ring:dev-cycle

Development Cycle Orchestrator

Safety Notice

This listing is imported from skills.sh public index metadata. Review upstream SKILL.md and repository scripts before running.

Copy this and send it to your AI assistant to learn

Install skill "ring:dev-cycle" with this command: npx skills add lerianstudio/ring/lerianstudio-ring-ring-dev-cycle

Development Cycle Orchestrator

Standards Loading (MANDATORY)

Before any gate execution, you MUST load Ring standards:

<fetch_required> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/LerianStudio/ring/main/CLAUDE.md </fetch_required>

Fetch URL above and extract: Agent Modification Verification requirements, Anti-Rationalization Tables requirements, and Critical Rules.

<block_condition>

  • WebFetch fails or returns empty

  • CLAUDE.md not accessible </block_condition>

If any condition is true, STOP and report blocker. Cannot proceed without Ring standards.

Overview

The development cycle orchestrator loads tasks/subtasks from PM team output (or manual task files) and executes through 11 gates (Gate 0–9, including 0.5 Delivery Verification) with deferred execution for infrastructure-dependent tests:

  • Gates 0-5, 8-9 (per unit): Write code + run tests per task/subtask

  • Gates 6-7 (per unit): Write/update integration and chaos test code, verify compilation, but do not execute tests (no containers)

  • Gates 6-7 (end of cycle): Execute all integration and chaos tests once after all units complete

This keeps test code current with each feature while avoiding redundant container spin-ups during development.

MUST announce at start: "I'm using the ring:dev-cycle skill to orchestrate task execution through 11 gates (Gate 0–9, including 0.5 Delivery Verification). Gates 6-7 write tests per unit but execute at end of cycle."

⛔ CRITICAL: Specialized Agents Perform All Tasks

See shared-patterns/shared-orchestrator-principle.md for full ORCHESTRATOR principle, role separation, forbidden/required actions, gate-to-agent mapping, and anti-rationalization table.

Summary: You orchestrate. Agents execute. If using Read/Write/Edit/Bash on source code → STOP. Dispatch agent.

⛔ ORCHESTRATOR BOUNDARIES (HARD GATE)

This section defines exactly what the orchestrator CAN and CANNOT do.

What Orchestrator CAN Do (PERMITTED)

Action Tool Purpose

Read task files Read

Load task definitions from docs/pre-dev//tasks.md or docs/ring:dev-refactor//tasks.md

Read state files Read

Load/verify docs/ring:dev-cycle/current-cycle.json or docs/ring:dev-refactor/current-cycle.json

Read PROJECT_RULES.md Read

Load project-specific rules

Write state files Write

Persist cycle state to JSON

Track progress TodoWrite

Maintain task list

Dispatch agents Task

Send work to specialist agents

Ask user questions AskUserQuestion

Get execution mode, approvals

WebFetch standards WebFetch

Load Ring standards

What Orchestrator CANNOT Do (FORBIDDEN)

Any of these actions by orchestrator = IMMEDIATE VIOLATION. Dispatch agent instead.

The 3-FILE RULE

If a task requires editing MORE than 3 files → MUST dispatch specialist agent.

This is not negotiable:

  • 1-3 files of non-source content (markdown, json, yaml) → Orchestrator MAY edit directly

  • 1+ source code files (*.go , *.ts , *.tsx ) → MUST dispatch agent

  • 4+ files of any type → MUST dispatch agent

Orchestrator Workflow Order (MANDATORY)

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ CORRECT WORKFLOW ORDER │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ 1. Load task file (Read docs/pre-dev//tasks.md or docs/ring:dev-refactor//tasks.md) │ │ 2. Ask execution mode (AskUserQuestion) │ │ 3. Determine state path + Check/Load state (see State Path Selection) │ │ 4. WebFetch Ring Standards │ │ 5. ⛔ LOAD SUB-SKILL for current gate (Skill tool) │ │ 6. Execute sub-skill instructions (dispatch agent via Task) │ │ 7. Wait for agent completion │ │ 8. Verify agent output (Standards Coverage Table) │ │ 9. Update state (Write to JSON) │ │ 10. Proceed to next gate │ │ │ │ ════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ │ │ ❌ WRONG: Load → Mode → Standards → Task(agent) directly │ │ ✅ RIGHT: Load → Mode → Standards → Skill(sub) → Task(agent) │ │ ════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⛔ SUB-SKILL LOADING IS MANDATORY (HARD GATE)

Before dispatching any agent, you MUST load the corresponding sub-skill first.

<cannot_skip>

  • Gate 0: Skill("ring:dev-implementation") → then Task(subagent_type="ring:backend-engineer-*", ...)

  • Gate 0.5: Skill("ring:dev-delivery-verification") → Verify all requirements are DELIVERED (not just created). Catches dead code, unwired structs, unregistered middleware. Also runs 7 automated checks: (A) file size ≤300 lines, (B) license headers, (C) linting, (D) migration safety, (E) vulnerability scanning, (F) API backward compatibility, (G) multi-tenant dual-mode. FAIL → return to Gate 0 with explicit fix instructions.

  • Gate 1: Skill("ring:dev-devops") → then Task(subagent_type="ring:devops-engineer", ...)

  • Gate 2: Skill("ring:dev-sre") → then Task(subagent_type="ring:sre", ...)

  • Gate 3: Skill("ring:dev-unit-testing") → then Task(subagent_type="ring:qa-analyst", test_mode="unit", ...)

  • Gate 4: Skill("ring:dev-fuzz-testing") → then Task(subagent_type="ring:qa-analyst", test_mode="fuzz", ...)

  • Gate 5: Skill("ring:dev-property-testing") → then Task(subagent_type="ring:qa-analyst", test_mode="property", ...)

  • Gate 6: Skill("ring:dev-integration-testing") → per unit: write/update tests + compile check (no execution); end of cycle: execute

  • Gate 7: Skill("ring:dev-chaos-testing") → per unit: write/update tests + compile check (no execution); end of cycle: execute

  • Gate 8: Skill("ring:requesting-code-review") → then 5x Task(...) in parallel

  • Gate 9: Skill("ring:dev-validation") → N/A (verification only) </cannot_skip>

Between "WebFetch standards" and "Task(agent)" there MUST be "Skill(sub-skill)".

The workflow for each gate is:

  1. Skill("[sub-skill-name]") ← Load sub-skill instructions
  2. Follow sub-skill instructions ← Sub-skill tells you HOW to dispatch
  3. Task(subagent_type=...) ← Dispatch agent as sub-skill instructs
  4. Validate agent output ← Per sub-skill validation rules
  5. Update state ← Record results

Custom Instructions (Optional Second Argument)

Validation: See shared-patterns/custom-prompt-validation.md for max length (500 chars), sanitization rules, gate protection, and conflict handling.

If custom_prompt is set in state, inject it into ALL agent dispatches:

Task tool: subagent_type: "ring:backend-engineer-golang" prompt: | CUSTOM CONTEXT (from user): {state.custom_prompt}

---

**Standard Instructions:**
[... rest of agent prompt ...]

Rules for custom prompt:

  • Inject at TOP of prompt - User context takes precedence

  • Preserve in state - custom_prompt persists for resume

  • Include in execution report - Document what context was used

  • Forward via state - Sub-skills read custom_prompt from state file and inject into their agent dispatches (no explicit parameter passing needed)

Example custom prompts and their effect:

Custom Prompt Effect on Agents

"Focus on error handling first" Agents prioritize error-related acceptance criteria

"Use existing UserRepository interface" Agents integrate with specified interface instead of creating new

"Deprioritize UI polish" Gate 3 still enforces 85% coverage, but agents deprioritize non-functional UI tweaks

"Prioritize observability gaps" SRE gate gets more attention, implementation focuses on instrumentation

Anti-Rationalization for Skipping Sub-Skills

Rationalization Why It's WRONG Required Action

"I know what the sub-skill does" Knowledge ≠ execution. Sub-skill has iteration logic. Load Skill() first

"Task() directly is faster" Faster ≠ correct. Sub-skill has validation rules. Load Skill() first

"Sub-skill just wraps Task()" Sub-skills have retry logic, fix dispatch, validation. Load Skill() first

"I'll follow the pattern manually" Manual = error-prone. Sub-skill is the pattern. Load Skill() first

Between "WebFetch standards" and "Task(agent)" there MUST be "Skill(sub-skill)".

Anti-Rationalization for Direct Coding

Rationalization Why It's WRONG Required Action

"It's just one small file" File count doesn't determine agent need. Language does. DISPATCH specialist agent

"I already loaded the standards" Loading standards ≠ permission to implement. Standards are for AGENTS. DISPATCH specialist agent

"Agent dispatch adds overhead" Overhead ensures compliance. Skip = skip verification. DISPATCH specialist agent

"I can write Go/TypeScript" Knowing language ≠ having Ring standards loaded. Agent has them. DISPATCH specialist agent

"Just a quick fix" "Quick" is irrelevant. all source changes require specialist. DISPATCH specialist agent

"I'll read the file first to understand" Reading source → temptation to edit. Agent reads for you. DISPATCH specialist agent

"Let me check if tests pass first" Agent runs tests in TDD cycle. You don't run tests. DISPATCH specialist agent

Red Flags - Orchestrator Violation in Progress

If you catch yourself doing any of these, STOP IMMEDIATELY:

🚨 RED FLAG: About to Read *.go or *.ts file → STOP. Dispatch agent instead.

🚨 RED FLAG: About to Write/Create source code → STOP. Dispatch agent instead.

🚨 RED FLAG: About to Edit source code → STOP. Dispatch agent instead.

🚨 RED FLAG: About to run "go test" or "npm test" → STOP. Agent runs tests, not you.

🚨 RED FLAG: Thinking "I'll just..." → STOP. "Just" is the warning word. Dispatch agent.

🚨 RED FLAG: Thinking "This is simple enough..." → STOP. Simplicity is irrelevant. Dispatch agent.

🚨 RED FLAG: Standards loaded, but next action is not Task tool → STOP. After standards, IMMEDIATELY dispatch agent.

Recovery from Orchestrator Violation

If you violated orchestrator boundaries:

  • STOP current execution immediately

  • DISCARD any direct changes (git checkout -- . )

  • DISPATCH the correct specialist agent

  • Agent implements from scratch following TDD

  • Document the violation for feedback loop

Sunk cost of direct work is IRRELEVANT. Agent dispatch is MANDATORY.

Blocker Criteria - STOP and Report

<block_condition>

  • Gate Failure: Tests not passing, review failed → STOP, cannot proceed to next gate

  • Missing Standards: No PROJECT_RULES.md → STOP, report blocker and wait

  • Agent Failure: Specialist agent returned errors → STOP, diagnose and report

  • User Decision Required: Architecture choice, framework selection → STOP, present options </block_condition>

You CANNOT proceed when blocked. Report and wait for resolution.

Cannot Be Overridden

<cannot_skip>

  • All 11 gates must execute (0→0.5→1→2→3→4→5→6→7→8→9) - Each gate catches different issues

  • All testing gates (3-7) are MANDATORY - Comprehensive test coverage ensures quality

  • Gates execute in order (0→0.5→1→2→3→4→5→6→7→8→9) - Dependencies exist between gates

  • Gate 8 requires all 7 reviewers - Different review perspectives are complementary

  • Coverage threshold ≥ 85% - Industry standard for quality code

  • PROJECT_RULES.md must exist - Cannot verify standards without target </cannot_skip>

No exceptions. User cannot override. Time pressure cannot override.

Severity Calibration

Severity Criteria Examples

CRITICAL Blocks deployment, security risk, data loss Gate violation, skipped mandatory step

HIGH Major functionality broken, standards violation Missing tests, wrong agent dispatched

MEDIUM Code quality, maintainability issues Incomplete documentation, minor gaps

LOW Best practices, optimization Style improvements, minor refactoring

Report all severities. Let user prioritize.

Reviewer Verdicts Are Final

MEDIUM issues found in Gate 4 MUST be fixed. No exceptions.

Request Why It's WRONG Required Action

"Can reviewer clarify if MEDIUM can defer?" Reviewer already decided. MEDIUM means FIX. Fix the issue, re-run reviewers

"Ask if this specific case is different" Reviewer verdict accounts for context already. Fix the issue, re-run reviewers

"Request exception for business reasons" Reviewers know business context. Verdict is final. Fix the issue, re-run reviewers

Severity mapping is absolute:

  • CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM → Fix NOW, re-run all 7 reviewers

  • LOW → Add TODO(review): comment

  • Cosmetic → Add FIXME(nitpick): comment

No negotiation. No exceptions. No "special cases".

Pressure Resistance

See shared-patterns/shared-pressure-resistance.md for universal pressure scenarios.

Gate-specific note: Execution mode selection affects CHECKPOINTS (user approval pauses), not GATES (quality checks). all gates execute regardless of mode.

Common Rationalizations - REJECTED

See shared-patterns/shared-anti-rationalization.md for universal anti-rationalizations.

Gate-specific rationalizations:

Excuse Reality

"Automatic mode means faster" Automatic mode skips CHECKPOINTS, not GATES. Same quality, less interruption.

"Automatic mode will skip review" Automatic mode affects user approval pauses, not quality gates. all gates execute regardless.

"Defense in depth exists (frontend validates)" Frontend can be bypassed. Backend is the last line. Fix at source.

"Backlog the Medium issue, it's documented" Documented risk ≠ mitigated risk. Medium in Gate 4 = fix NOW, not later.

"Risk-based prioritization allows deferral" Gates ARE the risk-based system. Reviewers define severity, not you.

Red Flags - STOP

See shared-patterns/shared-red-flags.md for universal red flags.

If you catch yourself thinking any of those patterns, STOP immediately and return to gate execution.

Incremental Compromise Prevention

The "just this once" pattern leads to complete gate erosion:

Day 1: "Skip review just this once" → Approved (precedent set) Day 2: "Skip testing, we did it last time" → Approved (precedent extended) Day 3: "Skip implementation checks, pattern established" → Approved (gates meaningless) Day 4: Production incident from Day 1 code

Prevention rules:

  • No incremental exceptions - Each exception becomes the new baseline

  • Document every pressure - Log who requested, why, outcome

  • Escalate patterns - If same pressure repeats, escalate to team lead

  • Gates are binary - Complete or incomplete. No "mostly done".

Gate Completion Definition (HARD GATE)

A gate is COMPLETE only when all components finish successfully:

Gate Components Required Partial = FAIL

0.1 TDD-RED: Failing test written + failure output captured Test exists but no failure output = FAIL

0.2 TDD-GREEN: Implementation passes test Code exists but test fails = FAIL

0 Both 0.1 and 0.2 complete 0.1 done without 0.2 = FAIL

1 Dockerfile + docker-compose + .env.example Missing any = FAIL

2 Structured JSON logs with trace correlation Partial structured logs = FAIL

3 Unit test coverage ≥ 85% + all AC tested 84% = FAIL

4 Fuzz tests with seed corpus ≥ 5 entries Missing corpus = FAIL

5 Property-based tests for domain invariants Missing property tests = FAIL

6 Integration tests with testcontainers No testcontainers = FAIL

7 Chaos tests for failure scenarios Missing chaos tests = FAIL

8 All 7 reviewers PASS 6/7 reviewers = FAIL

9 Explicit "APPROVED" from user "Looks good" = not approved

CRITICAL for Gate 8: Running 6 of 7 reviewers is not a partial pass - it's a FAIL. Re-run all 7 reviewers.

Anti-Rationalization for Partial Gates:

Rationalization Why It's WRONG Required Action

"6 of 7 reviewers passed" Gate 8 requires all 7. 6/7 = 0/7. Re-run all 7 reviewers

"Gate mostly complete" Mostly ≠ complete. Binary: done or not done. Complete all components

"Can finish remaining in next cycle" Gates don't carry over. Complete NOW. Finish current gate

"Core components done, optional can wait" No component is optional within a gate. Complete all components

"Unit tests are enough, skip fuzz/property" Each test type catches different bugs. All are MANDATORY. Execute all testing gates (3-7)

"No external dependencies, skip integration" Integration testing is MANDATORY. Write tests per unit, execute at end of cycle. Write Gate 6 tests per unit, execute at end

Gate Order Enforcement (HARD GATE)

Gates MUST execute in order: 0 → 0.5 → 1 → 2 → 3 → 4 → 5 → 6(write) → 7(write) → 8 → 9. All 11 gates are MANDATORY.

Deferred Execution Model for Gates 6-7:

  • Per unit: Write/update test code + verify compilation (no container execution)

  • End of cycle: Execute all integration and chaos tests (containers spun up once), then verify multi-tenant dual-mode compliance (already implemented at Gate 0, verified at Gate 0.5G)

Violation Why It's WRONG Consequence

Skip Gate 1 (DevOps) "No infra changes" Code without container = works on my machine only

Skip Gate 2 (SRE) "Observability later" Blind production = debugging nightmare

Skip Gate 4 (Fuzz) "Unit tests are enough" Edge cases and crashes not discovered

Skip Gate 5 (Property) "Too complex" Domain invariant violations not detected

Skip Gate 6 (Integration) "No external dependencies" Internal integration bugs surface in production

Skip Gate 7 (Chaos) "Infra is reliable" System fails under real-world conditions

Reorder Gates "Review before test" Reviewing untested code wastes reviewer time

Parallel Gates "Run 3 and 4 together" Dependencies exist. Order is intentional.

All testing gates (3-7) are MANDATORY. No exceptions. No skip reasons.

Gates are not parallelizable across different gates. Sequential execution is MANDATORY.

The 10 Gates

Gate Skill Purpose Agent Per Unit Standards Module

0 ring:dev-implementation Write code following TDD (single-tenant) Based on task language/domain Write + Run core.md, domain.md

1 ring:dev-devops Infrastructure and deployment ring:devops-engineer Write + Run devops.md

2 ring:dev-sre Observability (health, logging, tracing) ring:sre Write + Run sre.md

3 ring:dev-unit-testing Unit tests for acceptance criteria ring:qa-analyst (test_mode: unit) Write + Run testing-unit.md

4 ring:dev-fuzz-testing Fuzz tests for edge cases and crashes ring:qa-analyst (test_mode: fuzz) Write + Run testing-fuzz.md

5 ring:dev-property-testing Property-based tests for domain invariants ring:qa-analyst (test_mode: property) Write + Run testing-property.md

6 ring:dev-integration-testing Integration tests with testcontainers ring:qa-analyst (test_mode: integration) Write only testing-integration.md

7 ring:dev-chaos-testing Chaos tests for failure scenarios ring:qa-analyst (test_mode: chaos) Write only testing-chaos.md

8 ring:requesting-code-review Parallel code review (7 reviewers) ring:code-reviewer, ring:business-logic-reviewer, ring:security-reviewer, ring:nil-safety-reviewer, ring:test-reviewer, ring:consequences-reviewer, ring:dead-code-reviewer Run N/A

9 ring:dev-validation Final acceptance validation N/A (verification) Run N/A

All gates are MANDATORY. No exceptions. No skip reasons.

Gates 6-7 Deferred Execution: Test code is written/updated per unit to stay current. Actual test execution (with containers) happens once at end of cycle.

Integrated PM → Dev Workflow

PM Team Output → Dev Team Execution (/ring:dev-cycle )

Input Type Path Structure

Tasks only docs/pre-dev/{feature}/tasks.md

T-001, T-002, T-003 with requirements + acceptance criteria

Tasks + Subtasks docs/pre-dev/{feature}/

tasks.md + subtasks/{task-id}/ST-XXX-01.md, ST-XXX-02.md...

Execution Order

Core Principle: Each execution unit passes through all 11 gates. Gates 6-7 write test code per unit but defer execution to end of cycle.

Per-Unit Flow: Unit → Gate 0→0.5(delivery verify)→1→2→3→4→5→6(write)→7(write)→8→9 → 🔒 Unit Checkpoint → 🔒 Task Checkpoint → Next Unit End-of-Cycle Flow: All units done → Gate 6(execute)→7(execute) → Multi-Tenant Adaptation → Final Commit → Feedback

Scenario Execution Unit Gates Per Unit End of Cycle

Task without subtasks Task itself 11 gates (6-7 write only) Gate 6-7 execute

Task with subtasks Each subtask 11 gates per subtask (6-7 write only) Gate 6-7 execute

Why deferred execution for Gates 6-7:

  • Integration tests require testcontainers (slow to spin up/tear down)

  • Chaos tests require Toxiproxy infrastructure

  • Running containers per subtask is wasteful when subsequent subtasks modify the same code

  • Test code stays current (written per unit), infrastructure cost is paid once

Commit Timing

User selects when commits happen (Step 7 of initialization).

Option When Commit Happens Use Case

(a) Per subtask After each subtask passes Gate 9 Fine-grained history, easy rollback per subtask

(b) Per task After all subtasks of a task complete Logical grouping, one commit per feature chunk

(c) At the end After entire cycle completes Single commit with all changes, clean history

Commit Message Format

Timing Message Format Example

Per subtask feat({subtask_id}): {subtask_title}

feat(ST-001-02): implement user authentication handler

Per task feat({task_id}): {task_title}

feat(T-001): implement user authentication

At the end feat({cycle_id}): complete dev cycle for {feature}

feat(cycle-abc123): complete dev cycle for auth-system

Commit Timing vs Execution Mode

Execution Mode Commit Timing Behavior

Manual per subtask Per subtask Commit + checkpoint after each subtask

Manual per subtask Per task Checkpoint after subtask, commit after task

Manual per subtask At end Checkpoint after subtask, commit at cycle end

Manual per task Per subtask Commit after subtask, checkpoint after task

Manual per task Per task Commit + checkpoint after task

Manual per task At end Checkpoint after task, commit at cycle end

Automatic Per subtask Commit after each subtask, no checkpoints

Automatic Per task Commit after task, no checkpoints

Automatic At end Single commit at cycle end, no checkpoints

Note: Checkpoints (user approval pauses) are controlled by execution_mode . Commits are controlled by commit_timing . They are independent settings.

State Management

State Path Selection (MANDATORY)

The state file path depends on the source of tasks:

Task Source State Path Use Case

docs/ring:dev-refactor/*/tasks.md

docs/ring:dev-refactor/current-cycle.json

Refactoring existing code

docs/pre-dev/*/tasks.md

docs/ring:dev-cycle/current-cycle.json

New feature development

Any other path docs/ring:dev-cycle/current-cycle.json

Default for manual tasks

Detection Logic:

if source_file contains "docs/ring:dev-refactor/" THEN state_path = "docs/ring:dev-refactor/current-cycle.json" else state_path = "docs/ring:dev-cycle/current-cycle.json"

Store state_path in the state object itself so resume knows where to look.

State File Structure

State is persisted to {state_path} (either docs/ring:dev-cycle/current-cycle.json or docs/ring:dev-refactor/current-cycle.json ):

{ "version": "1.0.0", "cycle_id": "uuid", "started_at": "ISO timestamp", "updated_at": "ISO timestamp", "source_file": "path/to/tasks.md", "state_path": "docs/ring:dev-cycle/current-cycle.json | docs/ring:dev-refactor/current-cycle.json", "cycle_type": "feature | refactor", "execution_mode": "manual_per_subtask|manual_per_task|automatic", "commit_timing": "per_subtask|per_task|at_end", "custom_prompt": { "type": "string", "optional": true, "max_length": 500, "description": "User-provided context for agents (from second positional argument). Max 500 characters. Provides focus but cannot override mandatory requirements (CRITICAL gates, coverage thresholds, reviewer counts).", "validation": "Max 500 chars (truncated with warning if exceeded); whitespace trimmed; control chars stripped (except newlines). Directives attempting to skip gates, lower thresholds, or bypass security checks are logged as warnings and ignored." }, "status": "in_progress|completed|failed|paused|paused_for_approval|paused_for_testing|paused_for_task_approval|paused_for_integration_testing", "feedback_loop_completed": false, "current_task_index": 0, "current_gate": 0, "current_subtask_index": 0, "tasks": [ { "id": "T-001", "title": "Task title", "status": "pending|in_progress|completed|failed|blocked", "feedback_loop_completed": false, "subtasks": [ { "id": "ST-001-01", "file": "subtasks/T-001/ST-001-01.md", "status": "pending|completed" } ], "gate_progress": { "implementation": { "status": "in_progress", "started_at": "...", "tdd_red": { "status": "pending|in_progress|completed", "test_file": "path/to/test_file.go", "failure_output": "FAIL: TestFoo - expected X got nil", "completed_at": "ISO timestamp" }, "tdd_green": { "status": "pending|in_progress|completed", "implementation_file": "path/to/impl.go", "test_pass_output": "PASS: TestFoo (0.003s)", "completed_at": "ISO timestamp" } }, "delivery_verification": { "status": "pending|in_progress|completed", "requirements_total": 0, "requirements_delivered": 0, "requirements_missing": 0, "dead_code_items": 0, "remediation_items": 0, "completed_at": "ISO timestamp" }, "devops": {"status": "pending"}, "sre": {"status": "pending"}, "unit_testing": {"status": "pending"}, "fuzz_testing": {"status": "pending"}, "property_testing": {"status": "pending"}, "integration_testing": { "status": "pending|in_progress|completed", "scenarios_tested": 0, "tests_passed": 0, "tests_failed": 0, "flaky_tests_detected": 0 }, "chaos_testing": {"status": "pending"}, "review": {"status": "pending"}, "validation": {"status": "pending"} }, "artifacts": {}, "agent_outputs": { "implementation": { "agent": "ring:backend-engineer-golang", "output": "## Summary\n...", "timestamp": "ISO timestamp", "duration_ms": 0, "iterations": 1, "standards_compliance": { "total_sections": 15, "compliant": 14, "not_applicable": 1, "non_compliant": 0, "gaps": [] } }, "devops": { "agent": "ring:devops-engineer", "output": "## Summary\n...", "timestamp": "ISO timestamp", "duration_ms": 0, "iterations": 1, "artifacts_created": ["Dockerfile", "docker-compose.yml", ".env.example"], "verification_errors": [], "standards_compliance": { "total_sections": 8, "compliant": 8, "not_applicable": 0, "non_compliant": 0, "gaps": [] } }, "sre": { "agent": "ring:sre", "output": "## Summary\n...", "timestamp": "ISO timestamp", "duration_ms": 0, "iterations": 1, "instrumentation_coverage": "92%", "validation_errors": [], "standards_compliance": { "total_sections": 10, "compliant": 10, "not_applicable": 0, "non_compliant": 0, "gaps": [] } }, "unit_testing": { "agent": "ring:qa-analyst", "test_mode": "unit", "output": "## Summary\n...", "verdict": "PASS", "coverage_actual": 87.5, "coverage_threshold": 85, "iterations": 1, "timestamp": "ISO timestamp", "duration_ms": 0, "failures": [], "uncovered_criteria": [], "standards_compliance": { "total_sections": 6, "compliant": 6, "not_applicable": 0, "non_compliant": 0, "gaps": [] } }, "fuzz_testing": { "agent": "ring:qa-analyst", "test_mode": "fuzz", "output": "## Summary\n...", "verdict": "PASS", "corpus_entries": 5, "iterations": 1, "timestamp": "ISO timestamp", "duration_ms": 0, "standards_compliance": { "total_sections": 5, "compliant": 5, "not_applicable": 0, "non_compliant": 0, "gaps": [] } }, "property_testing": { "agent": "ring:qa-analyst", "test_mode": "property", "output": "## Summary\n...", "verdict": "PASS", "properties_tested": 3, "iterations": 1, "timestamp": "ISO timestamp", "duration_ms": 0, "standards_compliance": { "total_sections": 5, "compliant": 5, "not_applicable": 0, "non_compliant": 0, "gaps": [] } }, "integration_testing": { "agent": "ring:qa-analyst", "test_mode": "integration", "output": "## Summary\n...", "verdict": "PASS", "scenarios_tested": 5, "tests_passed": 5, "tests_failed": 0, "flaky_tests_detected": 0, "iterations": 1, "timestamp": "ISO timestamp", "duration_ms": 0, "standards_compliance": { "total_sections": 10, "compliant": 10, "not_applicable": 0, "non_compliant": 0, "gaps": [] } }, "chaos_testing": { "agent": "ring:qa-analyst", "test_mode": "chaos", "output": "## Summary\n...", "verdict": "PASS", "failure_scenarios_tested": 4, "recovery_verified": true, "iterations": 1, "timestamp": "ISO timestamp", "duration_ms": 0, "standards_compliance": { "total_sections": 5, "compliant": 5, "not_applicable": 0, "non_compliant": 0, "gaps": [] } }, "review": { "iterations": 1, "timestamp": "ISO timestamp", "duration_ms": 0, "code_reviewer": { "agent": "ring:code-reviewer", "output": "...", "verdict": "PASS", "timestamp": "...", "issues": [], "standards_compliance": { "total_sections": 12, "compliant": 12, "not_applicable": 0, "non_compliant": 0, "gaps": [] } }, "business_logic_reviewer": { "agent": "ring:business-logic-reviewer", "output": "...", "verdict": "PASS", "timestamp": "...", "issues": [], "standards_compliance": { "total_sections": 8, "compliant": 8, "not_applicable": 0, "non_compliant": 0, "gaps": [] } }, "security_reviewer": { "agent": "ring:security-reviewer", "output": "...", "verdict": "PASS", "timestamp": "...", "issues": [], "standards_compliance": { "total_sections": 10, "compliant": 10, "not_applicable": 0, "non_compliant": 0, "gaps": [] } } }, "validation": { "result": "approved|rejected", "timestamp": "ISO timestamp" } } } ], "metrics": { "total_duration_ms": 0, "gate_durations": {}, "review_iterations": 0, "testing_iterations": 0 } }

Structured Error/Issue Schemas

These schemas enable ring:dev-feedback-loop to analyze issues without parsing raw output.

Standards Compliance Gap Schema

{ "section": "Error Handling (MANDATORY)", "status": "❌", "reason": "Missing error wrapping with context", "file": "internal/handler/user.go", "line": 45, "evidence": "return err // should wrap with additional context" }

Test Failure Schema

{ "test_name": "TestUserCreate_InvalidEmail", "test_file": "internal/handler/user_test.go", "error_type": "assertion", "expected": "ErrInvalidEmail", "actual": "nil", "message": "Expected validation error for invalid email format", "stack_trace": "user_test.go:42 → user.go:28" }

Review Issue Schema

{ "severity": "MEDIUM", "category": "error-handling", "description": "Error not wrapped with context before returning", "file": "internal/handler/user.go", "line": 45, "suggestion": "Use fmt.Errorf("failed to create user: %w", err)", "fixed": false, "fixed_in_iteration": null }

DevOps Verification Error Schema

{ "check": "docker_build", "status": "FAIL", "error": "COPY failed: file not found in build context: go.sum", "suggestion": "Ensure go.sum exists and is not in .dockerignore" }

SRE Validation Error Schema

{ "check": "structured_logging", "status": "FAIL", "file": "internal/handler/user.go", "line": 32, "error": "Using fmt.Printf instead of structured logger", "suggestion": "Use logger.Info().Str("user_id", id).Msg("user created")" }

Populating Structured Data

Each gate MUST populate its structured fields when saving to state:

Gate Fields to Populate

Gate 0 (Implementation) standards_compliance (total, compliant, gaps[])

Gate 1 (DevOps) standards_compliance

  • verification_errors[]

Gate 2 (SRE) standards_compliance

  • validation_errors[]

Gate 3 (Unit Testing) standards_compliance

  • failures[]
  • uncovered_criteria[]

Gate 4 (Fuzz Testing) standards_compliance

  • corpus_entries

Gate 5 (Property Testing) standards_compliance

  • properties_tested

Gate 6 (Integration Testing) standards_compliance

  • scenarios_tested
  • tests_passed
  • tests_failed
  • flaky_tests_detected

Gate 7 (Chaos Testing) standards_compliance

  • failure_scenarios_tested
  • recovery_verified

Gate 8 (Review) standards_compliance per reviewer + issues[] per reviewer

All gates track standards_compliance :

  • total_sections : Count from agent's standards file (via standards-coverage-table.md)

  • compliant : Sections marked ✅ in Standards Coverage Table

  • not_applicable : Sections marked N/A

  • non_compliant : Sections marked ❌ (MUST be 0 to pass gate)

  • gaps[] : Detailed info for each ❌ section (even if later fixed)

Empty arrays [] indicate no issues found - this is valid data for feedback-loop.

⛔ State Persistence Rule (MANDATORY)

"Update state" means BOTH update the object and write to file. Not just in-memory.

After every Gate Transition

You MUST execute these steps after completing any gate (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5):

Step 1: Update state object with gate results

state.tasks[current_task_index].gate_progress.[gate_name].status = "completed" state.tasks[current_task_index].gate_progress.[gate_name].completed_at = "[ISO timestamp]" state.current_gate = [next_gate_number] state.updated_at = "[ISO timestamp]"

Step 2: Write to file (MANDATORY - use Write tool)

Write tool: file_path: [state.state_path] # Use state_path from state object content: [full JSON state]

Step 3: Verify persistence (MANDATORY - use Read tool)

Read tool: file_path: [state.state_path] # Use state_path from state object

Confirm current_gate and gate_progress match expected values

State Persistence Checkpoints

Checkpoint MUST Update MUST Write File

Before Gate 0 (task start) task.status = "in_progress" in JSON + tasks.md Status → 🔄 Doing

✅ YES

Gate 0.1 (TDD-RED) tdd_red.status , tdd_red.failure_output

✅ YES

Gate 0.2 (TDD-GREEN) tdd_green.status , implementation.status

✅ YES

Gate 0.5 (Delivery Verification) delivery_verification.status , delivery_verification.requirements_total , delivery_verification.requirements_delivered , delivery_verification.dead_code_items

✅ YES

Gate 1 (DevOps) devops.status , agent_outputs.devops

✅ YES

Gate 2 (SRE) sre.status , agent_outputs.sre

✅ YES

Gate 3 (Unit Testing) unit_testing.status , agent_outputs.unit_testing

✅ YES

Gate 4 (Fuzz Testing) fuzz_testing.status , agent_outputs.fuzz_testing

✅ YES

Gate 5 (Property Testing) property_testing.status , agent_outputs.property_testing

✅ YES

Gate 6 (Integration Testing) integration_testing.status , agent_outputs.integration_testing

✅ YES

Gate 7 (Chaos Testing) chaos_testing.status , agent_outputs.chaos_testing

✅ YES

Gate 8 (Review) review.status , agent_outputs.review

✅ YES

Gate 9 (Validation) validation.status (execution unit only — do NOT touch task-level status here) ✅ YES

Step 11.1 (Unit Approval) status = "paused_for_approval"

✅ YES

Step 11.2 (Task Approval) task.status = "completed" in JSON + tasks.md Status → ✅ Done

✅ YES

HARD BLOCK (any gate) task.status = "failed" in JSON + tasks.md Status → ❌ Failed

✅ YES

tasks.md Status update rules (apply at the three checkpoints above):

If state.source_file is absent or file does not exist → log warning "tasks.md Status updates skipped: source_file missing" and skip all status updates for this cycle.

task_id = state.tasks[state.current_task_index].id

Always the parent TASK ID — do NOT use current_subtask_index

Rows where column 1 is "TOTAL" or empty → skip, not a task row

Use Edit tool on state.source_file (tasks.md):

  • Find the row starting with | {task_id} | in the ## Summary table
  • Before Gate 0: replace ⏸️ Pending with 🔄 Doing
    • If already 🔄 Doing (resumed cycle) → skip, no change needed
  • Step 11.2 (all subtasks done, user approved): replace 🔄 Doing with ✅ Done
  • HARD BLOCK (any gate, task abandoned): replace 🔄 Doing with ❌ Failed
    • If row shows ⏸️ Pending (unexpected) → replace with target value anyway
  • If row not found or no Status column → log warning "Status update skipped: task {task_id} row not found in {source_file}" and continue, do not abort

Anti-Rationalization for State Persistence

Rationalization Why It's WRONG Required Action

"I'll save state at the end" Crash/timeout loses all progress Save after each gate

"State is in memory, that's updated" Memory is volatile. File is persistent. Write to JSON file

"Only save on checkpoints" Gates without saves = unrecoverable on resume Save after every gate

"Write tool is slow" Write takes <100ms. Lost progress takes hours. Write after every gate

"I updated the state variable" Variable ≠ file. Without Write tool, nothing persists. Use Write tool explicitly

Verification Command

After each gate, the state file MUST reflect:

  • current_gate = next gate number

  • updated_at = recent timestamp

  • Previous gate status = "completed"

If verification fails → State was not persisted. Re-execute Write tool.

Step 0: Verify PROJECT_RULES.md Exists (HARD GATE)

NON-NEGOTIABLE. Cycle CANNOT proceed without project standards.

Step 0 Flow

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Check: Does docs/PROJECT_RULES.md exist? │ │ │ │ ├── YES → Proceed to Step 1 (Initialize or Resume) │ │ │ │ │ └── no → ASK: "Is this a LEGACY project (created without PM workflow)?" │ │ │ │ │ ├── YES (legacy project) → LEGACY PROJECT ANALYSIS: │ │ │ Step 1: Dispatch ring:codebase-explorer (technical info only) │ │ │ Step 2: Ask 3 questions (what agent can't determine): │ │ │ 1. What do you need help with? │ │ │ 2. Any external APIs not visible in code? │ │ │ 3. Any specific technology not in Ring Standards? │ │ │ Step 3: Generate PROJECT_RULES.md (deduplicated from Ring) │ │ │ Note: Business rules belong in PRD, not in PROJECT_RULES │ │ │ → Proceed to Step 1 │ │ │ │ │ └── no (new project) → ASK: "Do you have PRD, TRD, or Feature Map?" │ │ │ │ │ ├── YES (has PM docs) → "Please provide the file path(s)" │ │ │ → Read PRD/TRD/Feature Map → Extract info │ │ │ → Generate PROJECT_RULES.md │ │ │ → Ask supplementary questions if info is incomplete │ │ │ → Save and proceed to Step 1 │ │ │ │ │ └── no (no PM docs) → ⛔ HARD BLOCK: │ │ "PM documents are REQUIRED for new projects. │ │ Run /ring:pre-dev-full or /ring:pre-dev-feature first." │ │ → STOP (cycle cannot proceed) │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Step 0.1: Check for PROJECT_RULES.md

Check if file exists

Read tool: file_path: "docs/PROJECT_RULES.md"

If file exists and has content → Proceed to Step 1

If file does not exist or is empty → Continue to Step 0.2

Step 0.2: Check if Legacy Project

Ask the User

Use AskUserQuestion:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 📋 PROJECT_RULES.md not FOUND │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ I need to create docs/PROJECT_RULES.md to understand your │ │ project's specific conventions and domain. │ │ │ │ First, I need to know: Is this a LEGACY project? │ │ │ │ A legacy project is one that was created WITHOUT using the │ │ PM team workflow (no PRD, TRD, or Feature Map documents). │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Question

"Is this a legacy project (created without PM team workflow)?"

Options

(a) Yes, this is a legacy project (b) No, this is a new project following Ring workflow

If YES (legacy)

Go to Step 0.2.1 (Legacy Project Analysis)

If no (new project)

Go to Step 0.3 (Check for PM Documents)

Step 0.2.1: Legacy Project Analysis (Technical Only)

Overview

For legacy projects, analyze codebase for TECHNICAL information only:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 📋 LEGACY PROJECT ANALYSIS │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ Since this is a legacy project, I'll analyze the codebase │ │ for TECHNICAL information (not business rules). │ │ │ │ Step 1: Automated analysis (ring:codebase-explorer) │ │ Step 2: Ask for project-specific tech not in Ring Standards │ │ Step 3: Generate PROJECT_RULES.md (deduplicated) │ │ │ │ Note: Business rules belong in PRD/product docs, not here. │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Step 0.2.1a: Automated Codebase Analysis (MANDATORY)

⛔ You MUST use the Task tool to dispatch ring:codebase-explorer. This is not implicit.

Dispatch Agent

Dispatch ring:codebase-explorer to analyze the legacy project for TECHNICAL information:

Action: Use Task tool with EXACTLY these parameters:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ ⛔ If Task tool not used → Analysis does not happen → PROJECT_RULES.md INVALID │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Agent 1: Codebase Explorer - Technical Analysis

Task tool: subagent_type: "ring:codebase-explorer" description: "Analyze legacy project for PROJECT_RULES.md" prompt: | Analyze this LEGACY codebase to extract technical information for PROJECT_RULES.md.

This is an existing project created without PM documentation.
Your job is to understand what exists in the code.

**Extract:**
1. **Project Structure:** Directory layout, module organization
2. **Technical Stack:** Languages, frameworks, databases, external services
3. **Architecture Patterns:** Clean Architecture, MVC, microservices, etc.
4. **Existing Features:** Main modules, endpoints, capabilities
5. **Internal Libraries:** Shared packages, utilities
6. **Configuration:** Environment variables, config patterns
7. **Database:** Schema patterns, migrations, ORM usage
8. **External Integrations:** APIs consumed, message queues

**Output format:**
## Technical Analysis (Legacy Project)

### Project Overview
[What this project appears to do based on code analysis]

### Technical Stack
- Language: [detected]
- Framework: [detected]
- Database: [detected]
- External Services: [detected]

### Architecture Patterns
[Detected patterns]

### Existing Features
[List of features/modules found]

### Project Structure
[Directory layout explanation]

### Configuration
[Env vars, config files found]

### External Integrations
[APIs, services detected]

Note: Business logic analysis is not needed for PROJECT_RULES.md. Business rules belong in PRD/product docs, not technical project rules.

Verification (MANDATORY)

After agent completes, confirm:

  • ring:codebase-explorer returned "## Technical Analysis (Legacy Project)" section

  • Output contains non-empty content for: Tech Stack, External Integrations, Configuration

If agent failed or returned empty output → Re-dispatch. Cannot proceed without technical analysis.

Step 0.2.1b: Supplementary Questions (Only What Agents Can't Determine)

Post-Analysis Questions

After agents complete, ask only what they couldn't determine from code:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ ✓ Codebase Analysis Complete │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ I've analyzed your codebase. Now I need a few details that │ │ only you can provide (not visible in the code). │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Questions to Ask

Use AskUserQuestion for each:

Question Why Agents Can't Determine This

1 What do you need help with? (Current task/feature/fix) Future intent, not in code

2 Any external APIs or services not visible in code? (Third-party integrations planned) Planned integrations, not yet in code

3 Any specific technology not in Ring Standards? (Message broker, cache, etc.) Project-specific tech not in Ring

Note: Business rules belong in PRD/product docs, not in PROJECT_RULES.md.

Step 0.2.1c: Generate PROJECT_RULES.md

Combine Agent Outputs and User Answers

Create tool: file_path: "docs/PROJECT_RULES.md" content: | # Project Rules

> Ring Standards apply automatically. This file documents only what Ring does not cover.
> For error handling, logging, testing, architecture, lib-commons → See Ring Standards (auto-loaded by agents)
> Generated from legacy project analysis.

## What Ring Standards Already Cover (DO not ADD HERE)

The following are defined in Ring Standards and MUST not be duplicated:
- Error handling patterns (no panic, wrap errors)
- Logging standards (structured JSON, zerolog/zap)
- Testing patterns (table-driven tests, mocks)
- Architecture patterns (Hexagonal, Clean Architecture)
- Observability (OpenTelemetry, trace correlation)
- lib-commons usage and patterns
- API directory structure

---

## Tech Stack (Not in Ring Standards)

[From ring:codebase-explorer: Technologies not covered by Ring Standards]
[e.g., specific message broker, specific cache, DB if not PostgreSQL]

| Technology | Purpose | Notes |
|------------|---------|-------|
| [detected] | [purpose] | [notes] |

## Non-Standard Directory Structure

[From ring:codebase-explorer: Directories that deviate from Ring's standard API structure]
[e.g., workers/, consumers/, polling/]

| Directory | Purpose | Pattern |
|-----------|---------|---------|
| [detected] | [purpose] | [pattern] |

## External Integrations

[From ring:codebase-explorer: Third-party services specific to this project]

| Service | Purpose | Docs |
|---------|---------|------|
| [detected] | [purpose] | [link] |

## Environment Configuration

[From ring:codebase-explorer: Project-specific env vars not covered by Ring]

| Variable | Purpose | Example |
|----------|---------|---------|
| [detected] | [purpose] | [example] |

## Domain Terminology

[From codebase analysis: Technical names used in this codebase]

| Term | Definition | Used In |
|------|------------|---------|
| [detected] | [definition] | [location] |

---

*Generated: [ISO timestamp]*
*Source: Legacy project analysis (ring:codebase-explorer)*
*Ring Standards Version: [version from WebFetch]*

Present to User

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ ✓ PROJECT_RULES.md Generated for Legacy Project │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ I analyzed your codebase using: │ │ • ring:codebase-explorer (technical patterns, stack, structure) │ │ │ │ Combined with your input on: │ │ • Current development goal │ │ • External integrations │ │ • Project-specific technology │ │ │ │ Generated: docs/PROJECT_RULES.md │ │ │ │ Note: Ring Standards (error handling, logging, testing, etc.) │ │ are not duplicated - agents load them automatically via WebFetch│ │ │ │ Please review the file and make any corrections needed. │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Ask for Approval

Use AskUserQuestion:

  • Question: "PROJECT_RULES.md has been generated. Would you like to review it before proceeding?"

  • Options: (a) Proceed (b) Open for editing first

After Approval

Proceed to Step 1

Step 0.3: Check for PM Documents (PRD/TRD/Feature Map)

Check for PM Documents

For NEW projects (not legacy), ask about PM documents:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ 📋 NEW PROJECT - PM DOCUMENTS CHECK │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ Since this is a new project following Ring workflow, you │ │ should have PM documents from the pre-dev workflow. │ │ │ │ Do you have any of these PM documents? │ │ • PRD (Product Requirements Document) │ │ • TRD (Technical Requirements Document) │ │ • Feature Map (from ring:pre-dev-feature-map skill) │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Question

"Do you have PRD, TRD, or Feature Map documents for this project?"

Options

(a) Yes, I have PM documents (b) No, I don't have these documents

If YES - Ask for File Paths

"Please provide the file path(s) to your PM documents:

  • PRD path (or 'skip' if none):
  • TRD path (or 'skip' if none):
  • Feature Map path (or 'skip' if none): "

Example Paths

Typical PM team output structure:

docs/pre-dev/{feature-name}/ ├── prd.md → PRD path: docs/pre-dev/auth-system/prd.md ├── trd.md → TRD path: docs/pre-dev/auth-system/trd.md ├── feature-map.md → Feature Map path: docs/pre-dev/auth-system/feature-map.md ├── api-design.md ├── data-model.md └── tasks.md

Common Patterns

  • /ring:pre-dev-full output: docs/pre-dev/{feature}/prd.md , trd.md , feature-map.md

  • /ring:pre-dev-feature output: docs/pre-dev/{feature}/prd.md , feature-map.md

  • Custom locations: User may have docs in different paths (e.g., requirements/ , specs/ )

Then

Go to Step 0.3.1 (Generate from PM Documents)

If no

HARD BLOCK (Step 0.3.2)

Step 0.3.1: Generate from PM Documents (PRD/TRD/Feature Map)

Read the Provided Documents

Read PRD if provided

Read tool: file_path: "[user-provided PRD path]"

Read TRD if provided

Read tool: file_path: "[user-provided TRD path]"

Read Feature Map if provided

Read tool: file_path: "[user-provided Feature Map path]"

Extract PROJECT_RULES.md Content from PM Documents

⛔ DEDUPLICATION RULE: Extract only what Ring Standards DO NOT cover.

From PRD Extract For PROJECT_RULES.md Note

Domain terms, entities Domain Terminology Technical names only

External service mentions External Integrations Third-party APIs

Business rules N/A ❌ Stays in PRD, not PROJECT_RULES

Architecture N/A ❌ Ring Standards covers this

From TRD Extract For PROJECT_RULES.md Note

Tech stack not in Ring Tech Stack (Not in Ring) Only non-standard tech

External APIs External Integrations Third-party services

Non-standard directories Non-Standard Directory Structure Workers, consumers, etc.

Architecture decisions N/A ❌ Ring Standards covers this

Database patterns N/A ❌ Ring Standards covers this

From Feature Map Extract For PROJECT_RULES.md Note

Technology choices not in Ring Tech Stack (Not in Ring) Only if not in Ring

External dependencies External Integrations Third-party services

Architecture N/A ❌ Ring Standards covers this

Generate PROJECT_RULES.md

Create tool: file_path: "docs/PROJECT_RULES.md" content: | # Project Rules

> ⛔ IMPORTANT: Ring Standards are not automatic. Agents MUST WebFetch them before implementation.
> This file documents only project-specific information not covered by Ring Standards.
> Generated from PM documents (PRD/TRD/Feature Map).
>
> Ring Standards URLs:
> - Go: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/LerianStudio/ring/main/dev-team/docs/standards/golang.md
> - TypeScript: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/LerianStudio/ring/main/dev-team/docs/standards/typescript.md

## What Ring Standards Cover (DO not DUPLICATE HERE)

The following are defined in Ring Standards and MUST not be duplicated in this file:
- Error handling patterns (no panic, wrap errors)
- Logging standards (structured JSON via lib-commons)
- Testing patterns (table-driven tests, mocks)
- Architecture patterns (Hexagonal, Clean Architecture)
- Observability (OpenTelemetry via lib-commons)
- lib-commons / lib-common-js usage and patterns
- API directory structure (Lerian pattern)
- Database connections (PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Redis via lib-commons)
- Bootstrap pattern (config.go, service.go, server.go)

**Agents MUST WebFetch Ring Standards and output Standards Coverage Table.**

---

## Tech Stack (Not in Ring Standards)

[From TRD/Feature Map: only technologies not covered by Ring Standards]

| Technology | Purpose | Notes |
|------------|---------|-------|
| [detected] | [purpose] | [notes] |

## Non-Standard Directory Structure

[From TRD: Directories that deviate from Ring's standard API structure]

| Directory | Purpose | Pattern |
|-----------|---------|---------|
| [detected] | [purpose] | [pattern] |

## External Integrations

[From TRD/PRD: Third-party services specific to this project]

| Service | Purpose | Docs |
|---------|---------|------|
| [detected] | [purpose] | [link] |

## Environment Configuration

[From TRD: Project-specific env vars not covered by Ring]

| Variable | Purpose | Example |
|----------|---------|---------|
| [detected] | [purpose] | [example] |

## Domain Terminology

[From PRD: Technical names used in this codebase]

| Term | Definition | Used In |
|------|------------|---------|
| [detected] | [definition] | [location] |

---

*Generated from: [PRD path], [TRD path], [Feature Map path]*
*Ring Standards Version: [version from WebFetch]*
*Generated: [ISO timestamp]*

Check for Missing Information

If any section is empty or incomplete, ask supplementary questions:

Missing Section Supplementary Question

Tech Stack (Not in Ring) "Any technology not covered by Ring Standards (message broker, cache, etc.)?"

External Integrations "Any third-party APIs or external services?"

Domain Terminology "What are the main entities/classes in this codebase?"

Non-Standard Directories "Any directories that don't follow standard API structure (workers, consumers)?"

Note: Do not ask about architecture, error handling, logging, testing - Ring Standards covers these.

After Generation

Present to user for review, then proceed to Step 1.

Step 0.3.2: HARD BLOCK - No PM Documents (New Projects Only)

When User Has No PM Documents

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ ⛔ CANNOT PROCEED - PM DOCUMENTS REQUIRED │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ Development cannot start without PM documents. │ │ │ │ You MUST create PRD, TRD, and/or Feature Map documents first │ │ using PM team skills: │ │ │ │ /ring:pre-dev-full → For features ≥2 days (9 gates) │ │ /ring:pre-dev-feature → For features <2 days (4 gates) │ │ │ │ These commands will guide you through creating: │ │ • PRD (Product Requirements Document) │ │ • TRD (Technical Requirements Document) │ │ • Feature Map (technology choices, feature relationships) │ │ │ │ After completing pre-dev workflow, run /ring:dev-cycle again. │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Action

STOP EXECUTION. Do not proceed to Step 1.

Step 0 Anti-Rationalization

Rationalization Why It's WRONG Required Action

"Skip PM docs, I'll add them later" Later = never. No PM docs = no project context = agents guessing. Run /ring:pre-dev-full or /ring:pre-dev-feature NOW

"Project is simple, doesn't need PM docs" Simple projects still need domain context defined upfront. Create PM documents first

"I know what I want to build" Your knowledge ≠ documented knowledge agents can use. Document in PRD/TRD/Feature Map

"PM workflow takes too long" PM workflow takes 30-60 min. Rework from unclear requirements takes days. Invest time upfront

"Just let me start coding" Coding without requirements = building the wrong thing. Requirements first, code second

"It's legacy but I don't want to answer questions" Legacy analysis takes ~5 min. Without it, agents have zero context. Answer the 4 questions

"Legacy project is too complex to explain" Start with high-level answers. PROJECT_RULES.md can be refined later. Provide what you know NOW

Pressure Resistance

User Says Your Response

"Just skip this, I'll create PM docs later" "PM documents are REQUIRED for new projects. Without them, agents cannot understand your project's domain context or technical requirements. Run /ring:pre-dev-full or /ring:pre-dev-feature first."

"I don't need formal documents" "PM documents are the source of truth for PROJECT_RULES.md. Development cannot start without documented requirements."

"This is just a quick prototype" "Even prototypes need clear requirements. /ring:pre-dev-feature takes ~30 minutes and prevents hours of rework."

"I already explained what I want verbally" "Verbal explanations cannot be used by agents. Requirements MUST be documented in PRD/TRD/Feature Map files."

"It's a legacy project but skip the questions" "The legacy analysis (ring:codebase-explorer + 3 questions) is the only way I can understand your project. It takes ~5 minutes and enables me to help you effectively."

"I'll fill in PROJECT_RULES.md myself" "That works! Create docs/PROJECT_RULES.md with: Tech Stack (not in Ring), External Integrations, Domain Terminology. Do not duplicate Ring Standards content. Then run /ring:dev-cycle again."

Step 1: Initialize or Resume

Instructions-Only Mode (no task file)

Input: Custom instructions string without a task file path

Example: /ring:dev-cycle "Add webhook notification support for account status changes"

When custom instructions are provided without a tasks file, ring:dev-cycle generates tasks internally:

  • Detect instructions-only mode: No task file argument AND instructions string provided

  • Analyze prompt: Extract intent, scope, and requirements from the prompt

  • Explore codebase: Dispatch ring:codebase-explorer to understand project structure

  • Generate tasks: Create task structure internally based on prompt + codebase analysis

Task tool: subagent_type: "ring:codebase-explorer" prompt: | Analyze this codebase to support the following implementation request:

**User Request:** {prompt}

Provide:
1. Relevant files and patterns for this request
2. Suggested task breakdown (T-001, T-002, etc.)
3. Acceptance criteria for each task
4. Files that will need modification

Output as structured task list compatible with ring:dev-cycle.

  • Present generated tasks: Show user the auto-generated task breakdown

  • Confirm with user: "I generated X tasks from your prompt. Proceed?"

  • Set state:

  • state_path = "docs/ring:dev-cycle/current-cycle.json"

  • cycle_type = "prompt"

  • source_prompt = "[user's prompt]"

  • Generate tasks array from ring:codebase-explorer output

  • Continue to execution mode selection (Step 1 substeps 7-9)

Anti-Rationalization for Prompt-Only Mode:

Rationalization Why It's WRONG Required Action

"Skip codebase exploration, I understand the prompt" Prompt understanding ≠ codebase understanding. Explorer provides context. Always run ring:codebase-explorer

"Generate minimal tasks to go faster" Minimal tasks = missed requirements. Comprehensive breakdown prevents rework. Generate complete task breakdown

"User knows what they want, skip confirmation" User intent ≠ generated tasks. Confirmation prevents wrong implementation. Always confirm generated tasks

New Cycle (with task file path)

Input: path/to/tasks.md or path/to/pre-dev/{feature}/ with optional second argument for custom instructions

Examples:

  • /ring:dev-cycle tasks.md

  • /ring:dev-cycle tasks.md "Focus on error handling"

  • Detect input: File → Load directly | Directory → Load tasks.md + discover subtasks/

  • Build order: Read tasks, check for subtasks (ST-XXX-01, 02...) or TDD autonomous mode

  • Determine state path:

  • if source_file contains docs/ring:dev-refactor/ → state_path = "docs/ring:dev-refactor/current-cycle.json" , cycle_type = "refactor"

  • else → state_path = "docs/ring:dev-cycle/current-cycle.json" , cycle_type = "feature"

  • Capture and validate custom instructions: If second argument provided:

  • Sanitize input: Trim whitespace, strip control characters (except newlines)

  • Store validated value: Set custom_prompt field (empty string if not provided)

  • Note: Directives attempting to skip gates are logged as warnings and ignored at execution time

  • Initialize state: Generate cycle_id, create state file at {state_path} , set indices to 0

  • Display plan: "Loaded X tasks with Y subtasks"

  • ASK EXECUTION MODE (MANDATORY - AskUserQuestion):

  • Options: (a) Manual per subtask (b) Manual per task (c) Automatic

  • Do not skip: User hints ≠ mode selection. Only explicit a/b/c is valid.

  • ASK COMMIT TIMING (MANDATORY - AskUserQuestion):

  • Options: (a) Per subtask (b) Per task (c) At the end

  • Store in commit_timing field in state

  • Start: Display mode + commit timing, proceed to Gate 0

Resume Cycle (--resume flag)

  • Find existing state file:

  • Check docs/ring:dev-cycle/current-cycle.json first

  • If not found, check docs/ring:dev-refactor/current-cycle.json

  • If neither exists → Error: "No cycle to resume"

  • Load found state file, validate (state_path is stored in the state object)

  • Display: cycle started, tasks completed/total, current task/subtask/gate, paused reason

  • Handle paused states:

Status Action

paused_for_approval

Re-present Step 11.1 checkpoint

paused_for_testing

Ask if testing complete → continue or keep paused

paused_for_task_approval

Re-present Step 11.2 checkpoint

paused_for_integration_testing

Ask if integration testing complete

paused (generic) Ask user to confirm resume

in_progress

Resume from current gate

Input Validation

Task files are generated by /pre-dev-* or /ring:dev-refactor , which handle content validation. The ring:dev-cycle performs basic format checks:

Format Checks

Check Validation Action

File exists Task file path is readable Error: abort

Task headers At least one ## Task: found Error: abort

Task ID format

Task: {ID} - {Title}

Warning: use line number as ID

Acceptance criteria At least one - [ ] per task Warning: task may fail validation gate

Step 1.5: Detect External Dependencies (Cycle-Level Auto-Detection)

MANDATORY: Scan the codebase once at cycle start to detect external dependencies. Store in state.detected_dependencies for use by Gates 2, 6, and 7.

detected_dependencies = []

  1. Scan docker-compose.yml / docker-compose.yaml for service images:

    • Grep tool: pattern "postgres" in docker-compose* files → add "postgres"
    • Grep tool: pattern "mongo" in docker-compose* files → add "mongodb"
    • Grep tool: pattern "valkey" in docker-compose* files → add "valkey"
    • Grep tool: pattern "redis" in docker-compose* files → add "redis"
    • Grep tool: pattern "rabbitmq" in docker-compose* files → add "rabbitmq"

  2. Scan dependency manifests: if language == "go":

    • Grep tool: pattern "github.com/lib/pq" in go.mod → add "postgres"
    • Grep tool: pattern "github.com/jackc/pgx" in go.mod → add "postgres"
    • Grep tool: pattern "go.mongodb.org/mongo-driver" in go.mod → add "mongodb"
    • Grep tool: pattern "github.com/redis/go-redis" in go.mod → add "redis"
    • Grep tool: pattern "github.com/valkey-io/valkey-go" in go.mod → add "valkey"
    • Grep tool: pattern "github.com/rabbitmq/amqp091-go" in go.mod → add "rabbitmq"

    if language == "typescript":

    • Grep tool: pattern ""pg"" in package.json → add "postgres"
    • Grep tool: pattern "@prisma/client" in package.json → add "postgres"
    • Grep tool: pattern ""mongodb"" in package.json → add "mongodb"
    • Grep tool: pattern ""mongoose"" in package.json → add "mongodb"
    • Grep tool: pattern ""redis"" in package.json → add "redis"
    • Grep tool: pattern ""ioredis"" in package.json → add "redis"
    • Grep tool: pattern "@valkey" in package.json → add "valkey"
    • Grep tool: pattern ""amqplib"" in package.json → add "rabbitmq"
    • Grep tool: pattern "amqp-connection-manager" in package.json → add "rabbitmq"

  3. Deduplicate detected_dependencies

  4. Store: state.detected_dependencies = detected_dependencies

  5. Log: "Auto-detected external dependencies: [detected_dependencies]"

⛔ MANDATORY: Multi-Tenant Detection & Compliance Audit

<cannot_skip> MANDATORY: Multi-tenant dual-mode applies to all Go services (no exceptions). Gate 0 implements dual-mode from the start using lib-commons v3 resolvers. Gate 0.5G verifies compliance. This detection captures the CURRENT state of the codebase for context.

See multi-tenant.md for the canonical model and dev-delivery-verification Step 3.5G for the verification checks. </cannot_skip>

6. Detect existing multi-tenant code and audit compliance:
   multi_tenant_exists = false
   multi_tenant_compliant = false

   if language == "go":
     // Phase 1: Detection
     - Grep tool: pattern "MULTI_TENANT_ENABLED" in internal/ --include="*.go" → multi_tenant_exists = true
     - Grep tool: pattern "tenant-manager" in go.mod → multi_tenant_exists = true
     - Grep tool: pattern "TenantMiddleware\|MultiPoolMiddleware" in internal/ --include="*.go" → multi_tenant_exists = true

     // Phase 2: Compliance audit (only if multi_tenant_exists = true)
     if multi_tenant_exists:
       compliance_checks = {}
       - Grep: "TENANT_MANAGER_ADDRESS\|TENANT_URL\|TENANT_MANAGER_URL" in internal/ → if match: compliance_checks.config = "NON-COMPLIANT"
       - Grep: "tmmiddleware.NewTenantMiddleware\|tmmiddleware.NewMultiPoolMiddleware" in internal/ → if no match: compliance_checks.middleware = "NON-COMPLIANT"
       - Grep: "core.ResolvePostgres\|core.ResolveMongo\|core.ResolveModuleDB" in internal/ → if no match: compliance_checks.repositories = "NON-COMPLIANT"
       - Grep: "WithCircuitBreaker" in internal/ → if no match: compliance_checks.circuit_breaker = "NON-COMPLIANT"
       - Grep: "TestMultiTenant_BackwardCompatibility" in internal/ → if no match: compliance_checks.backward_compat = "NON-COMPLIANT"

       if all checks pass: multi_tenant_compliant = true
       else: multi_tenant_compliant = false

   if language == "typescript":
     - Grep tool: pattern "MULTI_TENANT_ENABLED" in src/ --include="*.ts" → multi_tenant_exists = true
     - Grep tool: pattern "tenant-manager" in package.json → multi_tenant_exists = true
     // TypeScript compliance audit follows same pattern

   state.multi_tenant_exists = multi_tenant_exists
   state.multi_tenant_compliant = multi_tenant_compliant

   if multi_tenant_exists &#x26;&#x26; multi_tenant_compliant:
     Log: "Multi-tenant COMPLIANT — Gate 0 agent uses dual-mode resolvers, Gate 0.5G will verify"
   elif multi_tenant_exists &#x26;&#x26; !multi_tenant_compliant:
     Log: "Multi-tenant DETECTED but NON-COMPLIANT — Gate 0 agent must fix, Gate 0.5G will verify"
   else:
     Log: "Multi-tenant NOT detected — Gate 0 agent will implement dual-mode, Gate 0.5G will verify"

MANDATORY: ⛔ Save state to file — Write tool → [state.state_path]

&#x3C;auto_detect_reason>
PM team task files often omit external_dependencies. If the codebase uses postgres, mongodb, valkey, or rabbitmq, these MUST be detected and passed to Gates 6 (integration) and 7 (chaos). Auto-detection at cycle level avoids redundant scans per gate.

Multi-tenant state is detected here and passed to Gate 0 (implementation) and Gate 0.5G (verification). See multi-tenant.md for the canonical model and compliance criteria.
&#x3C;/auto_detect_reason>

Step 2: Gate 0 - Implementation (Per Execution Unit)

REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use ring:dev-implementation

Execution Unit: Task (if no subtasks) or Subtask (if task has subtasks)

Pre-Dispatch: Before Gate 0 Checkpoint (MANDATORY)

MUST execute the Before Gate 0 (task start) row from the State Persistence Checkpoints table before sub-steps 2.1–2.3:

- Set task.status = "in_progress"
 in state JSON

- Update tasks.md Status → 🔄 Doing
 (per tasks.md Status update rules in that table)

- Write state to file

CANNOT proceed to sub-steps 2.1–2.3 without completing this checkpoint.

⛔ MANDATORY: Invoke ring:dev-implementation Skill (not inline execution)

See shared-patterns/shared-orchestrator-principle.md for full details.

⛔ FORBIDDEN: Executing TDD-RED/GREEN logic directly from this step.
MUST invoke the ring:dev-implementation skill via the Skill tool; it handles all TDD phases, agent selection, agent dispatch, standards verification, and fix iteration.

⛔ File Size Enforcement (MANDATORY — All Gates)

See shared-patterns/file-size-enforcement.md for thresholds, verification commands, split strategies, and agent instructions.

Summary: No source file may exceed 300 lines (>300 = loop back to agent; >500 = hard block). Implementation agents MUST split proactively. Enforcement points:

- Gate 0: Implementation agent receives file-size instructions; orchestrator runs verification command after agent completes and loops back if any file > 300 lines.

- Gate 0.5: Delivery verification skill runs 7 checks: (A) file-size, (B) license headers, (C) linting, (D) migration safety, (E) vulnerability scanning, (F) API backward compatibility, (G) multi-tenant dual-mode. Any FAIL → return to Gate 0 with specific fix instructions.

- Gate 8: Code reviewers MUST flag any file > 300 lines as a MEDIUM+ issue (blocking).

Step 2.1: Prepare Input for ring:dev-implementation Skill

Gather from current execution unit:

implementation_input = {
  // REQUIRED - from current execution unit
  unit_id: state.current_unit.id,
  requirements: state.current_unit.acceptance_criteria,

  // REQUIRED - detected from project
  language: state.current_unit.language,  // "go" | "typescript" | "python"
  service_type: state.current_unit.service_type,  // "api" | "worker" | "batch" | "cli" | "frontend" | "bff"

  // OPTIONAL - additional context
  technical_design: state.current_unit.technical_design || null,
  existing_patterns: state.current_unit.existing_patterns || [],
  project_rules_path: "docs/PROJECT_RULES.md"
}

Step 2.2: Invoke ring:dev-implementation Skill

1. Record gate start timestamp

2. REQUIRED: Invoke ring:dev-implementation skill with structured input:

   Skill("ring:dev-implementation") with input:
     unit_id: implementation_input.unit_id
     requirements: implementation_input.requirements
     language: implementation_input.language
     service_type: implementation_input.service_type
     technical_design: implementation_input.technical_design
     existing_patterns: implementation_input.existing_patterns
     project_rules_path: implementation_input.project_rules_path

   The skill handles:
   - Selecting appropriate agent (Go/TS/Frontend based on language)
   - TDD-RED phase (writing failing test, capturing failure output)
   - TDD-GREEN phase (implementing code to pass test)
   - Standards compliance verification (iteration loop, max 3 attempts)
   - Re-dispatching agent for compliance fixes
   - Outputting Standards Coverage Table with evidence

3. REQUIRED: Parse skill output for results:

   Expected output sections:
   - "## Implementation Summary" → status (PASS/FAIL), agent used
   - "## TDD Results" → RED/GREEN phase status
   - "## Files Changed" → created/modified files list
   - "## Handoff to Next Gate" → ready_for_gate_1: YES/NO

   if skill output contains "Status: PASS" and "Ready for Gate 1: YES":
     → Gate 0 PASSED. Proceed to Step 2.3.

   if skill output contains "Status: FAIL" or "Ready for Gate 1: NO":
     → Gate 0 BLOCKED.
     → Skill already dispatched fixes to implementation agent
     → Skill already re-ran TDD and standards verification
     → If "ESCALATION" in output: STOP and report to user

4. **MANDATORY: ⛔ Save state to file — Write tool → [state.state_path]**

Step 2.3: Gate 0 Complete

5. When ring:dev-implementation skill returns PASS:

   REQUIRED: Parse from skill output:
   - agent_used: extract from "## Implementation Summary"
   - tdd_red_status: extract from "## TDD Results" table
   - tdd_green_status: extract from "## TDD Results" table
   - files_changed: extract from "## Files Changed" table
   - standards_compliance: extract from Standards Coverage Table

   - agent_outputs.implementation = {
       skill: "ring:dev-implementation",
       agent: "[agent used by skill]",
       output: "[full skill output]",
       timestamp: "[ISO timestamp]",
       duration_ms: [execution time],
       tdd_red: {
         status: "completed",
         test_file: "[from skill output]",
         failure_output: "[from skill output]"
       },
       tdd_green: {
         status: "completed",
         implementation_files: "[from skill output]",
         pass_output: "[from skill output]"
       },
       standards_compliance: {
         total_sections: [N from skill output],
         compliant: [N sections with ✅],
         not_applicable: [N sections with N/A],
         non_compliant: 0
       }
     }

6. Display to user:
   ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
   │ ✓ GATE 0 COMPLETE                              │
   ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
   │ Skill: ring:dev-implementation                  │
   │ Agent: [agent_used]                             │
   │ TDD-RED:   FAIL captured ✓                     │
   │ TDD-GREEN: PASS verified ✓                     │
   │ STANDARDS: [N]/[N] sections compliant ✓        │
   │                                                 │
   │ Proceeding to Gate 1 (DevOps)...               │
   └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

7. MANDATORY: ⛔ Save state to file — Write tool → [state.state_path]
   See "State Persistence Rule" section.

8. Proceed to Gate 0.5

Step 2.5: Gate 0.5 - Delivery Verification (Per Execution Unit)

1. Load Skill:
   Skill("ring:dev-delivery-verification")

2. Invoke with Gate 0 outputs:
   - unit_id: current task/subtask ID
   - requirements: original task requirements from tasks.md
   - files_changed: from Gate 0 agent_outputs.implementation (## Files Changed)
   - gate0_handoff: full Gate 0 output

3. Parse result from skill output:
   - result: PASS | PARTIAL | FAIL
   - requirements_total: from "## Requirement Coverage Matrix"
   - requirements_delivered: count of ✅ DELIVERED rows
   - requirements_missing: count of ❌ NOT DELIVERED rows
   - dead_code_items: count from "## Dead Code Detection"
   - remediation_items: count from "## Return to Gate 0" (0 if PASS)

4. Update state:
   - gate_progress.delivery_verification = {
       status: "completed",
       requirements_total: [N],
       requirements_delivered: [N],
       requirements_missing: [N],
       dead_code_items: [N],
       remediation_items: [N],
       completed_at: "[ISO timestamp]"
     }

5. Control flow based on result:

   IF PASS:
     → Display ✓ GATE 0.5 COMPLETE, proceed to Gate 1
   
   IF PARTIAL:
     → Extract undelivered requirements from "## Return to Gate 0"
     → Display ⚠ GATE 0.5 PARTIAL — [N] of [M] requirements not delivered
     → Return to Gate 0 (Step 2) with explicit fix instructions:
       "Deliver the following requirements: [list from Return to Gate 0]"
     → After Gate 0 re-run, re-execute Gate 0.5
     → Max 2 retries. If still PARTIAL after 2 retries → escalate to user
   
   IF FAIL:
     → Extract all gaps from "## Return to Gate 0"
     → Display ✗ GATE 0.5 FAIL — critical requirements not delivered
     → Return to Gate 0 (Step 2) with full remediation list
     → After Gate 0 re-run, re-execute Gate 0.5
     → Max 2 retries. If still FAIL after 2 retries → escalate to user

6. Display to user:
   ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
   │ ✓ GATE 0.5 COMPLETE                            │
   ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
   │ Skill: ring:dev-delivery-verification           │
   │ Requirements: [delivered]/[total] DELIVERED     │
   │ Dead Code: [N] items                            │
   │ Verdict: [PASS|PARTIAL|FAIL]                    │
   │                                                 │
   │ Proceeding to Gate 1 (DevOps)...               │
   └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

7. MANDATORY: ⛔ Save state to file — Write tool → [state.state_path]
   See "State Persistence Rule" section.

8. Proceed to Gate 1

Anti-Rationalization: Gate 0 Skill Invocation

Rationalization
Why It's WRONG
Required Action

"I can run TDD-RED/GREEN directly from here"
Inline TDD = skipping the skill. Skill has iteration logic and validation.
Invoke Skill("ring:dev-implementation")

"I already know which agent to dispatch"
Agent selection is the SKILL's job, not the orchestrator's.
Invoke Skill("ring:dev-implementation")

"The TDD steps are documented here, I'll follow them"
These steps are REFERENCE, not EXECUTABLE. The skill is executable.
Invoke Skill("ring:dev-implementation")

"Skill adds overhead for simple tasks"
Overhead = compliance checks. Simple ≠ exempt.
Invoke Skill("ring:dev-implementation")

"I'll dispatch the agent and verify output myself"
Self-verification skips the skill's re-dispatch loop.
Invoke Skill("ring:dev-implementation")

"Agent already did TDD internally"
Internal ≠ verified by skill. Skill validates output structure.
Invoke Skill("ring:dev-implementation")

Step 3: Gate 1 - DevOps (Per Execution Unit)

REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use ring:dev-devops

⛔ HARD GATE: Required Artifacts MUST Be Created

Gate 1 is a BLOCKING gate. DevOps agent MUST create all required artifacts. If any artifact is missing:

- You CANNOT proceed to Gate 2

- You MUST re-dispatch to ring:devops-engineer to create missing artifacts

- You MUST verify all artifacts exist before proceeding

Required Artifacts

See shared-patterns/standards-coverage-table.md → "ring:devops-engineer → devops.md" for all required sections.

Key artifacts from devops.md:

- Containers (Dockerfile + Docker Compose)

- Makefile Standards (all required commands)

- Infrastructure as Code (if applicable)

- Helm charts (if K8s deployment)

Step 3.1: Prepare Input for ring:dev-devops Skill

Gather from previous gates:

devops_input = {
  // REQUIRED - from current execution unit
  unit_id: state.current_unit.id,
  
  // REQUIRED - from Gate 0 context
  language: state.current_unit.language,  // "go" | "typescript" | "python"
  service_type: state.current_unit.service_type,  // "api" | "worker" | "batch" | "cli"
  implementation_files: agent_outputs.implementation.files_changed,  // list of files from Gate 0
  
  // OPTIONAL - additional context
  gate0_handoff: agent_outputs.implementation,  // full Gate 0 output
  new_dependencies: state.current_unit.new_deps || [],  // new deps added in Gate 0
  new_env_vars: state.current_unit.env_vars || [],  // env vars needed
  new_services: state.current_unit.services || [],  // postgres, redis, etc.
  existing_dockerfile: [check if Dockerfile exists],
  existing_compose: [check if docker-compose.yml exists]
}

Step 3.2: Invoke ring:dev-devops Skill

1. Record gate start timestamp

2. Invoke ring:dev-devops skill with structured input:

   Skill("ring:dev-devops") with input:
     unit_id: devops_input.unit_id
     language: devops_input.language
     service_type: devops_input.service_type
     implementation_files: devops_input.implementation_files
     gate0_handoff: devops_input.gate0_handoff
     new_dependencies: devops_input.new_dependencies
     new_env_vars: devops_input.new_env_vars
     new_services: devops_input.new_services
     existing_dockerfile: devops_input.existing_dockerfile
     existing_compose: devops_input.existing_compose

   The skill handles:
   - Dispatching ring:devops-engineer agent
   - Dockerfile creation/update
   - docker-compose.yml configuration
   - .env.example documentation
   - Verification commands execution
   - Fix iteration loop (max 3 attempts)

3. Parse skill output for results:
   
   Expected output sections:
   - "## DevOps Summary" → status, iterations
   - "## Files Changed" → Dockerfile, docker-compose, .env.example actions
   - "## Verification Results" → build, startup, health checks
   - "## Handoff to Next Gate" → ready_for_sre: YES/no
   
   if skill output contains "Status: PASS" and "Ready for Gate 2: YES":
     → Gate 1 PASSED. Proceed to Step 3.3.
   
   if skill output contains "Status: FAIL" or "Ready for Gate 2: no":
     → Gate 1 BLOCKED.
     → Skill already dispatched fixes to ring:devops-engineer
     → Skill already re-ran verification
     → If "ESCALATION" in output: STOP and report to user

4. **MANDATORY: ⛔ Save state to file — Write tool → [state.state_path]**

Step 3.3: Gate 1 Complete

5. When ring:dev-devops skill returns PASS:
   
   Parse from skill output:
   - status: extract from "## DevOps Summary"
   - dockerfile_action: extract from "## Files Changed" table
   - compose_action: extract from "## Files Changed" table
   - verification_passed: extract from "## Verification Results"
   
   - agent_outputs.devops = {
       skill: "ring:dev-devops",
       output: "[full skill output]",
       artifacts_created: ["Dockerfile", "docker-compose.yml", ".env.example"],
       verification_passed: true,
       timestamp: "[ISO timestamp]",
       duration_ms: [execution time]
     }

6. Update state:
   - gate_progress.devops.status = "completed"
   - gate_progress.devops.artifacts = [list from skill output]

7. Proceed to Gate 2

Gate 1 Anti-Rationalization Table

Rationalization
Why It's WRONG
Required Action

"Dockerfile exists, skip other artifacts"
all artifacts required. 1/4 ≠ complete.
Create all artifacts

"docker-compose not needed locally"
docker-compose is MANDATORY for local dev.
Create docker-compose.yml

"Makefile is optional"
Makefile is MANDATORY for standardized commands.
Create Makefile

".env.example can be added later"
.env.example documents required config NOW.
Create .env.example

"Small service doesn't need all this"
Size is irrelevant. Standards apply uniformly.
Create all artifacts

Step 4: Gate 2 - SRE (Per Execution Unit)

REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use ring:dev-sre

Step 4.1: Prepare Input for ring:dev-sre Skill

Gather from previous gates:

sre_input = {
  // REQUIRED - from current execution unit
  unit_id: state.current_unit.id,
  
  // REQUIRED - from Gate 0 context
  language: state.current_unit.language,  // "go" | "typescript" | "python"
  service_type: state.current_unit.service_type,  // "api" | "worker" | "batch" | "cli"
  implementation_agent: agent_outputs.implementation.agent,  // e.g., "ring:backend-engineer-golang"
  implementation_files: agent_outputs.implementation.files_changed,  // list of files from Gate 0
  
  // OPTIONAL - additional context
  external_dependencies: state.current_unit.external_deps || state.detected_dependencies || [],  // HTTP clients, gRPC, queues
  gate0_handoff: agent_outputs.implementation,  // full Gate 0 output
  gate1_handoff: agent_outputs.devops  // full Gate 1 output
}

Step 4.2: Invoke ring:dev-sre Skill

1. Record gate start timestamp

2. Invoke ring:dev-sre skill with structured input:

   Skill("ring:dev-sre") with input:
     unit_id: sre_input.unit_id
     language: sre_input.language
     service_type: sre_input.service_type
     implementation_agent: sre_input.implementation_agent
     implementation_files: sre_input.implementation_files
     external_dependencies: sre_input.external_dependencies
     gate0_handoff: sre_input.gate0_handoff
     gate1_handoff: sre_input.gate1_handoff

   The skill handles:
   - Dispatching SRE agent for validation
   - Structured logging validation
   - Distributed tracing validation
   - Code instrumentation coverage (90%+ required)
   - Context propagation validation (InjectHTTPContext/InjectGRPCContext)
   - Dispatching fixes to implementation agent if needed
   - Re-validation loop (max 3 iterations)

3. Parse skill output for validation results:
   
   Expected output sections:
   - "## Validation Result" → status, iterations, coverage
   - "## Instrumentation Coverage" → table with per-layer coverage
   - "## Issues Found" → list or "None"
   - "## Handoff to Next Gate" → ready_for_testing: YES/no
   
   if skill output contains "Status: PASS" and "Ready for Gate 3: YES":
     → Gate 2 PASSED. Proceed to Step 4.3.
   
   if skill output contains "Status: FAIL" or "Ready for Gate 3: no":
     → Gate 2 BLOCKED. 
     → Skill already dispatched fixes to implementation agent
     → Skill already re-ran validation
     → If "ESCALATION" in output: STOP and report to user

4. **MANDATORY: ⛔ Save state to file — Write tool → [state.state_path]**

Step 4.3: Gate 2 Complete

5. When ring:dev-sre skill returns PASS:
   
   Parse from skill output:
   - status: extract from "## Validation Result"
   - instrumentation_coverage: extract percentage from coverage table
   - iterations: extract from "Iterations:" line
   
   - agent_outputs.sre = {
       skill: "ring:dev-sre",
       output: "[full skill output]",
       validation_result: "PASS",
       instrumentation_coverage: "[X%]",
       iterations: [count],
       timestamp: "[ISO timestamp]",
       duration_ms: [execution time]
     }

6. Update state:
   - gate_progress.sre.status = "completed"
   - gate_progress.sre.observability_validated = true
   - gate_progress.sre.instrumentation_coverage = "[X%]"

7. Proceed to Gate 3

Gate 2 Anti-Rationalization Table

See ring:dev-sre/SKILL.md for complete anti-rationalization tables covering:

- Observability deferral rationalizations

- Instrumentation coverage rationalizations

- Context propagation rationalizations

Gate 2 Pressure Resistance

User Says
Your Response

"Skip SRE validation, we'll add observability later"
"Observability is MANDATORY for Gate 2. Invoking ring:dev-sre skill now."

"SRE found issues but let's continue"
"Gate 2 is a HARD GATE. ring:dev-sre skill handles fix dispatch and re-validation."

"Instrumentation coverage is low but code works"
"90%+ instrumentation coverage is REQUIRED. ring:dev-sre skill will not pass until met."

Step 5: Gate 3 - Unit Testing (Per Execution Unit)

REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use ring:dev-unit-testing

Step 5.1: Prepare Input for ring:dev-unit-testing Skill

Gather from previous gates:

testing_input = {
  // REQUIRED - from current execution unit
  unit_id: state.current_unit.id,
  acceptance_criteria: state.current_unit.acceptance_criteria,  // list of ACs to test
  implementation_files: agent_outputs.implementation.files_changed,
  language: state.current_unit.language,  // "go" | "typescript" | "python"
  
  // OPTIONAL - additional context
  coverage_threshold: 85,  // Ring minimum, PROJECT_RULES.md can raise
  gate0_handoff: agent_outputs.implementation,  // full Gate 0 output
  existing_tests: [check for existing test files]
}

Step 5.2: Invoke ring:dev-unit-testing Skill

1. Record gate start timestamp

2. Invoke ring:dev-unit-testing skill with structured input:

   Skill("ring:dev-unit-testing") with input:
     unit_id: testing_input.unit_id
     acceptance_criteria: testing_input.acceptance_criteria
     implementation_files: testing_input.implementation_files
     language: testing_input.language
     coverage_threshold: testing_input.coverage_threshold
     gate0_handoff: testing_input.gate0_handoff
     existing_tests: testing_input.existing_tests

   The skill handles:
   - Dispatching ring:qa-analyst agent
   - Test creation following TDD methodology
   - Coverage measurement and validation (85%+ required)
   - Traceability matrix (AC → Test mapping)
   - Dispatching fixes to implementation agent if coverage &#x3C; threshold
   - Re-validation loop (max 3 iterations)

3. Parse skill output for results:
   
   Expected output sections:
   - "## Testing Summary" → status, iterations
   - "## Coverage Report" → threshold vs actual
   - "## Traceability Matrix" → AC-to-test mapping
   - "## Handoff to Next Gate" → ready_for_review: YES/no
   
   if skill output contains "Status: PASS" and "Ready for Next Gate: YES":
     → Gate 3 PASSED. Proceed to Step 5.3.

   if skill output contains "Status: FAIL" or "Ready for Next Gate: NO":
     → Gate 3 BLOCKED.
     → Skill already dispatched fixes to implementation agent
     → Skill already re-ran coverage check
     → If "ESCALATION" in output: STOP and report to user

4. **MANDATORY: ⛔ Save state to file — Write tool → [state.state_path]**

Step 5.3: Gate 3 Complete

5. When ring:dev-unit-testing skill returns PASS:
   
   Parse from skill output:
   - coverage_actual: extract percentage from "## Coverage Report"
   - coverage_threshold: extract from "## Coverage Report"
   - criteria_covered: extract from "## Traceability Matrix"
   - iterations: extract from "Iterations:" line
   
   - agent_outputs.testing = {
       skill: "ring:dev-unit-testing",
       output: "[full skill output]",
       verdict: "PASS",
       coverage_actual: [X%],
       coverage_threshold: [85%],
       criteria_covered: "[X/Y]",
       iterations: [count],
       timestamp: "[ISO timestamp]",
       duration_ms: [execution time],
       failures: [],  // Empty when PASS; see schema below for FAIL
       uncovered_criteria: []  // Empty when all ACs covered
     }
   
   **If iterations > 1 (tests failed before passing), populate `failures[]`:**
   ```json
   failures: [
     {
       "test_name": "TestUserCreate_InvalidEmail",
       "test_file": "internal/handler/user_test.go",
       "error_type": "assertion|panic|timeout|compilation",
       "expected": "[expected value]",
       "actual": "[actual value]",
       "message": "[error message from test output]",
       "stack_trace": "[relevant stack trace]",
       "fixed_in_iteration": [iteration number when fixed]
     }
   ]

If coverage &#x3C; 100% of acceptance criteria, populate uncovered_criteria[]
:

uncovered_criteria: [
  {
    "criterion_id": "AC-001",
    "description": "User should receive email confirmation",
    "reason": "No test found for email sending functionality"
  }
]

- 
Update state:

- gate_progress.testing.status = "completed"

- gate_progress.testing.coverage = [coverage_actual]

- 
Proceed to Gate 4 (Fuzz Testing)

### Gate 3 Thresholds

- **Minimum:** 85% (Ring standard - CANNOT be lowered)
- **Project-specific:** Can be higher if defined in `docs/PROJECT_RULES.md`
- **Validation:** Threshold &#x3C; 85% → Use 85%

### Gate 3 Pressure Resistance

| User Says | Your Response |
|-----------|---------------|
| "84% is close enough" | "85% is Ring minimum. ring:dev-unit-testing skill enforces this." |
| "Skip testing, deadline" | "Testing is MANDATORY. ring:dev-unit-testing skill handles iterations." |
| "Manual testing covers it" | "Gate 3 requires executable unit tests. Invoking ring:dev-unit-testing now." |

## Step 6: Gate 4 - Fuzz Testing (Per Execution Unit)

**REQUIRED SUB-SKILL:** Use `ring:dev-fuzz-testing`

**MANDATORY GATE:** All code paths MUST have fuzz tests to discover edge cases and crashes.

### Step 6.1: Prepare Input for ring:dev-fuzz-testing Skill

```text
Gather from previous gates:

fuzz_testing_input = {
  // REQUIRED - from current execution unit
  unit_id: state.current_unit.id,
  implementation_files: agent_outputs.implementation.files_changed,
  language: state.current_unit.language,  // "go" | "typescript"

  // OPTIONAL - additional context
  gate3_handoff: agent_outputs.unit_testing  // full Gate 3 output
}

Step 6.2: Invoke ring:dev-fuzz-testing Skill

1. Record gate start timestamp

2. Invoke ring:dev-fuzz-testing skill with structured input:

   Skill("ring:dev-fuzz-testing") with input:
     unit_id: fuzz_testing_input.unit_id
     implementation_files: fuzz_testing_input.implementation_files
     language: fuzz_testing_input.language
     gate3_handoff: fuzz_testing_input.gate3_handoff

   The skill handles:
   - Dispatching ring:qa-analyst agent (test_mode: fuzz)
   - Fuzz function creation (FuzzXxx naming)
   - Seed corpus generation (minimum 5 entries)
   - f.Add() pattern validation
   - Dispatching fixes if crashes found
   - Re-validation loop (max 3 iterations)

3. Parse skill output for results:

   if skill output contains "Status: PASS":
     → Gate 4 PASSED. Proceed to Gate 5.

   if skill output contains "Status: FAIL":
     → Gate 4 BLOCKED.

4. **MANDATORY: ⛔ Save state to file — Write tool → [state.state_path]**

Step 6.3: Gate 4 Complete

5. Update state:
   - gate_progress.fuzz_testing.status = "completed"
   - gate_progress.fuzz_testing.corpus_entries = [count]

6. Proceed to Gate 5 (Property Testing)

Step 7: Gate 5 - Property-Based Testing (Per Execution Unit)

REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use ring:dev-property-testing

MANDATORY GATE: Domain invariants MUST be verified with property-based tests.

Step 7.1: Prepare Input for ring:dev-property-testing Skill

Gather from previous gates:

property_testing_input = {
  // REQUIRED - from current execution unit
  unit_id: state.current_unit.id,
  implementation_files: agent_outputs.implementation.files_changed,
  language: state.current_unit.language,

  // Domain invariants from requirements
  domain_invariants: state.current_unit.domain_invariants || []
}

Step 7.2: Invoke ring:dev-property-testing Skill

1. Record gate start timestamp

2. Invoke ring:dev-property-testing skill with structured input:

   Skill("ring:dev-property-testing") with input:
     unit_id: property_testing_input.unit_id
     implementation_files: property_testing_input.implementation_files
     language: property_testing_input.language
     domain_invariants: property_testing_input.domain_invariants

   The skill handles:
   - Dispatching ring:qa-analyst agent (test_mode: property)
   - Property function creation (TestProperty_* naming)
   - quick.Check pattern validation
   - Invariant verification
   - Dispatching fixes if properties fail
   - Re-validation loop (max 3 iterations)

3. Parse skill output for results:

   if skill output contains "Status: PASS":
     → Gate 5 PASSED. Proceed to Gate 6.

   if skill output contains "Status: FAIL":
     → Gate 5 BLOCKED.

4. **MANDATORY: ⛔ Save state to file — Write tool → [state.state_path]**

Step 7.3: Gate 5 Complete

5. Update state:
   - gate_progress.property_testing.status = "completed"
   - gate_progress.property_testing.properties_tested = [count]

6. Proceed to Gate 6 (Integration Testing)

Step 8: Gate 6 - Integration Testing (Per Execution Unit — WRITE ONLY)

REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use ring:dev-integration-testing

MANDATORY GATE: All code MUST have integration tests using testcontainers.

⛔ DEFERRED EXECUTION: Per unit, this gate writes/updates integration test code and verifies compilation. Tests are NOT executed here (no containers). Actual execution happens at end of cycle (Step 12.1).

Step 8.1: Prepare Input for ring:dev-integration-testing Skill

Gather from previous gates:

integration_testing_input = {
  // REQUIRED - from current execution unit
  unit_id: state.current_unit.id,
  integration_scenarios: state.current_unit.integration_scenarios || [],
  external_dependencies: state.current_unit.external_dependencies || state.detected_dependencies || [],
  language: state.current_unit.language,
  mode: "write_only",  // CRITICAL: write tests, verify compilation, do NOT execute

  // OPTIONAL - additional context
  gate5_handoff: agent_outputs.property_testing,
  implementation_files: agent_outputs.implementation.files_changed
}

// NOTE: external_dependencies falls back to state.detected_dependencies
// from Step 1.5 (cycle-level auto-detection) when the unit doesn't define them.

Step 8.2: Invoke ring:dev-integration-testing Skill (Write Mode)

1. Record gate start timestamp

2. REQUIRED: Invoke ring:dev-integration-testing skill with structured input:

   Skill("ring:dev-integration-testing") with input:
     unit_id: integration_testing_input.unit_id
     integration_scenarios: integration_testing_input.integration_scenarios
     external_dependencies: integration_testing_input.external_dependencies
     language: integration_testing_input.language
     mode: "write_only"
     gate5_handoff: integration_testing_input.gate5_handoff
     implementation_files: integration_testing_input.implementation_files

   In write_only mode, the skill handles:
   - Dispatching ring:qa-analyst agent (test_mode: integration)
   - Writing/updating integration test code for current unit's changes
   - Verifying test compilation (go build ./... or tsc --noEmit)
   - Verifying build tags (//go:build integration) present
   - Verifying testcontainers imports present
   - NOT spinning up containers or executing tests

3. REQUIRED: Parse skill output for results:

   Expected output:
   - "## Integration Test Code" → files written/updated
   - "## Compilation Check" → PASS/FAIL
   - "## Standards Compliance" → build tags, naming, testcontainers

   if compilation PASS and standards met:
     → Gate 6 (write) PASSED. Proceed to Step 8.3.

   if compilation FAIL:
     → Gate 6 BLOCKED. Fix compilation errors before proceeding.

4. **MANDATORY: ⛔ Save state to file — Write tool → [state.state_path]**

Step 8.3: Gate 6 (Write) Complete

5. Update state:
   - gate_progress.integration_testing.write_status = "completed"
   - gate_progress.integration_testing.execution_status = "deferred"  // Executed at end of cycle
   - gate_progress.integration_testing.test_files = [list of test files written/updated]
   - gate_progress.integration_testing.compilation_passed = true

6. Proceed to Gate 7 (Chaos Testing — Write Only)

Gate 6 Pressure Resistance

User Says
Your Response

"Unit tests cover integration"
"Unit tests mock dependencies. Integration tests verify real behavior. Write the tests now, execute at end of cycle."

"Skip writing, we'll add tests later"
"Test code MUST be written per unit to stay current. Only execution is deferred."

"No external dependencies to test"
"Verify internal integration too. Write the tests, they'll execute at end of cycle."

"Just run the tests now"
"Deferred execution avoids redundant container spin-ups. Tests execute once at end of cycle."

Step 9: Gate 7 - Chaos Testing (Per Execution Unit — WRITE ONLY)

REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use ring:dev-chaos-testing

MANDATORY GATE: All external dependencies MUST have chaos tests for failure scenarios.

⛔ DEFERRED EXECUTION: Per unit, this gate writes/updates chaos test code and verifies compilation. Tests are NOT executed here (no Toxiproxy). Actual execution happens at end of cycle (Step 12.1).

Step 9.1: Prepare Input for ring:dev-chaos-testing Skill

Gather from previous gates:

chaos_testing_input = {
  // REQUIRED - from current execution unit
  unit_id: state.current_unit.id,
  external_dependencies: state.current_unit.external_dependencies || state.detected_dependencies || [],
  language: state.current_unit.language,
  mode: "write_only",  // CRITICAL: write tests, verify compilation, do NOT execute

  // OPTIONAL - additional context
  gate6_handoff: agent_outputs.integration_testing
}

// NOTE: external_dependencies falls back to state.detected_dependencies
// from Step 1.5 (cycle-level auto-detection) when the unit doesn't define them.

Step 9.2: Invoke ring:dev-chaos-testing Skill (Write Mode)

1. Record gate start timestamp

2. REQUIRED: Invoke ring:dev-chaos-testing skill with structured input:

   Skill("ring:dev-chaos-testing") with input:
     unit_id: chaos_testing_input.unit_id
     external_dependencies: chaos_testing_input.external_dependencies
     language: chaos_testing_input.language
     mode: "write_only"
     gate6_handoff: chaos_testing_input.gate6_handoff

   In write_only mode, the skill handles:
   - Dispatching ring:qa-analyst agent (test_mode: chaos)
   - Writing/updating chaos test code for current unit's dependencies
   - Verifying test compilation
   - Verifying dual-gate pattern (CHAOS=1 + testing.Short())
   - Verifying Toxiproxy imports present
   - NOT starting Toxiproxy or executing failure scenarios

3. Parse skill output for results:

   if compilation PASS and standards met:
     → Gate 7 (write) PASSED. Proceed to Gate 8.

   if compilation FAIL:
     → Gate 7 BLOCKED. Fix compilation errors before proceeding.

4. **MANDATORY: ⛔ Save state to file — Write tool → [state.state_path]**

Step 9.3: Gate 7 (Write) Complete

5. Update state:
   - gate_progress.chaos_testing.write_status = "completed"
   - gate_progress.chaos_testing.execution_status = "deferred"  // Executed at end of cycle
   - gate_progress.chaos_testing.test_files = [list of test files written/updated]
   - gate_progress.chaos_testing.compilation_passed = true

6. Proceed to Gate 8 (Review)

Gate 7 Pressure Resistance

User Says
Your Response

"Chaos testing is overkill"
"Chaos tests verify graceful degradation. Write them now, execute at end of cycle."

"Skip writing, add later"
"Test code MUST be written per unit. Only execution is deferred to end of cycle."

"Just run the chaos tests now"
"Deferred execution avoids redundant Toxiproxy spin-ups. Tests execute once at end of cycle."

"No time for chaos testing"
"Writing chaos tests per unit takes minutes. Execution cost is paid once at end."

Step 10: Gate 8 - Review (Per Execution Unit)

REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use ring:requesting-code-review

Step 10.1: Prepare Input for ring:requesting-code-review Skill

Gather from previous gates:

review_input = {
  // REQUIRED - from current execution unit
  unit_id: state.current_unit.id,
  base_sha: state.current_unit.base_sha,  // SHA before implementation
  head_sha: [current HEAD],  // SHA after all gates
  implementation_summary: state.current_unit.title + requirements,
  requirements: state.current_unit.acceptance_criteria,
  
  // OPTIONAL - additional context
  implementation_files: agent_outputs.implementation.files_changed,
  gate0_handoff: agent_outputs.implementation  // full Gate 0 output
}

Step 10.2: Invoke ring:requesting-code-review Skill

1. Record gate start timestamp

2. Invoke ring:requesting-code-review skill with structured input:

   Skill("ring:requesting-code-review") with input:
     unit_id: review_input.unit_id
     base_sha: review_input.base_sha
     head_sha: review_input.head_sha
     implementation_summary: review_input.implementation_summary
     requirements: review_input.requirements
     implementation_files: review_input.implementation_files
     gate0_handoff: review_input.gate0_handoff

   The skill handles:
   - Dispatching all 7 reviewers in PARALLEL (single message with 7 Task calls)
   - ring:code-reviewer, ring:business-logic-reviewer, ring:security-reviewer, ring:nil-safety-reviewer, ring:test-reviewer, ring:consequences-reviewer, ring:dead-code-reviewer
   - Aggregating issues by severity (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW/COSMETIC)
   - Dispatching fixes to implementation agent for blocking issues
   - Re-running all 7 reviewers after fixes
   - Iteration tracking (max 3 attempts)
   - Adding TODO/FIXME comments for non-blocking issues

3. Parse skill output for results:
   
   Expected output sections:
   - "## Review Summary" → status, iterations
   - "## Issues by Severity" → counts per severity level
   - "## Reviewer Verdicts" → all 7 reviewers
   - "## Handoff to Next Gate" → ready_for_validation: YES/NO

   if skill output contains "Status: PASS" and "Ready for Gate 9: YES":
     → Gate 8 PASSED. Proceed to Step 10.3.

   if skill output contains "Status: FAIL" or "Ready for Gate 9: NO":
     → Gate 8 BLOCKED.
     → Skill already dispatched fixes to implementation agent
      → Skill already re-ran all 7 reviewers
     → If "ESCALATION" in output: STOP and report to user

4. **MANDATORY: ⛔ Save state to file — Write tool → [state.state_path]**

Step 10.3: Gate 8 Complete

5. When ring:requesting-code-review skill returns PASS:

   Parse from skill output:
   - reviewers_passed: extract from "## Reviewer Verdicts" (should be "5/5")
   - issues_critical: extract count from "## Issues by Severity"
   - issues_high: extract count from "## Issues by Severity"
   - issues_medium: extract count from "## Issues by Severity"
   - iterations: extract from "Iterations:" line

   - agent_outputs.review = {
       skill: "ring:requesting-code-review",
       output: "[full skill output]",
       iterations: [count],
       timestamp: "[ISO timestamp]",
       duration_ms: [execution time],
       reviewers_passed: "5/5",
       code_reviewer: {
         verdict: "PASS",
         issues_count: N,
         issues: []  // Structured issues - see schema below
       },
       business_logic_reviewer: {
         verdict: "PASS",
         issues_count: N,
         issues: []
       },
       security_reviewer: {
         verdict: "PASS",
         issues_count: N,
         issues: []
       },
       nil_safety_reviewer: {
         verdict: "PASS",
         issues_count: N,
         issues: []
       },
       test_reviewer: {
         verdict: "PASS",
         issues_count: N,
         issues: []
       }
     }
   
   **Populate `issues[]` for each reviewer with all issues found (even if fixed):**
   ```json
   issues: [
     {
       "severity": "CRITICAL|HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW|COSMETIC",
       "category": "error-handling|security|performance|maintainability|business-logic|...",
       "description": "[detailed description of the issue]",
       "file": "internal/handler/user.go",
       "line": 45,
       "code_snippet": "return err",
       "suggestion": "Use fmt.Errorf(\"failed to create user: %w\", err)",
       "fixed": true|false,
       "fixed_in_iteration": [iteration number when fixed, null if not fixed]
     }
   ]

Issue tracking rules:

- all issues found across all iterations MUST be recorded

- fixed: true
 + fixed_in_iteration: N
 for issues resolved during review

- fixed: false
 + fixed_in_iteration: null
 for LOW/COSMETIC (TODO/FIXME added)

- This enables feedback-loop to analyze recurring issue patterns

- 
Update state:

- gate_progress.review.status = "completed"

- gate_progress.review.reviewers_passed = "5/5"

- 
Proceed to Gate 9

### Gate 8 Anti-Rationalization Table

| Rationalization | Why It's WRONG | Required Action |
|-----------------|----------------|-----------------|
| "Only 1 MEDIUM issue, can proceed" | MEDIUM = MUST FIX. Quantity is irrelevant. | **Fix the issue, re-run all 7 reviewers** |
| "Issue is cosmetic, not really MEDIUM" | Reviewer decided severity. Accept their judgment. | **Fix the issue, re-run all 7 reviewers** |
| "Will fix in next sprint" | Deferred fixes = technical debt = production bugs. | **Fix NOW before Gate 9** |
| "User approved, can skip fix" | User approval ≠ reviewer override. Fixes are mandatory. | **Fix the issue, re-run all 7 reviewers** |
| "Same issue keeps appearing, skip it" | Recurring issue = fix is wrong. Debug properly. | **Root cause analysis, then fix** |
| "Only one reviewer found it" | One reviewer = valid finding. All findings matter. | **Fix the issue, re-run all 7 reviewers** |
| "Iteration limit reached, just proceed" | Limit = escalate, not bypass. Quality is non-negotiable. | **Escalate to user, DO NOT proceed** |
| "Tests pass, review issues don't matter" | Tests ≠ review. Different quality dimensions. | **Fix the issue, re-run all 7 reviewers** |

### Gate 8 Pressure Resistance

| User Says | Your Response |
|-----------|---------------|
| "Just skip this MEDIUM issue" | "MEDIUM severity issues are blocking by definition. I MUST dispatch a fix to the appropriate agent before proceeding. This protects code quality." |
| "I'll fix it later, let's continue" | "Gate 8 is a HARD GATE. All CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM issues must be resolved NOW. I'm dispatching the fix to [agent] and will re-run all 7 reviewers after." |
| "We're running out of time" | "Proceeding with known issues creates larger problems later. The fix dispatch is automated and typically takes 2-5 minutes. Quality gates exist to save time overall." |
| "Override the gate, I approve" | "User approval cannot override reviewer findings. The gate ensures code quality. I'll dispatch the fix now." |
| "It's just a style issue" | "If it's truly cosmetic, reviewers would mark it COSMETIC (non-blocking). MEDIUM means it affects maintainability or correctness. Fixing now." |

---

## Step 11: Gate 9 - Validation (Per Execution Unit)

```text
For current execution unit:

1. Record gate start timestamp
2. Verify acceptance criteria:
   For each criterion in acceptance_criteria:
     - Check if implemented
     - Check if tested
     - Mark as PASS/FAIL

3. Run final verification:
   - All tests pass?
   - No Critical/High/Medium review issues?
   - All acceptance criteria met?

4. If validation fails:
   - Log failure reasons
   - Determine which gate to revisit
   - Loop back to appropriate gate

5. If validation passes:
   - Set unit status = "completed"
   - Record gate end timestamp
   - agent_outputs.validation = {
       result: "approved",
       timestamp: "[ISO timestamp]",
       criteria_results: [{criterion, status}]
     }
   - Proceed to Step 11.1 (Execution Unit Approval)

Step 11.1: Execution Unit Approval (Conditional)

Checkpoint depends on execution_mode
: manual_per_subtask
 → Execute | manual_per_task
 / automatic
 → Skip

- COMMIT CHECK (before checkpoint):

- if commit_timing == "per_subtask"
:

- Execute /ring:commit
 command with message: feat({unit_id}): {unit_title}

- Include all changed files from this subtask

- else: Skip commit (will happen at task or cycle end)

0b. VISUAL CHANGE REPORT (MANDATORY - before checkpoint):

- MANDATORY: Invoke Skill("ring:visual-explainer")
 to generate a code-diff HTML report for this execution unit

- Read default/skills/visual-explainer/templates/code-diff.html
 to absorb the patterns before generating

- Content sourced from state JSON agent_outputs
 for the current unit:

- TDD Output: tdd_red
 (failing test with failure_output) + tdd_green
 (implementation with pass_output)

- Files Changed: Per-file before/after using git diff
 data from the implementation (for new files, show "New File" in the before panel). Do not read source files directly — use diff output provided by the implementation agent.

- Review Verdicts: Summary of all 7 reviewer verdicts from Gate 8

- Acceptance Criteria: Status from Gate 9 validation

- HTML includes: KPI cards (files changed, tests added, review iterations, gate pass/fail summary), per-file diff panels, review issues section (if any Medium+ issues were found and fixed)

- Save to: docs/ring:dev-cycle/reports/unit-{unit_id}-report.html

- Open in browser:
macOS: open docs/ring:dev-cycle/reports/unit-{unit_id}-report.html
Linux: xdg-open docs/ring:dev-cycle/reports/unit-{unit_id}-report.html

- Tell the user the file path

- See shared-patterns/anti-rationalization-visual-report.md for anti-rationalization table

- Set status = "paused_for_approval"
, save state

- Present summary: Unit ID, Parent Task, Gates 0-9 status, Criteria X/X, Duration, Files Changed, Commit Status

- AskUserQuestion: "Ready to proceed?" Options: (a) Continue (b) Test First (c) Stop Here

- Handle response:

Response
Action

Continue
Set in_progress, move to next unit (or Step 11.2 if last)

Test First
Set paused_for_testing
, STOP, output resume command

Stop Here
Set paused
, STOP, output resume command

Step 11.2: Task Approval Checkpoint (Conditional)

Checkpoint depends on execution_mode
: manual_per_subtask
 / manual_per_task
 → Execute | automatic
 → Skip

- COMMIT CHECK (before task checkpoint):

- if commit_timing == "per_task"
:

- Execute /ring:commit
 command with message: feat({task_id}): {task_title}

- Include all changed files from this task (all subtasks combined)

- else if commit_timing == "per_subtask"
: Already committed per subtask

- else: Skip commit (will happen at cycle end)

0b. VISUAL CHANGE REPORT (MANDATORY - before task checkpoint):

- MANDATORY: Invoke Skill("ring:visual-explainer")
 to generate an aggregate code-diff HTML report for all subtasks in this task

- Read default/skills/visual-explainer/templates/code-diff.html
 to absorb the patterns before generating

- Content aggregated from all subtask executions:

- Task Overview: Task ID, title, all subtask IDs and their gate statuses

- Combined File Changes: All files modified across all subtasks with before/after diff panels

- Aggregate Metrics: Total tests added, total review iterations, total lines changed

- Save to: docs/ring:dev-cycle/reports/task-{task_id}-report.html

- Open in browser:
macOS: open docs/ring:dev-cycle/reports/task-{task_id}-report.html
Linux: xdg-open docs/ring:dev-cycle/reports/task-{task_id}-report.html

- Tell the user the file path

- See shared-patterns/anti-rationalization-visual-report.md for anti-rationalization table

- 
Set task status = "completed"
, cycle status = "paused_for_task_approval"
, save state, and update tasks.md Status → ✅ Done
 (per Step 11.2 row in State Persistence Checkpoints table)

- 
Present summary: Task ID, Subtasks X/X, Total Duration, Review Iterations, Files Changed, Commit Status

- 
AskUserQuestion: "Task complete. Ready for next?" Options: (a) Continue (b) Integration Test (c) Stop Here

- 
Handle response:

After completing all subtasks of a task:

0. Check execution_mode from state:
   - If "automatic": Still run feedback, then skip to next task
   - If "manual_per_subtask" or "manual_per_task": Continue with checkpoint below

1. Set task status = "completed"

2. **⛔ MANDATORY: Run ring:dev-feedback-loop skill**

   ```yaml
   Skill tool:
     skill: "ring:dev-feedback-loop"

Note: ring:dev-feedback-loop manages its own TodoWrite tracking internally.

The skill will:

- Add its own todo item for tracking

- Calculate assertiveness score for the task

- Dispatch prompt-quality-reviewer agent with agent_outputs from state

- Generate improvement suggestions

- Write feedback to docs/feedbacks/cycle-{date}/{agent}.md

- Mark its todo as completed

After feedback-loop completes, update state:

- Set tasks[current].feedback_loop_completed = true
 in state file

Anti-Rationalization for Feedback Loop:

Rationalization
Why It's WRONG
Required Action

"Task was simple, skip feedback"
Simple tasks still contribute to patterns
Execute Skill tool

"Already at 100% score"
High scores need tracking for replication
Execute Skill tool

"User approved, feedback unnecessary"
Approval ≠ process quality metrics
Execute Skill tool

"No issues found, nothing to report"
Absence of issues IS data
Execute Skill tool

"Time pressure, skip metrics"
Metrics take &#x3C;2 min, prevent future issues
Execute Skill tool

⛔ HARD GATE: You CANNOT proceed to step 3 without executing the Skill tool above.

- 
Set cycle status = "paused_for_task_approval"

- 
Save state

- 
Present task completion summary (with feedback metrics):
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ✓ TASK COMPLETED                                │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Task: [task_id] - [task_title]                  │
│                                                  │
│ Subtasks Completed: X/X                         │
│   ✓ ST-001-01: [title]                          │
│   ✓ ST-001-02: [title]                          │
│   ✓ ST-001-03: [title]                          │
│                                                  │
│ Total Duration: Xh Xm                           │
│ Total Review Iterations: N                      │
│                                                  │
│ ═══════════════════════════════════════════════ │
│ FEEDBACK METRICS                                │
│ ═══════════════════════════════════════════════ │
│                                                  │
│ Assertiveness Score: XX% (Rating)               │
│                                                  │
│ Prompt Quality by Agent:                        │
│   ring:backend-engineer-golang: 90% (Excellent)     │
│   ring:qa-analyst: 75% (Acceptable)                 │
│   ring:code-reviewer: 88% (Good)               │
│                                                  │
│ Improvements Suggested: N                       │
│ Feedback Location:                              │
│   docs/feedbacks/cycle-YYYY-MM-DD/             │
│                                                  │
│ ═══════════════════════════════════════════════ │
│                                                  │
│ All Files Changed This Task:                    │
│   - file1.go                                    │
│   - file2.go                                    │
│   - ...                                         │
│                                                  │
│ Next Task: [next_task_id] - [next_task_title]   │
│            Subtasks: N (or "TDD autonomous")    │
│            or "No more tasks - cycle complete"  │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

- 
ASK FOR EXPLICIT APPROVAL using AskUserQuestion tool:

Question: "Task [task_id] complete. Ready to start the next task?"
Options:
a) "Continue" - Proceed to next task
b) "Integration Test" - User wants to test the full task integration
c) "Stop Here" - Pause cycle

- 
Handle user response:

If "Continue":

- Set status = "in_progress"

- Move to next task

- Set current_task_index += 1

- Set current_subtask_index = 0

- Reset to Gate 0

- Continue execution

If "Integration Test":

- Set status = "paused_for_integration_testing"

- Save state

- Output: "Cycle paused for integration testing.
Test task [task_id] integration and run:
/ring:dev-cycle --resume
when ready to continue."

- STOP execution

If "Stop Here":

- Set status = "paused"

- Save state

- Output: "Cycle paused after task [task_id]. Resume with:
/ring:dev-cycle --resume"

- STOP execution

**Note:** Tasks without subtasks execute both 7.1 and 7.2 in sequence.

## Step 12: Cycle Completion

### Step 12.0: Deferred Test Execution (Gates 6-7)

**⛔ MANDATORY: Execute integration and chaos tests before final commit.**

All units have written/updated test code during their Gate 6-7 passes. Now execute all tests once.

```text
1. Record deferred execution start timestamp

2. REQUIRED: Invoke ring:dev-integration-testing skill in EXECUTE mode:

   Skill("ring:dev-integration-testing") with input:
     mode: "execute"
     all_test_files: [aggregate gate_progress.integration_testing.test_files from all units]
     language: state.language

   The skill handles:
   - Spinning up testcontainers for all external dependencies
   - Running ALL integration tests across all units
   - Reporting pass/fail per test file
   - If failures: dispatching fixes and re-running (max 3 iterations)

3. REQUIRED: Invoke ring:dev-chaos-testing skill in EXECUTE mode:

   Skill("ring:dev-chaos-testing") with input:
     mode: "execute"
     all_test_files: [aggregate gate_progress.chaos_testing.test_files from all units]
     language: state.language

   The skill handles:
   - Starting Toxiproxy
   - Running ALL chaos tests across all units
   - Verifying recovery for all failure scenarios
   - If failures: dispatching fixes and re-running (max 3 iterations)

4. Update state:
   - gate_progress.integration_testing.execution_status = "completed" (or "failed")
   - gate_progress.chaos_testing.execution_status = "completed" (or "failed")

5. if any test FAILS after 3 iterations:
   → HARD BLOCK. Cannot complete cycle.
   → Report failures to user.

6. **MANDATORY: ⛔ Save state to file — Write tool → [state.state_path]**

Step 12.0 Anti-Rationalization

Rationalization
Why It's WRONG
Required Action

"All unit/fuzz/property tests passed, skip integration"
Different test types catch different bugs. All are MANDATORY.
Execute deferred tests

"Tests were written, that's enough"
Written ≠ passing. Execution verifies real behavior.
Execute deferred tests

"Containers are slow, let CI handle it"
CI is backup, not replacement. Verify locally first.
Execute deferred tests

"One test failed but it's flaky"
Flaky = unreliable = fix it. No exceptions.
Fix and re-run

Step 12.0.5: Multi-Tenant Verification (Post-Cycle — Verification Only)

Multi-tenant dual-mode is now implemented during Gate 0 and verified at Gate 0.5G. This post-cycle step is a final sanity check only — it does NOT implement or adapt any code.

1. Verify Gate 0.5G passed for ALL units:
   for each task in state.tasks:
     for each unit in task.units:
       if unit.gate_progress.delivery_verification.mt_dualmode != "PASS":
         → HARD BLOCK: "Unit [unit_id] failed MT dual-mode verification at Gate 0.5G"
         → This should never happen (Gate 0.5G blocks progression)

2. Display to user:
   ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
   │ ✓ MULTI-TENANT DUAL-MODE VERIFIED              │
   ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
   │ Mode: Dual-mode (implemented at Gate 0)         │
   │ Verification: Gate 0.5G PASS for all units      │
   │ Resources Covered: [PG/Mongo/Redis/RMQ/S3]      │
   │ Backward Compat: Resolvers handle single-tenant │
   └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

3. MANDATORY: ⛔ Save state to file — Write tool → [state.state_path]

Note: The full ring:dev-multi-tenant skill (12 gates) is now used ONLY for migrating legacy codebases that were written before dual-mode was standard. For new development via dev-cycle, all multi-tenant compliance is handled by Gate 0 (implementation) + Gate 0.5G (verification).

Step 12.1: Final Commit

- 
FINAL COMMIT CHECK (before completion):

- if commit_timing == "at_end"
:

- Execute /ring:commit
 command with message: feat({cycle_id}): complete dev cycle for {feature_name}

- Include all changed files from the entire cycle

- else: Already committed per subtask or per task

- 
Calculate metrics: total_duration_ms, average gate durations, review iterations, pass/fail ratio

- 
Update state: status = "completed"
, completed_at = timestamp

- 
Generate report: Task | Subtasks | Duration | Review Iterations | Status | Commit Status

- 
⛔ MANDATORY: Run ring:dev-feedback-loop skill for cycle metrics

Skill tool:
  skill: "ring:dev-feedback-loop"

Note: ring:dev-feedback-loop manages its own TodoWrite tracking internally.

After feedback-loop completes, update state:

- Set feedback_loop_completed = true
 at cycle level in state file

⛔ HARD GATE: Cycle incomplete until feedback-loop executes.

Rationalization
Why It's WRONG
Required Action

"Cycle done, feedback is extra"
Feedback IS part of cycle completion
Execute Skill tool

"Will run feedback next session"
Next session = never. Run NOW.
Execute Skill tool

"All tasks passed, no insights"
Pass patterns need documentation too
Execute Skill tool

- 
Report: "Cycle completed. Tasks X/X, Subtasks Y, Time Xh Xm, Review iterations X"

Quick Commands

# Full PM workflow then dev execution
/ring:pre-dev-full my-feature
/ring:dev-cycle docs/pre-dev/my-feature/

# Simple PM workflow then dev execution
/ring:pre-dev-feature my-feature
/ring:dev-cycle docs/pre-dev/my-feature/tasks.md

# Manual task file
/ring:dev-cycle docs/tasks/sprint-001.md

# Resume interrupted cycle
/ring:dev-cycle --resume

Error Recovery

Type
Condition
Action

Recoverable
Network timeout
Retry with exponential backoff

Recoverable
Agent failure
Retry once, then pause for user

Recoverable
Test flakiness
Re-run tests up to 2 times

Non-Recoverable
Missing required files
Stop and report

Non-Recoverable
Invalid state file
Must restart (cannot resume)

Non-Recoverable
Max review iterations
Pause for user

On any error: Update state → Set status (failed/paused) → Save immediately → Report (what failed, why, how to recover, resume command)

Execution Report

Base metrics per shared-patterns/output-execution-report.md.

Metric
Value

Duration
Xh Xm Ys

Tasks Processed
N/M

Current Gate
Gate X - [name]

Review Iterations
N

Result
PASS/FAIL/IN_PROGRESS

Gate Timings

Gate
Duration
Status

Implementation
Xm Ys
in_progress

DevOps
-
pending

SRE
-
pending

Testing
-
pending

Review
-
pending

Validation
-
pending

State File Location

docs/ring:dev-cycle/current-cycle.json
 (feature) or docs/ring:dev-refactor/current-cycle.json
 (refactor)

Frontend Handoff

When the backend dev cycle completes, it produces a handoff file for the frontend dev cycle (ring:dev-cycle-frontend
). This enables the frontend cycle to verify E2E tests exercise the correct API endpoints and use the right type contracts.

Handoff File

Path: docs/ring:dev-cycle/handoff-frontend.json

Generated: Automatically after Gate 9 (Validation) passes for all tasks.

Handoff Schema

{
  "cycle_id": "string",
  "generated_at": "ISO-8601",
  "endpoints": [
    {
      "method": "GET|POST|PUT|PATCH|DELETE",
      "path": "/api/v1/resource",
      "request_schema": "object or null",
      "response_schema": "object",
      "status_codes": [200, 400, 404, 500],
      "auth_required": true
    }
  ],
  "types_exported": [
    {
      "name": "ResourceDTO",
      "file": "src/types/resource.ts",
      "fields": ["id", "name", "createdAt"]
    }
  ],
  "contracts": [
    {
      "consumer": "frontend",
      "provider": "backend",
      "endpoint": "/api/v1/resource",
      "format": "JSON"
    }
  ]
}

How Frontend Cycle Uses the Handoff

Frontend Gate
Handoff Usage

Gate 0 (Implementation)
Import types from types_exported
, call endpoints

Gate 5 (E2E Testing)
Verify all endpoints
 are exercised in E2E tests

Gate 6 (Performance)
Measure response times against endpoints

When No Handoff Exists

If docs/ring:dev-cycle/handoff-frontend.json
 does not exist, the frontend cycle proceeds without it. The frontend engineer defines API contracts inline based on PROJECT_RULES.md
 or user input. This is common for greenfield frontend-only projects.

Source Transparency

This detail page is rendered from real SKILL.md content. Trust labels are metadata-based hints, not a safety guarantee.

Open in GitHubOpen in ClawHub

Related Skills

Related by shared tags or category signals.

Coding

ring:pre-dev-feature-map

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
-33
lerianstudio
Coding

ring:linting-codebase

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
-32
lerianstudio
Coding

ring:pre-dev-prd-creation

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
-32
lerianstudio