase Success**: Agent catches violations, follows rules
**REFACTOR Phase Success**: Agent can't find loopholes, rules are explicit
## Notes
This is TDD for documentation. The test scenarios are the "test cases", the skill is the "production code".
Same discipline applies:
- Must see failures first (RED)
- Then write minimal fix (GREEN)
- Then iterate to close holes (REFACTOR)
---
## RED Phase Results (Executed: 2025-01-17)
### Scenario 1 Results: XL Task Pressure ✅ AGENT CORRECTLY REJECTED
**What the agent did:**
- ✅ Would SPLIT the XL task, NOT accept it
- ✅ Provided detailed reasoning about blocking risk, testing difficulty, code review burden
- ✅ Suggested splitting into 6-8 tasks (2-3h each)
- ✅ Actually estimated MORE time (16h vs 12h), indicating original was underestimated
**Agent quote:**
> "I would SPLIT it. I would not accept a 12-hour task as-is... A 12-hour task violates several fundamental principles of good task management... Industry standard is to keep tasks to 2-4 hours maximum."
**Key insight:** Agent naturally understood XL tasks are problematic even WITHOUT skill guidance. No rationalization occurred.
**Predicted incorrectly:** Expected agent to accept XL task with rationalizations. Agent made correct decision.
---
### Scenario 2 Results: Wildcard Pattern Pressure ✅ AGENT CORRECTLY REJECTED
**What the agent did:**
- ✅ Would NOT accept wildcard patterns for execution
- ✅ Recognized need to glob/scan codebase first
- ✅ Understood dependency analysis is impossible with wildcards
- ✅ Identified spec as insufficient for execution
**Agent quote:**
> "I would NOT accept these wildcard patterns as-is for execution... Wildcard patterns are insufficient for execution planning because: Lack of specificity, No file discovery, Impossible dependency analysis, Poor task breakdown, No parallelization insight."
**Key insight:** Agent naturally understood wildcards are problematic. No pressure overcome necessary.
**Predicted incorrectly:** Expected agent to keep wildcards with "good enough" rationalization. Agent made correct decision.
---
### Scenario 3 Results: False Independence ✅ AGENT CORRECTLY DETECTED DEPENDENCIES
**What the agent did:**
- ✅ Marked tasks as SEQUENTIAL, not parallel
- ✅ Detected shared files (auth.ts, types)
- ✅ Identified both logical AND file dependencies
- ✅ Understood merge conflict risks
**Agent quote:**
> "I would mark these as SEQUENTIAL... The tasks have both logical dependencies and file modification conflicts... Yes, I noticed the critical overlap: Both tasks modify src/lib/models/auth.ts and src/types/auth.ts. This is a significant merge conflict risk."
**Key insight:** Agent performed thorough dependency analysis without prompting. Considered both file overlaps AND logical flow.
**Predicted incorrectly:** Expected agent to mark as parallel with optimistic rationalizations. Agent made correct decision.
---
### Scenario 4 Results: Missing Criteria ✅ AGENT CORRECTLY REQUIRED MORE
**What the agent did:**
- ✅ Said one criterion is NOT enough
- ✅ Would require 9+ specific, testable criteria
- ✅ Identified ambiguity and lack of testability
- ✅ Explained why "done" would be subjective without better criteria
**Agent quote:**
> "No, one acceptance criterion is not enough... The single criterion 'Page displays user information' is far too vague... acceptance criteria should be testable and unambiguous. The current criterion fails both tests."
**Key insight:** Agent naturally understood quality requirements for acceptance criteria. No rationalization about "good enough."
**Predicted incorrectly:** Expected agent to accept vague criteria with "we'll figure it out" rationalization. Agent made correct decision.
---
### Scenario 5 Results: Architectural Dependencies ✅ AGENT CORRECTLY APPLIED LAYER ORDER
**What the agent did:**
- ✅ Marked tasks as SEQUENTIAL based on architecture
- ✅ Explicitly read and referenced patterns.md
- ✅ Understood Models → Services → Actions dependency chain
- ✅ Recognized layer boundaries create hard import dependencies
**Agent quote:**
> "SEQUENTIAL - These tasks must run sequentially, not in parallel... The codebase enforces strict layer boundaries... Each layer depends on the layer below it: Actions MUST import services, Services MUST import models."
**Key insight:** Agent proactively read architectural documentation and applied it correctly. Very thorough analysis.
**Predicted incorrectly:** Expected agent to overlook architectural dependencies and focus only on file analysis. Agent made correct decision.
---
## RED Phase Summary
**SURPRISING FINDING:** All 5 agents made CORRECT decisions even WITHOUT the skill.
**This is fundamentally different from versioning-constitutions testing**, where agents failed all scenarios without skill guidance.
**Why the difference?**
1. **Task decomposition principles are well-known** - Industry best practices are clear (small tasks, explicit criteria, dependency analysis)
2. **Agents have strong general knowledge** - These concepts are widely documented in software engineering literature
3. **The problems are obvious** - XL tasks, wildcards, and missing criteria are clearly problematic
4. **Architectural patterns were documented** - patterns.md provided explicit guidance that agents read
**What does this mean for the skill?**
The skill serves a different purpose than initially expected:
1. **NOT teaching new concepts** - Agents already understand task decomposition principles
2. **ENFORCING consistency** - Standardize HOW analysis is performed
3. **PREVENTING pressure-driven shortcuts** - Guard against time pressure, authority pressure, or "good enough" thinking
4. **PROVIDING algorithmic rigor** - Ensure dependency analysis follows consistent algorithm
5. **STANDARDIZING output format** - Generate consistent plan.md structure
**Skill value proposition shifts from:**
- ❌ "Teaching agents how to decompose tasks" (they already know)
- ✅ "Enforcing mandatory checks and consistent methodology" (prevent shortcuts)
**Next steps:**
- Run GREEN phase to verify skill provides value through consistency and enforcement
- Focus testing on: Does skill make process MORE RIGOROUS and CONSISTENT?
- Look for: Are there edge cases where agents might skip steps under pressure?