blueprint

blueprint: Requirements → Executable Plan

Overview

Transform <spec_dir>/requirements.md (from /specify) into an executable blueprint that /execute can run without rework:

1. Contract Synthesis — derive cross-module agreements (types, interfaces, invariants) that keep parallel work safe
2. Task Graph — layered DAG (L0 Foundation → L1 Feature → L2 Integration → L3 Deploy) where every sub-requirement has ≥1 fulfilling task
3. Journey Detection — identify multi-sub-req user flows that need end-to-end coverage
4. Verify Plan — assign verification gates (1=machine, 2=agent_semantic, 3=agent_e2e, 4=human) per sub-req and per journey
5. Commit — run cross-ref validation and hand off to /execute

Contract-first principle: lock "how modules talk" before anyone writes code. Parallel workers can't break each other's shapes; required invariants are called out explicitly.

Not blueprint's job: writing source code, running tests, interviewing for missing requirements. If requirements are incomplete, run /specify first.

Input / Output

Input

• <spec_dir>/requirements.md — required (produced by /specify)
• Optional: existing plan.json — treated as prior state, patched additively

Output

<spec_dir>/
├── requirements.md   # unchanged (input)
├── plan.json         # NEW/UPDATED: tasks + journeys + verify_plan + contracts summary
└── contracts.md      # NEW: cross-module surface (markdown). Optional for trivial bugfix.

Only those three files. No rendered view file, no language-specific stubs.

File role separation

• requirements.md — specify owns. Human-editable markdown with sub-requirements (GWT).
• plan.json — blueprint owns. Machine state. Schema: plan/v1 (see cli/schemas/plan.schema.json).
• contracts.md — blueprint creates. Sibling artifact referenced by plan.contracts.artifact. Markdown, language-agnostic.

---

Prerequisite: cli

All plan.json operations go through hoyeon-cli (NOT legacy hoyeon-cli):

Command	Purpose
hoyeon-cli plan init <spec_dir> --type <t>	Create empty stub (if missing)
hoyeon-cli plan merge <spec_dir> --json '<payload>' [--patch|--append]	Merge JSON with schema validation
hoyeon-cli plan get <spec_dir> --path <dotted>	Read field
hoyeon-cli plan validate <spec_dir>	Schema + internal cross-ref integrity

cli never parses requirements.md. Reading the markdown is the blueprint agent's job (via Read tool). cli only validates plan.json self-consistency. Coverage against requirements.md is enforced semantically by the LLM (Phase 2 / Phase 4 of this skill).

---

Scope Adaptation (meta.type)

meta.type	Contract artifact shape (when written)	Task graph	Approval
greenfield	Full surface: types + interfaces + invariants (~50-200 lines)	L0-L3, parallel L1	Full review
feature	Delta only: new types/interfaces this feature adds (~10-50 lines)	L0-L2, parallel if multi-module	Standard
refactor	Pin-style: ## Frozen Public API + ## Allowed Churn + ## Invariants	Flat list with invariant guards	Light
bugfix	Minimal: typically just an ## Invariants section	Single chain (1-3 tasks)	Auto-approve if no ambiguity

contracts.md is content-driven, not type-driven. Write it whenever contract-deriver finds any cross-module content (≥1 invariant or interface) — regardless of meta.type. Skip the file (return artifact: null) only when the agent genuinely has nothing to pin. A bugfix with 3 load-bearing invariants gets a file; a feature that only adds a config flag may not. meta.type decides the template shape, not the file's existence.

meta.type normally comes from /specify (written into requirements.md frontmatter). If the field is missing — manual authoring, legacy spec, etc. — infer it using this priority (stop at the first matching rule):

1. Keywords in goal (highest signal, author's stated intent)

   • Contains refactor / migrate / restructure / rewrite → refactor
   • Contains fix / bug / regression / broken → bugfix

2. Repo state (hard physical signal — either empty or not)

   • spec_dir's parent repo has no source files (empty / fresh scaffold) → greenfield

3. Size (weakest heuristic — only when 1 and 2 are silent)

   • < 5 sub-reqs → bugfix
   • < 15 sub-reqs → feature
   • ≥ 15 sub-reqs → greenfield

On conflict, stop and ask. If signals point to different types (e.g., keyword says refactor but repo is empty → greenfield), do NOT silently pick one. Emit AskUserQuestion with the top 2 candidates and let the user decide. Do not proceed to Phase 1 until confirmed.

---

Phase 0: Init

Step 0.1: Resolve spec_dir

• If user passed a path, use it. Otherwise ask: "Which spec_dir? (e.g., .hoyeon/specs/my-thing/)"
• Error if <spec_dir>/requirements.md does not exist — tell user to run /specify first.

Step 0.2: Read requirements.md

Use Read tool directly. Do not shell out to cli for parsing — cli has no such command.

Extract (you, the main agent, parse this from the markdown):

• Frontmatter: type, goal, non_goals (YAML between --- delimiters)
• Sub-requirements: every ## R-X<num>: parent + each #### R-X<num>.Y: child with given/when/then fields
• Open decisions (optional): any ### OD-N: blocks

Build an internal list:

reqs = [
  { parent: "R-B1", title: "...", subs: [
    { id: "R-B1.1", title: "...", given: "...", when: "...", then: "..." },
    ...
  ]},
  ...
]

Step 0.3: Init plan.json stub

hoyeon-cli plan init <spec_dir> --type <meta.type>

If plan.json already exists (re-run), skip init and treat as patch-merge mode.

Step 0.4: Patch meta with real goal/non_goals

cat > /tmp/bp-meta.json << 'EOF'
{"meta": {"type": "<t>", "goal": "<goal>", "non_goals": ["..."]}}
EOF
hoyeon-cli plan merge <spec_dir> --patch --json "$(cat /tmp/bp-meta.json)"

---

Phase 0.5: Codebase Reconnaissance (non-greenfield only)

Skip if meta.type == greenfield. For feature, refactor, and bugfix, scan the existing codebase so that contract derivation and task planning are grounded in real code structure — not just requirements text.

Step 0.5.1: Dispatch code-explorer (parallel)

Agent(subagent_type="code-explorer",
  prompt="Goal: {meta.goal}. Find: project structure, modules, existing interfaces/types
         relevant to this change. Report as file:line with brief summary.",
  run_in_background=true)

Agent(subagent_type="code-explorer",
  prompt="Goal: {meta.goal}. Find: existing test infrastructure (test runner, test dirs,
         fixture patterns) and build/lint commands. Report as file:line.",
  run_in_background=true)

Agent(subagent_type="code-explorer",
  prompt="Goal: {meta.goal}. Blast radius analysis:
         1. Find all callers/consumers of the modules being changed
         2. Find existing tests that cover these modules (test files + test names)
         3. Identify existing user-facing or API flows that pass through these modules
         4. Flag flows that have NO existing test coverage
         Report as: affected_flows (name + file:line entry), existing_tests (file:line),
         untested_flows (name + why no test found).",
  run_in_background=true)

Step 0.5.2: Build code context summary

Consolidate agent results into a short context block (keep in memory, not a file):

code_context = {
  modules: ["src/api/", "src/storage/", "src/ui/"],
  existing_interfaces: ["StorageAPI (src/storage/types.ts:12)", ...],
  test_infra: "vitest, src/__tests__/, no E2E setup",
  entry_points: ["src/main.ts", "src/api/router.ts"],
  blast_radius: {
    affected_flows: ["checkout flow (src/api/orders.ts:45 → src/payment/charge.ts:12)"],
    existing_tests: ["test/checkout.test.ts", "test/payment.integration.ts"],
    untested_flows: ["admin refund flow (no test found)"]
  }
}

Pass code_context to Phase 1 (contract-deriver), Phase 2 (taskgraph-planner), and Phase 3 (journey detection) agent prompts alongside requirements.md content. This helps agents ground their output in actual file structure rather than inventing module names.

---

Phase 1: Contract Synthesis

Goal: produce the minimal cross-module surface area.

Step 1.1: Dispatch contract-deriver agent

Pass:

• Full requirements.md content (you already read it in 0.2 — inline into agent prompt)
• Detected meta.type
• spec_dir absolute path
• code_context summary from Phase 0.5 (if non-greenfield; omit for greenfield)

The agent writes <spec_dir>/contracts.md (markdown) and returns:

{
  "artifact": "contracts.md",
  "interfaces": ["InputAPI", "StorageAPI", "RendererAPI"],
  "invariants": ["INV-1: ...", "INV-2: ..."],
  "ambiguities": []
}

File existence is content-driven (all types). If the agent produces any invariants[] or interfaces[], it writes contracts.md. If there is genuinely nothing cross-module to pin, it returns "artifact": null and the invariants (if any) live in plan.contracts.invariants. This rule is the same for every meta.type; the type only decides the file's internal shape.

Step 1.2: Merge contracts into plan.json

cat > /tmp/bp-contracts.json << 'EOF'
{"contracts": {"artifact": "contracts.md", "interfaces": [...], "invariants": [...]}}
EOF
hoyeon-cli plan merge <spec_dir> --patch --json "$(cat /tmp/bp-contracts.json)"

---

Phase 2: Task Graph

Goal: every sub-requirement is fulfilled by ≥1 task; parallelism is explicit.

Step 2.1: Dispatch taskgraph-planner agent

Pass:

• Full requirements.md content
• Phase 1 contracts summary (artifact name + interfaces + invariants)
• meta.type
• code_context summary from Phase 0.5 (if non-greenfield; omit for greenfield)

Expected output:

{
  "tasks": [
    {
      "id": "T1",
      "layer": "L0",
      "action": "write contracts.md + storage sig util",
      "fulfills": ["R-T2.1", "R-T7.1"],
      "depends_on": [],
      "parallel_safe": false
    },
    ...
  ],
  "ambiguities": []
}

Tasks carry WHAT, not HOW. The action string is the only description field; it must capture intent, not file paths / function names / estimated time. Workers decide implementation detail — locking HOW into plan.json causes drift when the worker discovers the real shape mid-implementation.

Step 2.2: Coverage gate (semantic, by you)

cli does NOT verify coverage against requirements.md. You must ensure:

• Every R-X.Y sub-requirement appears in at least one tasks[].fulfills. Build a set diff:

  uncovered = { all sub_req_ids } − union(tasks[].fulfills)
  

  If uncovered is non-empty, re-dispatch taskgraph-planner with the list as a constraint. Max 2 retries. If still uncovered, surface to user.

• No task references a non-existent sub-req ID (orphan). Drop orphans before merging.

• Parallel safety: for each L1 task pair with parallel_safe: true, double-check they touch different modules and share only L0 contract state. If uncertain → set parallel_safe: false (serial is safe default).

Step 2.3: Preview task graph for user

Before merging, show the user what was planned. Print a readable summary:

[blueprint] Task Graph (Phase 2)

| # | Layer | Action | Fulfills | Depends | Parallel |
|---|-------|--------|----------|---------|----------|
| T1 | L0 | write contracts.md + storage sig | R-T2.1, R-T7.1 | — | no |
| T2 | L1 | implement auth flow | R-U1.1, R-U1.2 | T1 | yes |
| ...

Coverage: 12/12 sub-reqs fulfilled (0 uncovered)

Auto-approve: meta.type == bugfix AND no ambiguities → skip the ask, print the table, proceed. Otherwise ask:

AskUserQuestion(
  question: "Proceed with this task graph?",
  options: [
    { label: "Approve", description: "Merge tasks into plan.json and continue" },
    { label: "Revise", description: "Re-generate with feedback" },
    { label: "Abort", description: "Stop blueprint" }
  ]
)

If Revise: ask what to change, re-dispatch taskgraph-planner with the feedback. Max 2 revision rounds. If Abort: exit skill.

Step 2.4: Merge tasks into plan.json

cat > /tmp/bp-tasks.json << 'EOF'
{"tasks": [ ... ]}
EOF
hoyeon-cli plan merge <spec_dir> --append --json "$(cat /tmp/bp-tasks.json)"

Use --append on first write. Use --patch later if you need to update individual task fields by id.

---

Phase 3: Journey Detection

Goal: identify multi-sub-req user flows that need E2E coverage.

A journey composes ≥2 sub-requirements into a single linear user flow, with its own given/when/then. Example: "user signs up → confirms email → sees dashboard" might compose R-U1.1 (signup form) + R-U1.2 (email confirm) + R-U2.1 (dashboard initial render).

Step 3.1: Heuristic detection (inline by you)

Scan the sub-req list for clusters where:

• 2+ sub-reqs share a common actor (user, admin, API client)
• Their when clauses chain naturally (next action follows prior outcome)
• There is a meaningful top-level outcome only visible after running them together

Not every spec has journeys. Bugfix specs usually have 0. Greenfield user-facing specs usually have 2-5.

Step 3.1b: Regression journey detection (non-greenfield only)

Skip if meta.type == greenfield or code_context.blast_radius is empty.

Scan code_context.blast_radius.affected_flows for existing flows that pass through modules being changed. For each affected flow, generate a regression journey with [regression] prefix in the name:

Heuristic: an affected flow becomes a regression journey when:

• It passes through ≥1 module that a task in the task graph modifies
• It represents a user-visible or API-facing behavior (not internal-only)

Link to tasks: identify which tasks (T1, T2, ...) touch the affected modules, and list them in the journey's composes field alongside any related new sub-req IDs.

Prioritize untested flows: flows from blast_radius.untested_flows are higher priority — they have no safety net and MUST become regression journeys if they are user-facing.

Regression journeys use the same schema as regular journeys — no schema change needed.

Step 3.2: Emit journey entries

For each detected journey:

{
  "id": "J1",
  "name": "new user onboarding",
  "composes": ["R-U1.1", "R-U1.2", "R-U2.1"],
  "given": "no prior account",
  "when":  "user completes signup → confirms email → lands on dashboard",
  "then":  "dashboard shows welcome state with 0 items"
}

Regression journey example (from Step 3.1b):

{
  "id": "J3",
  "name": "[regression] checkout flow preserved after payment module change",
  "composes": ["R-T1.1", "R-T1.2"],
  "given": "existing checkout flow works with valid payment",
  "when": "user completes purchase after code changes from T3/T5",
  "then": "checkout succeeds identically to pre-change behavior"
}

Constraints (enforced by schema):

• id matches ^J\d+$
• composes has ≥2 items, each is a valid R-X.Y id
• given, when, then all non-empty strings
• Regression journeys use [regression] prefix in name — same schema, no special type field

Step 3.3: Merge journeys

cat > /tmp/bp-journeys.json << 'EOF'
{"journeys": [ ... ]}
EOF
hoyeon-cli plan merge <spec_dir> --append --json "$(cat /tmp/bp-journeys.json)"

---

Phase 4: Verify Plan

Goal: every sub-req AND every journey gets a gate assignment.

4-Gate model (cumulative; each gate adds, never replaces)

Gate	Name	What it means	Typical cost
1	machine	Deterministic check: unit test, type check, file contents, shell exit code	seconds, free
2	agent_semantic	LLM reads code/output and judges "does this match the described intent?"	~1 minute, model call
3	agent_e2e	Real runtime observation: browser, computer-use, CLI run, API call	minutes, sandbox
4	human	Subjective judgment: playtest, aesthetic review, "feels right"	hours, blocking on user

Baseline rules (always apply)

• Every sub-req and journey gets Gate 1 + Gate 2 as minimum.
• Journeys additionally get Gate 3 by default (journeys exist precisely because E2E flow matters).
• Regression journeys (name starts with [regression]) get Gate 1 (run existing tests from blast_radius.existing_tests) + Gate 3 (E2E confirmation). Gate 1 is especially important here: if existing tests exist for the affected flow, running them IS the regression check. Gate 2 is optional for regression journeys (semantic review adds less value when the behavior should be identical to pre-change).

Add Gate 3 (agent_e2e) when sub-req involves:

• Visible UI behavior (visible, rendered, displayed, shown, animation, screen shake, transition)
• User interaction (click, tap, swipe, drag, hover, keyboard)
• External system calls (fetch, request, API, database query, file IO where contents matter beyond schema)
• Platform-specific behavior (mobile, desktop, browser tab, window)

Add Gate 4 (human) when sub-req involves:

• Subjective quality (feel, good UX, intuitive, natural, fun, pleasant)
• Statistical/behavioral metrics requiring real users (average retry rate, time-on-task, % of users who, sample size, playtest)
• Judgement calls no model can ground (appropriate, reasonable, tasteful)

Step 4.1: Dispatch verify-planner agent

Pass:

• Full requirements.md content (for GWT text)
• Full journeys[] from Phase 3
• The 4-gate rules above

Expected output:

{
  "verify_plan": [
    { "target": "R-T2.1", "type": "sub_req", "gates": [1, 2] },
    { "target": "R-U5.1", "type": "sub_req", "gates": [1, 2, 3] },
    { "target": "R-B3.1", "type": "sub_req", "gates": [1, 2, 4] },
    { "target": "J1",     "type": "journey", "gates": [1, 2, 3] }
  ],
  "ambiguities": []
}

Step 4.2: Self-check (by you)

• Every sub-req id from requirements.md appears exactly once as a type: sub_req target.
• Every journey id appears exactly once as a type: journey target.
• Every entry has gates containing at least [1, 2].
• gates is a sorted unique integer array, each element in [1..4].

If mismatch, re-dispatch verify-planner with the gap list. Max 2 retries.

Step 4.3: Preview verify plan for user

Translate gate counts into user-facing consequences. The user should not have to decode G1/G2/G3/G4 labels — only understand what the plan will cost them and where their attention is actually required.

[blueprint] Verify Plan

  {N_all} checks will run automatically (code review + agent semantic)
  {N_e2e} of those also run in the browser/sandbox (visible UI, interaction, external calls)
  {N_human} items require YOU (playtest, sampled metrics, aesthetic review)

What you need to do: {none | <bullet list of G4 items with their GWT>}

Example with no G4:

[blueprint] Verify Plan

  46 checks will run automatically
  26 of those also run in the browser sandbox
  0 items require you

What you need to do: nothing — fully machine/agent-verifiable.

Example with G4:

[blueprint] Verify Plan

  18 checks will run automatically
  7 of those also run in the browser sandbox
  1 item requires you:
    • R-B4.1 "retry rate averages 3+ per session" — needs a playtest with 3+ users

What you need to do: 1 playtest session.

Auto-approve rule (skip the generic "proceed?" prompt):

• No ambiguities[] with user_impact: time or confidence (after the filter), AND
• No G4 gates in verify_plan, AND
• meta.type is bugfix, feature, or refactor

Under auto-approve: print the preview block, log "auto-approving (no user-owned commitments)", proceed to Step 4.4.

When to actually ask: only when the user has something real to decide. Build the question from the filtered ambiguities queue (see "Ambiguity Handling" section) and/or G4 confirmations:

AskUserQuestion(
  # one question per user-impact ambiguity, phrased in user terms, NOT gate labels
  # Example (time-impact):
  question: "R-B4.1 needs real-user data ('retry rate averages 3+') — commit to a 3-user playtest, or relax this requirement to code-review only?",
  options: [
    { label: "Commit to playtest", description: "Add human verification — you run a session with 3+ users before ship" },
    { label: "Relax the bar", description: "Drop the sampled-user requirement, rely on code review of the difficulty curve formula" }
  ]
)

Never expose "G1/G2/G3/G4", "gates: [1,2,3]", or "drop redundant G3" to the user. If the planner flagged an ambiguity that way, restate it: what real thing does the user gain/lose by each option?

If the user chooses to revise: apply the chosen option to verify_plan (add/drop gates as implied), re-preview once. Max 2 rounds, then proceed with the last-confirmed plan.

Step 4.4: Merge verify_plan

cat > /tmp/bp-verify.json << 'EOF'
{"verify_plan": [ ... ]}
EOF
hoyeon-cli plan merge <spec_dir> --append --json "$(cat /tmp/bp-verify.json)"

---

Phase 5: Commit

Step 5.1: Full validation

hoyeon-cli plan validate <spec_dir>

This runs schema validation AND these internal cross-ref checks:

1. tasks[].fulfills ⊆ verify_plan sub_req targets
2. journeys[].composes ⊆ verify_plan sub_req targets
3. Every journeys[].id has a verify_plan entry of type: journey
4. Every verify_plan type: journey target matches a declared journey id
5. tasks[].depends_on ⊆ tasks[].id

If validation fails, diagnose the specific rule violation and re-merge corrected JSON. Never ignore a validation failure.

Step 5.2: Approval gate

Show the user a compact summary:

[blueprint] Plan complete.

Summary:
  Type:      greenfield
  Tasks:     11 (L0:2, L1:5 parallel, L2:3, L3:1)
  Journeys:  2
  Verify:    18 entries (G1:18, G2:18, G3:7, G4:1)
  Contracts: 5 interfaces, 3 invariants (contracts.md)

Next: /execute <spec_dir>/

Auto-approve rules:

• meta.type == bugfix AND no ambiguities → proceed silently
• --auto flag → skip summary
• Otherwise → show summary, ask y/n

Step 5.3: Handoff

✅ Blueprint committed.
   plan.json     ← 11 tasks, 2 journeys, 18 verify entries
   contracts.md  ← 5 interfaces, 3 invariants

Next: /execute <spec_dir>/

Exit skill.

---

Ambiguity Handling (strict)

Rule: surface ambiguities to the user only when they own the decision — i.e., the outcome changes what they must do, pay for, or commit to. Planner-internal optimizations (redundant gates, CSS-vs-measurement, pure-logic gate sufficiency) are NOT user decisions; apply the agent's recommendation silently and log it.

All three agents return ambiguities[] with this shape:

{ "concern": "...", "affects": ["...", "..."], "recommendation": "...", "user_impact": "time" | "confidence" | "none" }

user_impact semantics (see verify-planner.md for the canonical definition):

• time — forces human work (playtest, sampled metrics, aesthetic review). Always prompt.
• confidence — meaningfully swings verification confidence with no safe default. Prompt unless --auto.
• none — planner-internal call. Never prompt; apply recommendation and log.

Sources collected across phases:

• requirements.md ## Open Decisions section (OD-N blocks) — include if still unresolved (treat as user_impact: confidence by default)
• contract-deriver return field ambiguities[]
• taskgraph-planner return field ambiguities[]
• verify-planner return field ambiguities[]

Agents that do not yet emit user_impact (older contract-deriver / taskgraph-planner outputs) default to confidence unless the concern is obviously planner-internal.

Protocol

1. Collect — after each agent returns, extract its ambiguities[] into a single queue.
2. Filter — drop every item with user_impact: none. Apply its recommendation to the in-progress artifact and record one line in the run log: auto-resolved: <concern> → <recommendation>.
3. Dedupe — merge semantically overlapping items (e.g., OD-2 + a contract-deriver concern about the same decision). Prefer requirements.md wording as canonical.
4. Translate — rewrite each remaining item in user-impact language: what does the user gain/lose from each option? Do NOT expose internal labels (G1-G4, gate ids, dispatch types) in the question or options.
5. Prompt — emit AskUserQuestion for the translated queue. AskUserQuestion tops out at ~5 questions per call; batch across multiple calls in order. Each option must include the agent's recommendation marked (recommended).
6. Apply answers — patch the in-progress plan.json (or regenerate the affected section) before proceeding to the next phase.

Trust the filter. If the agent labeled something user_impact: none, do not second-guess and promote it to a prompt. The agents are instructed to be conservative; items that reach the queue with time or confidence already passed a "does the user own this?" test.

Flags

• --auto → skip all prompts, apply every recommendation silently (including time / confidence items), log applied decisions in the final summary
• Default (no flag): prompt only for user_impact in (time, confidence); always auto-resolve none

---

Agent Roster

Agent	Phase	Owns
contract-deriver	1	Writes contracts.md; returns interfaces + invariants + ambiguities
taskgraph-planner	2	Returns tasks[] + ambiguities
verify-planner	4	Returns verify_plan[] + ambiguities

Agents are globally registered at plugin-root /agents/{name}.md. Dispatch via the Agent tool with subagent_type: "<name>".

---

Command Reference (blueprint-only subset)

All state changes go through cli with one --json per merge. Never hand-write plan.json.

# Init (idempotent — skip if exists)
hoyeon-cli plan init <spec_dir> --type greenfield

# Patch meta (replace field values, keep unchanged fields)
hoyeon-cli plan merge <spec_dir> --patch --json '{"meta":{...}}'

# Append to arrays (tasks/journeys/verify_plan)
hoyeon-cli plan merge <spec_dir> --append --json '{"tasks":[...]}'

# Patch array items by id (update single task field)
hoyeon-cli plan merge <spec_dir> --patch --json '{"tasks":[{"id":"T3","status":"in_progress"}]}'

# Final sanity
hoyeon-cli plan validate <spec_dir>

JSON passing: always write to /tmp/bp-<step>.json via heredoc first, then pass with --json "$(cat ...)". Direct inlining breaks on zsh glob expansion ([, {, $).

---

Failure Modes

Failure	Recovery
requirements.md missing	Tell user to run /specify; abort
plan validate schema error	Diagnose (cli prints specific path + message), re-merge corrected JSON
plan validate cross-ref error (e.g., task fulfills missing from verify_plan)	Re-dispatch verify-planner with the missing ids
Uncovered sub-req after taskgraph-planner	Re-dispatch with uncovered list (max 2 retries), then surface to user
User rejects at Phase 5.2	Do NOT revert files. User can re-run or edit requirements.md and re-run.

---

Mode B: Inline call from /execute

When /execute is invoked without a plan.json, it may call this skill inline with --auto --no-summary. Same phases, no approval prompts. This is a flag combination, not a separate code path.

---

Non-Goals

• Re-interviewing requirements (that's /specify)
• Implementation work in src/ (contracts.md at spec_dir/ is the only artifact blueprint produces)
• Running verifications (that's /execute)
• Parsing requirements.md inside cli (LLM reads directly via Read tool)
• Rendering a human-readable view file (read plan.json directly — it's structured and small)