DEPRECATED — Use /humaninloop:plan

This command has been deprecated. The technical specification workflow has been merged into /humaninloop:plan, which now handles both analysis (requirements, constraints, decisions, NFRs) and design (data model, API contracts, integration guide) in a single unified workflow.

Action: Tell the user to run /humaninloop:plan instead, then STOP execution. Do not proceed with any workflow steps below.

---

(Legacy) Three-Agent Technical Specification Workflow

You are the Supervisor orchestrating a three-agent technical specification workflow. You own the loop, manage state via files, and route based on agent outputs.

User Input

$ARGUMENTS

If $ARGUMENTS is empty or appears literally, check for resume state first, then proceed with the detected feature.

Empty Input Check

If $ARGUMENTS is empty (blank string with no content), use AskUserQuestion to handle a known Claude Code bug where inputs containing @ file references don't reach plugin commands:

AskUserQuestion(
  questions: [{
    question: "⚠️ Known Issue: Input may have been lost\n\nClaude Code has a bug where inputs containing @ file references don't reach plugin commands.\n\nWould you like to re-enter your input?",
    header: "Input",
    options: [
      {label: "Re-enter input", description: "I'll type my input in the terminal"},
      {label: "Continue without input", description: "Proceed with no input provided"}
    ],
    multiSelect: false
  }]
)

• If user selects "Re-enter input" → wait for user to type their input in the terminal, then use that as the effective $ARGUMENTS
• If user selects "Continue without input" → proceed with empty input (check resume state, then detect feature from branch)

---

Architecture Overview

SUPERVISOR (this command)
    │
    ├── Creates context + directories
    ├── Invokes agents with minimal prompts
    ├── Parses structured prose outputs
    ├── Updates context between phases
    └── Owns all routing decisions

AGENTS (independent, no workflow knowledge)
    │
    ├── Technical Analyst → Writes requirements.md, constraints.md, nfrs.md, integrations.md, data-sensitivity.md
    ├── Principal Architect → Reviews feasibility, validates constraints and NFR measurability
    └── Devil's Advocate → Reviews completeness, finds gaps, checks consistency

Communication Pattern: Context + Artifacts + Separate Reports

specs/{feature-id}/
├── spec.md                          # Input (from specify workflow)
├── technical/                       # Techspec output
│   ├── requirements.md              # Business FR → Technical TR mapping
│   ├── constraints.md               # Tech constraints & migration needs
│   ├── nfrs.md                      # Non-functional requirements
│   ├── integrations.md              # System boundaries & external deps
│   └── data-sensitivity.md          # Data classification & security
└── .workflow/
    ├── context.md                   # Context + instructions (specify)
    ├── techspec-context.md          # Context + instructions (techspec)
    ├── techanalyst-report.md        # Technical Analyst output
    ├── architect-report.md          # Principal Architect feasibility report
    └── advocate-report.md           # Devil's Advocate completeness report

---

Agents Used

Agent	File	Purpose
Technical Analyst	${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/agents/technical-analyst.md	Translate business FR into technical requirements
Principal Architect	${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/agents/principal-architect.md	Review feasibility, validate constraints and NFR measurability
Devil's Advocate	${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/agents/devils-advocate.md	Review completeness, find gaps, check consistency

---

Pre-Execution: Constitution Check

Before any workflow execution, verify that the project constitution exists:

1. Check for constitution file at .humaninloop/memory/constitution.md
2. If NOT found, display the following and STOP execution:

Constitution Required

The HumanInLoop techspec workflow requires a project constitution to be configured.

The constitution defines project principles that guide technical specification quality validation.

To set up your constitution, run:
/humaninloop:setup

This will walk you through defining your project's core principles.

Then retry /humaninloop:techspec

3. If found: Continue to Entry Gate

---

Pre-Execution: Entry Gate

Before starting, verify the specification workflow is complete:

1. Identify the feature directory:

   • If $ARGUMENTS specifies a feature ID: use that
   • Otherwise: Detect from current git branch (branch name = feature ID, e.g., 001-user-auth)
   • Fallback: Find most recent spec in specs/ by highest numeric prefix

2. Check for spec.md: Read specs/{feature-id}/spec.md

   • If NOT found: Block and tell user to run /humaninloop:specify first

3. Check specify workflow status: Read specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/context.md

   • If status != completed:

     AskUserQuestion(
       questions: [{
         question: "Specification workflow not complete (status: {status}). Technical specification requires a completed spec.",
         header: "Entry Gate",
         options: [
           {label: "Complete specification first", description: "Return to /humaninloop:specify"},
           {label: "Abort", description: "Cancel techspec workflow"}
         ],
         multiSelect: false
       }]
     )
     

4. If entry gate passes: Continue to Brownfield Check

---

Pre-Execution: Brownfield Check

Before proceeding, verify brownfield projects have required analysis:

1. Read constitution: .humaninloop/memory/constitution.md

   • Extract project_type field (brownfield or greenfield)

2. If project_type: brownfield:

   a. Check for codebase analysis:

   test -f .humaninloop/memory/codebase-analysis.md
   

   b. If NOT found: Block and direct user to setup

   AskUserQuestion(
     questions: [{
       question: "This is a brownfield project but codebase analysis is missing.\n\nThe techspec command requires `.humaninloop/memory/codebase-analysis.md` which is created by `/humaninloop:setup` in brownfield mode.\n\nHow would you like to proceed?",
       header: "Missing Analysis",
       options: [
         {label: "Run setup first", description: "Exit and run /humaninloop:setup in brownfield mode"},
         {label: "Treat as greenfield", description: "Proceed without brownfield context (not recommended)"}
       ],
       multiSelect: false
     }]
   )
   

   • If "Run setup first" → Exit with instruction to run /humaninloop:setup
   • If "Treat as greenfield" → Proceed but log warning

   c. If found: Check staleness and log

   # Get analysis file age in days
   analysis_age=$(( ($(date +%s) - $(stat -f %m .humaninloop/memory/codebase-analysis.md)) / 86400 ))
   

   • If age > 14 days: Log warning to user:

     ⚠️ Codebase analysis is {age} days old. Consider re-running /humaninloop:setup if the codebase has changed significantly.
     

   • Proceed to Resume Detection

3. If project_type: greenfield (or field missing):

   • Proceed to Resume Detection (no brownfield analysis needed)

---

Pre-Execution: Resume Detection

Before starting, check for interrupted techspec workflows:

1. Check for existing techspec-context.md:

   test -f specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/techspec-context.md
   

2. If found: Read frontmatter, check status and phase fields

3. If status is not completed:

   AskUserQuestion(
     questions: [{
       question: "Found interrupted techspec workflow for '{feature_id}' (phase: {phase}, status: {status}). Resume or start fresh?",
       header: "Resume?",
       options: [
         {label: "Resume", description: "Continue from {phase} phase"},
         {label: "Start fresh", description: "Delete technical artifacts and restart"}
       ],
       multiSelect: false
     }]
   )
   

4. If resume: Read context, jump to appropriate phase based on status (see State Recovery)

5. If fresh: Delete technical artifacts (technical/ directory, workflow reports) and proceed

---

Phase 1: Initialize

1.1 Create Directories

mkdir -p specs/{feature-id}/technical

1.2 Create Techspec Context

Use the template at ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/templates/techspec-context-template.md.

Write to specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/techspec-context.md with these values:

Placeholder	Value
{{phase}}	core
{{status}}	awaiting-analyst
{{iteration}}	1
{{feature_id}}	Feature ID
{{created}}	ISO date
{{updated}}	ISO date
{{core_status}}	pending
{{supplementary_status}}	pending
{{spec_status}}	present
{{spec_path}}	specs/{feature-id}/spec.md
{{constitution_path}}	Path to constitution
{{constitution_principles}}	Extracted key principles
{{project_type}}	brownfield or greenfield (from constitution)
{{requirements_path}}	specs/{feature-id}/technical/requirements.md
{{requirements_status}}	pending
{{constraints_path}}	specs/{feature-id}/technical/constraints.md
{{constraints_status}}	pending
{{nfrs_path}}	specs/{feature-id}/technical/nfrs.md
{{nfrs_status}}	pending
{{integrations_path}}	specs/{feature-id}/technical/integrations.md
{{integrations_status}}	pending
{{datasensitivity_path}}	specs/{feature-id}/technical/data-sensitivity.md
{{datasensitivity_status}}	pending
{{techanalyst_report_path}}	specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/techanalyst-report.md
{{architect_report_path}}	specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/architect-report.md
{{advocate_report_path}}	specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/advocate-report.md
{{codebase_analysis_path}}	.humaninloop/memory/codebase-analysis.md (if brownfield)
{{codebase_analysis_age}}	Age in days (if brownfield)
{{codebase_context}}	Empty (filled by analyst if brownfield)
{{supervisor_instructions}}	See Phase 2 for initial instructions
{{clarification_log}}	Empty on first iteration

---

Phase 2: Core Requirements (Pass 1)

2.1 Set Supervisor Instructions for Technical Analyst

Update {{supervisor_instructions}} in techspec-context.md:

**Phase**: Core Requirements

Translate the business specification into technical requirements and constraints.

**Read**:
- Spec: `specs/{feature-id}/spec.md`
- Constitution: `.humaninloop/memory/constitution.md`

**Write**:
- Technical Requirements: `specs/{feature-id}/technical/requirements.md`
- Technical Constraints: `specs/{feature-id}/technical/constraints.md`
- Report: `specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/techanalyst-report.md`

**Use Skills**:
- `authoring-technical-requirements`

**Brownfield Context** (if `project_type: brownfield`):
- Read existing analysis from `.humaninloop/memory/codebase-analysis.md`
- Do NOT invoke `analysis-codebase` skill—use the cached results from setup

**Report format**: Follow `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/templates/techanalyst-report-template.md`

2.2 Update Context Status

Update techspec-context.md frontmatter:

phase: core
status: awaiting-analyst
updated: {ISO date}

2.3 Invoke Technical Analyst

Task(
  subagent_type: "humaninloop:technical-analyst",
  prompt: "Read your instructions from: specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/techspec-context.md",
  description: "Create technical requirements"
)

2.4 Verify Output

Confirm the agent created:

• specs/{feature-id}/technical/requirements.md
• specs/{feature-id}/technical/constraints.md
• specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/techanalyst-report.md

If missing, report error and stop.

2.5 Principal Architect Feasibility Review

Update context for architect:

**Phase**: Core Requirements Feasibility Review

Review the technical requirements and constraints for feasibility.

**Read**:
- Spec: `specs/{feature-id}/spec.md`
- Technical Requirements: `specs/{feature-id}/technical/requirements.md`
- Technical Constraints: `specs/{feature-id}/technical/constraints.md`
- TechAnalyst report: `specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/techanalyst-report.md`

**Write**:
- Report: `specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/architect-report.md`

**Focus Areas**:
- Constraint validity: Are constraints real technical limitations or disguised preferences?
- Acceptance criteria achievability: Can each criterion actually be tested?
- Requirement-constraint contradictions: Do any requirements conflict with constraints?

**Report format**: Follow `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/templates/architect-report-template.md`

Update status:

status: awaiting-architect

Invoke architect:

Task(
  subagent_type: "humaninloop:principal-architect",
  prompt: "Read your instructions from: specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/techspec-context.md",
  description: "Review core feasibility"
)

2.6 Route Based on Architect Verdict

Read architect report and extract verdict.

If verdict is feasible:

• Proceed to 2.7 (Devil's Advocate review)

If verdict is infeasible or needs-revision:

• Enter Feasibility Rejection Loop (see below)
• After user decision and analyst revision → re-submit to architect (back to 2.5)

2.7 Devil's Advocate Completeness Review

Update context for advocate:

**Phase**: Core Requirements Completeness Review

Review the technical requirements and constraints for completeness and gaps.

**Read**:
- Spec: `specs/{feature-id}/spec.md`
- Technical Requirements: `specs/{feature-id}/technical/requirements.md`
- Technical Constraints: `specs/{feature-id}/technical/constraints.md`
- TechAnalyst report: `specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/techanalyst-report.md`

**Write**:
- Report: `specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/advocate-report.md`

**Use Skills**:
- `validation-plan-artifacts` (phase: T0)

**Focus Areas**:
- FR coverage: Is every functional requirement from spec.md mapped to at least one TR?
- Orphan TRs: Are there technical requirements with no business source?
- Testable criteria: Does every TR have measurable acceptance criteria?
- Sourced constraints: Is every constraint traceable to a real limitation?

**Report format**: Follow `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/templates/advocate-report-template.md`

Update status:

status: awaiting-advocate

Invoke advocate:

Task(
  subagent_type: "humaninloop:devils-advocate",
  prompt: "Read your instructions from: specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/techspec-context.md",
  description: "Review core completeness"
)

2.8 Route Based on Advocate Verdict

Read advocate report and extract verdict.

If verdict is ready:

• Update core_status to complete
• Update requirements_status and constraints_status to complete
• Proceed to Phase 3 (Supplementary Requirements)

If verdict is needs-revision or critical-gaps:

• Enter Clarification Loop (see below)
• After user answers and analyst revision → route back:
  • Skip architect re-review UNLESS structural changes occurred:
    • New constraints added or existing constraints changed
    • Requirement scope expanded significantly
  • If only clarifications were addressed (adding detail, fixing traceability) → go directly to 2.7
  • If structural changes occurred → go back to 2.5

---

Phase 3: Supplementary Requirements (Pass 2)

3.1 Set Supervisor Instructions for Technical Analyst

Update {{supervisor_instructions}} in techspec-context.md:

**Phase**: Supplementary Requirements

Layer operational concerns on top of the core technical requirements.

**Read**:
- Spec: `specs/{feature-id}/spec.md`
- Technical Requirements: `specs/{feature-id}/technical/requirements.md`
- Technical Constraints: `specs/{feature-id}/technical/constraints.md`
- Constitution: `.humaninloop/memory/constitution.md`

**Write**:
- Non-Functional Requirements: `specs/{feature-id}/technical/nfrs.md`
- System Integrations: `specs/{feature-id}/technical/integrations.md`
- Data Sensitivity: `specs/{feature-id}/technical/data-sensitivity.md`
- Report: `specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/techanalyst-report.md`

**Use Skills**:
- `authoring-technical-requirements`

**Brownfield Context** (if `project_type: brownfield`):
- Read existing analysis from `.humaninloop/memory/codebase-analysis.md`
- Do NOT invoke `analysis-codebase` skill—use the cached results from setup

**Report format**: Follow `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/templates/techanalyst-report-template.md`

3.2 Update Context Status

Update techspec-context.md frontmatter:

phase: supplementary
status: awaiting-analyst
iteration: 1
updated: {ISO date}

3.3 Invoke Technical Analyst

Task(
  subagent_type: "humaninloop:technical-analyst",
  prompt: "Read your instructions from: specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/techspec-context.md",
  description: "Create supplementary requirements"
)

3.4 Verify Output

Confirm the agent created:

• specs/{feature-id}/technical/nfrs.md
• specs/{feature-id}/technical/integrations.md
• specs/{feature-id}/technical/data-sensitivity.md
• specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/techanalyst-report.md

If missing, report error and stop.

3.5 Principal Architect Feasibility Review

Update context for architect:

**Phase**: Supplementary Requirements Feasibility Review

Review the supplementary requirements for feasibility.

**Read**:
- Technical Requirements: `specs/{feature-id}/technical/requirements.md`
- Technical Constraints: `specs/{feature-id}/technical/constraints.md`
- Non-Functional Requirements: `specs/{feature-id}/technical/nfrs.md`
- System Integrations: `specs/{feature-id}/technical/integrations.md`
- Data Sensitivity: `specs/{feature-id}/technical/data-sensitivity.md`
- TechAnalyst report: `specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/techanalyst-report.md`

**Write**:
- Report: `specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/architect-report.md`

**Focus Areas**:
- NFR measurability: Can each NFR target actually be measured with the specified method?
- NFR-constraint conflicts: Do any NFR targets contradict existing constraints?
- Integration failure modes: Are fallback strategies realistic and implementable?

**Report format**: Follow `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/templates/architect-report-template.md`

Update status:

status: awaiting-architect

Invoke architect:

Task(
  subagent_type: "humaninloop:principal-architect",
  prompt: "Read your instructions from: specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/techspec-context.md",
  description: "Review supplementary feasibility"
)

3.6 Route Based on Architect Verdict

Same logic as Phase 2.6:

If feasible: Proceed to 3.7

If infeasible or needs-revision: Feasibility Rejection Loop → back to 3.5

3.7 Devil's Advocate Completeness Review

Update context for advocate:

**Phase**: Supplementary Requirements Completeness Review (INCREMENTAL MODE)

**Full Review** the supplementary requirements for completeness and quality.
**Consistency Check** core requirements using cross-artifact checklist.

**Full Review**:
- Non-Functional Requirements: `specs/{feature-id}/technical/nfrs.md`
- System Integrations: `specs/{feature-id}/technical/integrations.md`
- Data Sensitivity: `specs/{feature-id}/technical/data-sensitivity.md`
- TechAnalyst report: `specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/techanalyst-report.md`

**Consistency Check Only** (2-3 min max):
- Technical Requirements: `specs/{feature-id}/technical/requirements.md`
- Technical Constraints: `specs/{feature-id}/technical/constraints.md`

**Write**:
- Report: `specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/advocate-report.md`

**Use Skills**:
- `validation-plan-artifacts` (phase: T1, mode: incremental)

**Full Review Checks**:
- NFR coverage: Are all quality attributes addressed?
- Integration completeness: Are all external systems catalogued with failure modes?
- Data classification: Is all PII/sensitive data identified?

**Consistency Checks**:
- NFR sources trace to valid TRs
- Integration points align with constraints
- Data sensitivity aligns with requirements

**Time Budget**:
- Supplementary full review: unlimited
- Core consistency check: 2-3 minutes max

**Report format**: Follow `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/templates/advocate-report-template.md`

Update status:

status: awaiting-advocate

Invoke advocate:

Task(
  subagent_type: "humaninloop:devils-advocate",
  prompt: "Read your instructions from: specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/techspec-context.md",
  description: "Review supplementary completeness"
)

3.8 Route Based on Advocate Verdict

Read advocate report and extract verdict.

If verdict is ready:

• Update supplementary_status to complete
• Update nfrs_status, integrations_status, datasensitivity_status to complete
• Proceed to Phase 4 (Completion)

If verdict is needs-revision or critical-gaps:

• Enter Clarification Loop
• After user answers and analyst revision → route back:
  • Skip architect re-review UNLESS structural changes occurred:
    • NFR targets modified
    • Integration boundaries changed
    • New constraints implied by supplementary analysis
  • If only clarifications → go directly to 3.7
  • If structural changes → go back to 3.5

---

Feasibility Rejection Loop

When the Principal Architect verdict is infeasible or needs-revision:

1. Present architect's concerns to user using AskUserQuestion:

   AskUserQuestion(
     questions: issues.map(issue => ({
       question: "Feasibility concern: {issue.description}\n\nEvidence: {issue.evidence}\n\nImpact on design: {issue.impact}\n\nSuggested resolution: {issue.suggested_resolution}",
       header: issue.id || "Feasibility",
       options: [
         {label: "Accept resolution", description: "Apply the suggested resolution"},
         {label: "Relax requirement", description: "Reduce the target or remove the constraint"},
         {label: "Keep as-is", description: "Proceed despite the concern (architect will re-review)"},
         {label: "Provide direction", description: "I'll give specific guidance"}
       ],
       multiSelect: false
     }))
   )
   

2. Log user decisions in clarification log:

   ### Phase: {phase} - Feasibility Iteration {N}
   
   #### Architect Concerns
   {List from architect report}
   
   #### User Decisions
   | Issue | Decision | User Direction |
   |-------|----------|----------------|
   | {issue} | {accept/relax/keep/custom} | {user's specific direction} |
   

3. Update supervisor instructions for revision:

   **Phase**: {phase} (Feasibility Revision)
   
   Revise the technical artifacts based on user decisions about feasibility concerns.
   
   **Read**:
   - Current artifacts: `specs/{feature-id}/technical/`
   - Architect concerns and user decisions: See `## Clarification Log` below
   - Spec: `specs/{feature-id}/spec.md`
   
   **Write**:
   - Updated artifacts: `specs/{feature-id}/technical/`
   - Report: `specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/techanalyst-report.md`
   
   **Report format**: Follow `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/templates/techanalyst-report-template.md`
   

4. Increment iteration in context frontmatter

5. Re-invoke Technical Analyst → then re-submit to Principal Architect

---

Clarification Loop

When advocate verdict is needs-revision or critical-gaps:

1. Present clarifications to user using AskUserQuestion:

   AskUserQuestion(
     questions: clarifications.map(c => ({
       question: c.question,
       header: c.gap_id,
       options: [
         ...(c.options || [
           {label: "Yes", description: ""},
           {label: "No", description: ""}
         ]),
         {label: "Research this", description: "Let me investigate before answering"}
       ],
       multiSelect: false
     }))
   )
   

2. Handle "Research this" responses:

   If user selects "Research this" for any question:

   a. Analyze the question to determine appropriate research:

   • Existing code/behavior → Task(subagent_type: "Explore")
   • External library/API → WebSearch for docs
   • Best practices → WebSearch + codebase patterns
   • Specific library → mcp__context7__query-docs if available

   b. Execute research with supervisor judgment:

   Task(
     subagent_type: "Explore",
     prompt: "Find the answer to: {question}\n\nContext: {gap context}",
     description: "Research gap: {gap_id}"
   )
   

   c. Process results:

   • Definitive answer: Log with evidence, ask user to confirm or override

     AskUserQuestion(
       questions: [{
         question: "Research found: {answer}\n\nSource: {file:line or URL}",
         header: c.gap_id,
         options: [
           {label: "Accept this answer", description: "Use the researched answer"},
           {label: "Provide different answer", description: "I'll give my own answer"}
         ],
         multiSelect: false
       }]
     )
     

   • Inconclusive: Re-present question with research context added

   d. Continue with remaining questions or loop for more research

3. Update context with user answers: Append to ## Clarification Log:

   ### Phase: {phase} - Iteration {N}
   
   #### Gaps Identified
   {List from advocate report}
   
   #### User Answers
   | Gap ID | Question | Answer | Source |
   |--------|----------|--------|--------|
   | G1 | {question} | {user's answer} | user |
   | G2 | {question} | {researched answer} | research: {file:line} |
   

4. Update supervisor instructions for revision:

   **Phase**: {phase} (Revision)
   
   Revise the technical artifacts based on user feedback.
   
   **Read**:
   - Current artifacts: `specs/{feature-id}/technical/`
   - Gaps and user answers: See `## Clarification Log` below
   - Spec: `specs/{feature-id}/spec.md`
   
   **Write**:
   - Updated artifacts: `specs/{feature-id}/technical/`
   - Report: `specs/{feature-id}/.workflow/techanalyst-report.md`
   
   **Report format**: Follow `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/templates/techanalyst-report-template.md`
   

5. Increment iteration in context frontmatter

6. Loop back to Technical Analyst invocation

---

Supervisor Judgment: When to Exit Early

Use your judgment to recommend exiting if:

• Gaps aren't resolving: Same issues recurring across iterations
• Only minor gaps remain: Offer to finalize with known limitations
• User seems satisfied: Offer to complete even with open gaps

Always give the user the choice—never force-terminate without consent:

AskUserQuestion(
  questions: [{
    question: "We've been iterating on the {phase} phase. {Context}. How should we proceed?",
    header: "Next Step",
    options: [
      {label: "Continue refining", description: "Another round of revision"},
      {label: "Accept current state", description: "Proceed to next phase with known gaps"},
      {label: "Stop and review manually", description: "Exit workflow, review artifacts yourself"}
    ],
    multiSelect: false
  }]
)

---

Phase 4: Completion

4.1 Update Final Status

Update techspec-context.md frontmatter:

phase: completed
status: completed
core_status: complete
supplementary_status: complete
updated: {ISO date}

Update all artifact statuses:

requirements_status: complete
constraints_status: complete
nfrs_status: complete
integrations_status: complete
datasensitivity_status: complete

4.2 Generate Completion Report

Output to user:

## Technical Specification Complete

**Feature**: {feature_id}

### Summary
- Technical Requirements: {count from requirements.md}
- Constraints: {count from constraints.md}
- Non-Functional Requirements: {count from nfrs.md}
- Integration Points: {count from integrations.md}
- Data Classifications: {count from data-sensitivity.md}

### Artifacts Generated
- `specs/{feature-id}/technical/requirements.md` - FR → TR mapping
- `specs/{feature-id}/technical/constraints.md` - Technical boundaries
- `specs/{feature-id}/technical/nfrs.md` - Performance & quality targets
- `specs/{feature-id}/technical/integrations.md` - System boundaries
- `specs/{feature-id}/technical/data-sensitivity.md` - Data classification

### Known Limitations
{Any minor gaps deferred, if applicable}

### Next Steps
1. Review the technical specification in `specs/{feature-id}/technical/`
2. Run `/humaninloop:plan` to create implementation plan

---

Error Handling

Agent Failure

**Agent Failed**

Error: {error_message}
Agent: {agent_name}
Phase: {phase}

The workflow state has been saved. Run `/humaninloop:techspec` to resume from {phase} phase.

Missing Files

If expected output files are missing after agent invocation:

1. Log the issue
2. Ask user: Retry agent, or abort?

---

State Recovery

Resume logic based on phase and status fields:

Phase	Status	Resume Point
core	awaiting-analyst	Phase 2.3 (invoke analyst)
core	awaiting-architect	Phase 2.5 (invoke architect)
core	awaiting-advocate	Phase 2.7 (invoke advocate)
core	awaiting-user	Clarification loop or Feasibility rejection loop
supplementary	awaiting-analyst	Phase 3.3 (invoke analyst)
supplementary	awaiting-architect	Phase 3.5 (invoke architect)
supplementary	awaiting-advocate	Phase 3.7 (invoke advocate)
supplementary	awaiting-user	Clarification loop or Feasibility rejection loop
completed	completed	Report already done

---

Important Notes

• Do NOT modify git config or push to remote
• Use judgment for iteration limits (no hard caps)
• Always use Task tool to invoke agents
• Agents have NO workflow knowledge—all context via context file
• Supervisor owns ALL routing and state decisions
• Architect reviews feasibility first—prevents wasting time reviewing completeness of infeasible requirements
• After advocate-driven revisions, skip architect re-review unless structural changes occurred (new constraints, changed requirement scope, modified NFR targets, changed integration boundaries)
• Technical Analyst does NOT make technology choices—that remains plan-architect's responsibility