L’interface est localisée ; les présentations et documents des Skills sont traduits automatiquement par IA dans votre langue. Le code, les commandes, chemins et termes techniques restent en version originale, et le document de l’auteur fait foi.
Explorer les Skills
Productivité · SKILL.md

sdlc

sdlc

Route a task to the next synced SDLC workflow based on current artifacts and repo state.

Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs

Documentation de la Skill

GitHub

name: sdlc description: "Route a task to the next synced SDLC workflow based on current artifacts and repo state." metadata: internal: true triggers: keywords: - sdlc - workflow

Sdlc Skill

[!IMPORTANT] Route a task to the next synced SDLC workflow based on current artifacts and repo state.

Optional args: slug=, ticket=<id/url>, mode=interactive|autonomous|channel, channel=, auto_continue=true|false, profile=business|hybrid|technical.

Instructions

When the user asks to perform this workflow, execute the following steps:

SDLC Router Workflow

Goal: Select the next native workflow without loading every workflow body, while preserving a traceable BA -> PM -> IT Department handoff for offshore delivery.

Steps

  1. Inspect state:

    • User request; infer operator_profile (business | hybrid | technical) per common-operator-profile and carry it in every Handoff Payload.
    • Search for the requested task's linked brief/ticket using its stable slug; do not select an unrelated newest document or infer task authority/approval from git status. If no matching approved task record exists, identify the missing authority/input and route to the appropriate intake. Slug = lowercase kebab-case, minted once at brainstorm-feature, reused verbatim downstream; never re-derived.
    • If multiple candidates exist, list them and ask whether to focus, consolidate, or sequence.
    • Baseline reference: common-software-requirements/references/requirements-standards-baseline.md (ships with the skill)
    • Existing ticket, BRD-lite brief, PRD, SRS/FRS design, implementation plan, task list, walkthrough, UAT signoff, deployment report, release notes, and retro
    • Jira, ADO, Zephyr, or other MCP context when already configured
    • Changed files and current test status
    • Offshore delivery context: business owner, product owner, implementation owners, QA owner, timezone/cadence constraints, environments, release window, and dependency teams
    • Requirement trace health: BRD-OBJ-* -> REQ-* -> AC-* -> SRS-* -> test evidence
    • SNC tier per common-task-complexity-routing or the scout SNC: line; label as inference until scouted.
  2. Choose next workflow (apply tie-break order when multiple bullets match: (1) workflow explicitly named by the operator or latest recommended_next_workflow, (2) production-incident/urgent-regression signals, (3) earliest missing required decision or task-linked authority/input—not a missing document filename—except sufficiently specified low-risk maintenance with approved evidence, (4) cross-cutting audits only on request or as a pre-release gate):

    • Unclear idea, missing business case, owner, or measurable value (Why lane), or unclear technical direction with no BRD/PRD for the slug (Direction lane; exempts routine low-risk maintenance) -> brainstorm-feature
    • BRD-lite exists or business direction is clear but product scope, priorities, acceptance criteria, rollout, or delivery plan are unclear (PRD / What, PM-owned planning) -> plan-feature
    • Scale, topology, capacity, or store choice unsettled, or an existing system needs an architecture audit -> system-design-session
    • PRD exists but technical behavior/contracts unclear (SRS/FRS / How) -> design-solution
    • Architecture, auth, trust boundaries, compliance controls, or agent/runtime safety need deeper technical validation -> design-solution
    • BRD-lite, PRD, or SRS/FRS exists but readiness unclear -> implementation-readiness
    • Approved plan with BRD/PRD/SRS trace and testable ACs, or sufficiently specified low-risk maintenance with an approved in-chat/brief contract, needs code -> implement-feature
    • Production incident or urgent regression -> incident-hotfix
    • Control-band breach or scheduled security-scan result needs tiered diagnosis -> monitor-respond
    • Bug ticket needs fix (non-urgent) -> dev-fix
    • Ticket or cross-functional change needs specialist fanout, AC coverage, and PR metadata review -> review-ticket
    • Design arrives as an artifact (diagram, doc, board export, IaC) and needs review -> review-system-design
    • PR diff needs focused merge-risk review -> code-review
    • Implementation GREEN but ACs lack executable E2E/mobile coverage, or an E2E suite is red after a previously green slice -> test-loop.
    • Code complete but unproven -> verify-work
    • Fix implemented and ticket has a UAT/Jira flow -> verify-bug
    • verify-work PASS on a feature, business acceptance not yet granted -> uat-signoff
    • Business acceptance granted and release window open -> deploy-release
    • Deployed and needs user-facing communication -> publish-notes
    • Trace health unknown before release or handoff -> traceability-audit
    • Session ending with unfinished work or context handoff -> session-report
    • Deployed or communicated, capture standards/process lessons -> retro-learn
    • Repo-wide health/debt question with no single feature in scope -> codebase-review
  3. Enforce handoff quality:

    • Governed/high-risk delivery requires full traceability: BA output links business objectives; PM links requirements/ACs in docs/prd/; IT handoff defines architecture in docs/srs/.
    • Low-risk maintenance exception: Sufficiently specified routine fixes, maintenance, or tasks with an approved in-chat/brief contract route directly to dev-fix or implement-feature without creating separate BRD/PRD/SRS files or restarting intake.
    • Downstream specialist workers execute against assigned briefs and must not reload or repeat parent intake.
    • Sensitive-change risk floor: Changes touching auth, payments, data integrity, secrets, or trust boundaries enforce minimum tier=medium (or tier=high), requiring design-solution and human approval before coding.
    • Keep payloads runtime-neutral; adapters may map them to task boards, MCP, Jira, GitHub, ADO, Zephyr, or local files.
  4. Set runtime state:

    • Interactive: ask max 3 blocking questions.
    • Autonomous/channel: continue only when required artifacts and owners are known; otherwise return BLOCKED.
    • Emit next workflow, handoff payload, verification command, and owner.
    • Tier drives autonomy: low -> autonomous + fast review; medium -> TDD + self-review + deep review; high -> plan-first HARD STOP, independent reviewers, human merge approval.

Runtime Contract

  • Use to select the next workflow without loading every workflow body.
  • Required inputs: user request plus repo/artifact state.
  • Return BLOCKED only in autonomous/channel mode when required artifacts or owners are unknown.

Handoff Payload

  • slug, operator_profile, snc_tier, model_tier, recommended workflow, requirement layer, handoff owner, required input, blocking gaps, offshore delivery notes.

Blocking Questions

  • Ask max 3 at a time with a recommended default and 2-3 options.

Output Template

# SDLC Route

## Recommended Workflow

## Requirement Layer

## Handoff Owner

## Required Input

## Blocking Gaps

## Offshore Delivery Notes

## Outcome Report
{schema_version: 1, run_id: "[run-id]", slug: "[slug]", workflow: sdlc, feature_status: not_started, started_at: "[timestamp]", completed_at: "[timestamp]", requirement_trace: {brd_objectives: [], requirements: [], acceptance_criteria: [], srs: []}, completed_evidence: [], missing_evidence: [], decision_needed: [], recommended_next_workflow: brainstorm-feature, cost: {source: unavailable}, agent: {identity: "[agent-identity]", model: "[model]"}}

## Next Workflow

## Verification Command
## Cost Report
Call `get_session_cost(workflow="sdlc")` before final handoff.
Skills enregistrées