Project Context

• CLAUDE.md: !find . -maxdepth 1 -name "CLAUDE.md" -type f
• project-discovery.md: !find . -maxdepth 3 -name "project-discovery.md" -type f

Operating Principles

• *The feature specification is the ground truth for what. This skill plans how*. Do not re-open behavioral decisions the specification already settled; flag contradictions as Open Questions for the user.
• The han-core:project-manager is the coordinator, not the author of every section. It facilitates rounds of discussion among specialists, tracks claims and evidence, and decides when the plan is ready. Specialists own their domains.
• Always include `han-core:junior-developer` on the team. When decisions lack strong evidence, the han-core:junior-developer reframes the issue in plain terms first — that frequently unlocks a resolution without needing the user.
• Escalate to the user only when evidence and reframing have both failed. Every escalation surfaces with a full description, the evidence considered, and a recommended answer.
• Done is when the han-core:project-manager says so. The loop exits when the han-core:project-manager reports the plan is ready to commit, or that only user-input items remain. The user is not asked to keep iterating past that point.
• *YAGNI is a first-class operating principle, applied to implementation choices.* The implementation plan inherits the spec's behavioral commitments but applies the evidence-based YAGNI rule from ../../references/yagni-rule.md independently to abstractions, configuration knobs, observability, runbooks, infrastructure, rollout machinery, test scaffolding, schema columns, indexes, and any other implementation artifact the plan recommends. Items that fail the evidence test get demoted to a ## Deferred (YAGNI) section in feature-implementation-plan.md with the reopening trigger named; items where a strictly simpler implementation satisfies the same evidence get the simpler implementation recorded as the decision and the larger version under Rejected alternatives:. The Sentry-runbook-on-staging-only-Sentry pattern is the named project precedent — operational machinery shipped before the system that drives it actually produces the data, traffic, or failures it covers is YAGNI by default. Every committed implementation item is ongoing maintenance and a pattern future agents will copy.
• Keep the plan at planning altitude. Name and reference config and code artifacts; do not inline their full contents. Inline only the specific values that are themselves decisions (a flag default, a key name, a threshold). A full file block — a complete plist, a whole config file, a multi-line XML or JSON document — belongs in the file it configures, not in the plan. YAGNI gates whether an item is included; this principle gates how verbose an included item is.
• The plan lives in three cross-referenced files. feature-implementation-plan.md is the primary plan and lives at the root of {folder}/; implementation-decision-log.md records every decision and implementation-iteration-history.md records each round of discussion — both companion artifacts live in {folder}/artifacts/ to keep the planning folder uncluttered. The main plan cites decisions with inline ([D-N](artifacts/implementation-decision-log.md#...)) links for non-obvious claims. The decision log and iteration history cross-link through Driven by rounds: / Decisions produced: fields (they sit as siblings inside artifacts/), and both link back into the plan through Referenced in plan: / Changed in plan: fields using ../feature-implementation-plan.md. Any edit to one file requires updating the matching fields in the others.

Plan an Implementation

Step 1: Locate the Feature Specification

Read the user's argument and conversation context to identify the source artifact. The expected input is a feature-specification.md produced by the plan-a-feature skill, but any document describing what the feature should do is acceptable (PRD, design doc, product brief).

Resolve the source path:

• If the user provided a file path, use it.
• Otherwise, search for a recent feature-specification.md under docs/features/, docs/plans/, or other documentation roots discovered via CLAUDE.md or project-discovery.md. If multiple candidates exist, ask the user which one.
• If no feature specification exists, tell the user this skill requires one and recommend running plan-a-feature first.

Three files will be written. The primary plan lives at the root of {same-folder-as-source}/; the two companion artifacts live in {same-folder-as-source}/artifacts/ (which may already exist if the source spec came from plan-a-feature — share the same subfolder rather than creating a second one):

• {same-folder-as-source}/feature-implementation-plan.md — the primary plan.
• {same-folder-as-source}/artifacts/implementation-decision-log.md — every committed implementation decision with rationale, evidence, and rejected alternatives.
• {same-folder-as-source}/artifacts/implementation-iteration-history.md — round-by-round record of specialists engaged, questions raised, and how each was resolved.

Create the artifacts/ subfolder before writing the companion files if it does not already exist.

The three files cross-reference each other. The main plan cites decisions with inline parenthetical links like ([D-3](artifacts/implementation-decision-log.md#d-3-rollout-strategy)); the decision log and iteration history cross-link through Driven by rounds: / Decisions produced: fields (siblings inside artifacts/), and both link back into the plan through Referenced in plan: / Changed in plan: fields via ../feature-implementation-plan.md.

If any of the three files already exist, ask the user whether to overwrite or append iteration notes before proceeding.

Read the full specification into context. If the specification is a feature-specification.md produced by plan-a-feature, also read its companion decision-log.md, team-findings.md, and feature-technical-notes.md if it exists — these live in {same-folder-as-source}/artifacts/ (the same subfolder this skill will write to). Fall back to reading them from {same-folder-as-source}/ directly for spec folders produced before the artifacts layout was introduced. The feature-technical-notes.md file is lazily created by plan-a-feature — its absence means no load-bearing mechanics were captured at spec time, not that the spec is incomplete. Note the decisions already settled, any open items the spec flagged, the review team findings, and any committed technical mechanics the plan must honor.

Detect tech-notes presence once, here. Record whether feature-technical-notes.md exists. If it does NOT exist, omit every T#-related sentence from agent briefs (Step 4), the spec-maturity tag set (Step 5), and the synthesis inputs (Step 8) — do not add boilerplate qualifiers like "if it exists" to those briefs. The T#-contradiction spec-maturity classification simply does not apply when there are no T# notes, so the spec-maturity gate reduces to the spec-level threshold alone.

Step 2: Discover Implementation Context

Before launching the team, gather the context specialists will need to produce evidence-backed recommendations. Use Glob and Grep to find:

• CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, and `project-discovery.md` — tech stack, languages, frameworks, build tools, test runners.
• ADRs in docs/adr/ or docs/architecture/decisions/ — architectural decisions the implementation must respect.
• Coding standards in docs/coding-standards/ or .github/CODING_STANDARDS.md — rules the implementation must follow.
• Code adjacent to the feature's touch points — existing modules, patterns, integration surfaces the feature will plug into.
• Existing implementation plans in the same documentation root — format precedent and level of detail the team expects.
• Recent activity — if git is available, run git log --since="90 days ago" --name-only --pretty=format:"" on the directories the feature will touch to surface churn and recent precedent.

Write the result to `{same-folder-as-source}/artifacts/.discovery-notes.md` as a structured summary: tech stack, ADRs found (paths + one-line summary each), coding standards found (paths + one-line summary each), code touch points (paths + one-line summary), recent-activity churn, and explicitly enumerated gaps (what was searched for and not found). Missing standards or ADRs are themselves findings the team should note.

The discovery notes file is the single source of truth for project context across the team. Specialists in Step 4 are instructed to read `.discovery-notes.md` first and not to re-grep for what has already been found — they may search further for what their domain specifically needs that the discovery notes do not cover, but they must not duplicate what is already there.

Step 3: Select the Team

Default to small. Start the classification at small and only escalate to medium or large when the signals below clearly require it. When a signal is borderline, stay at the smaller band. Use the spec's coordinations, T# count, security/PII surface, integration boundaries, and the user's framing:

• Small (default) — single subsystem, no cross-service integration, no auth/PII/secrets, no data migration. Team cap: 3 (han-core:project-manager + han-core:junior-developer + 1 chosen specialist). Round cap: 1.
• Medium — two to three subsystems, optional integration, may touch UX or rollout, may have a small auth surface. Team cap: 4 to 5 (han-core:project-manager + han-core:junior-developer + 2–3 chosen specialists). Round cap: 2.
• Large — cross-service, security-sensitive, data ownership shifts, multiple new coordinations, or the user explicitly requests full team. Team cap: 6 to 8 (han-core:project-manager + han-core:junior-developer + 4–6 chosen specialists). Round cap: 3.

Size override. If $size is non-empty (the user passed small, medium, or large as the first argument), use that value as the size and skip the signal-based classification above; the team cap and round cap still scale to the chosen size. State the chosen size, the recommended team, and the reason for the size choice to the user in one short message before launching agents (e.g., "Medium: two subsystems, small auth surface" or "Medium: passed via $size"). If the user disagrees, accept the override (size, specific specialists, or both) and proceed.

The team always includes:

• han-core:project-manager — coordinator and final synthesizer.
• han-core:junior-developer — generalist stress-tester and reframer.

Select additional specialists up to the team cap based on what the feature actually touches. Err toward including a specialist rather than discovering a gap late. Unless the user specified a team composition, draw from:

• han-core:user-experience-designer — any user-facing flow, UI, or interaction model.
• han-core:adversarial-security-analyst — authentication, authorization, PII, untrusted input, secrets, supply chain.
• han-core:devops-engineer — deployment, observability, rollout, feature flags, scale, SLO impact, cost.
• han-core:on-call-engineer — application-source resilience patterns the plan introduces: timeouts and deadline propagation, retry logic with backoff and jitter, idempotency-key wiring, queue and buffer handling, async / blocking-I/O patterns, bulkhead boundaries, correlation-id propagation, kill-switch wiring, observability-of-the-failure-path at the application source line. Hard boundary against han-core:devops-engineer: infrastructure, IaC, pipelines, and observability platform configuration stay there.
• han-core:structural-analyst — module boundaries, coupling, where the implementation fits in the system.
• han-core:behavioral-analyst — runtime behavior, data flow, error propagation, state transitions.
• han-core:concurrency-analyst — concurrent access, race conditions, async coordination, ordering.
• han-core:software-architect — intra-codebase architectural recommendations, module/class/interface sketches, SOLID-grounded refactoring paths. Include when the feature is mostly internal to one codebase or one bounded context.
• han-core:system-architect — cross-service / bounded-context topology, context-map relationships, integration patterns (sync vs. async, saga, ACL, OHS), data ownership across services, failure-domain containment. Include when the feature crosses a service boundary, introduces a new integration, changes a context-map relationship, or shifts data ownership. Include both when the feature does both.
• han-core:risk-analyst — prioritization of architectural and delivery risks.
• han-core:test-engineer — observable-behavior test planning and test doubles.
• han-core:edge-case-explorer — boundary values, input messiness, state-dependent failures.
• han-core:data-engineer — schema changes, migrations, data movement, analytics implications.

If the user specified which agents to include, honor that. Otherwise, state the proposed team composition to the user briefly before launching — one line per specialist with the reason they were selected — and proceed.

Step 4: Round 1 — Parallel Specialist Review

Launch every non-han-core:project-manager specialist in parallel in a single message. Use domain-scoped briefs — do not hand every agent the full set of artifacts. Pass each agent only the spec sections relevant to its domain plus pointers, and instruct it to read further on demand only if its domain needs it. Default mapping:

Give each agent:

• The full feature specification path (so it can read further) plus the relevant section excerpts inline in the brief. Also pass the spec's artifacts/decision-log.md, artifacts/team-findings.md, and artifacts/feature-technical-notes.md paths if they exist (fall back to the spec folder root for legacy layouts) — as paths only, not contents, so the agent can read on demand.
• The path to artifacts/.discovery-notes.md from Step 2, with a directive: read the discovery notes first; do not re-grep for what is already there. Search further only for what your domain specifically needs that the discovery notes do not cover.
• A specific question framed for their domain — not "any concerns?" but "what does implementing this feature look like from your domain's vantage point, and what evidence grounds your recommendation?" Include the directive: read additional spec sections only if your domain needs context not in the excerpts above. Cite what you read.
• The evidence-first directive on Open Questions: before raising an Open Question, re-read the relevant feature-specification section; if the spec already answers it, cite the line and do not raise it. This keeps spec-answered questions out of the loop instead of costing a Step 6 pass to retire.
• A directive to return concrete, evidence-cited recommendations for the implementation plan — not behavioral rework of the spec.
• A directive to apply the YAGNI rule from ../../references/yagni-rule.md to every recommendation: each abstraction, interface, configuration knob, runbook, observability hook, dashboard, alert, SLO, feature flag, infrastructure component, schema column, index, partition, audit machinery, retention pipeline, or test category recommended must cite evidence per the rule's evidence test (named upstream finding the change resolves, existing code path that breaks, three current concrete uses, measured incident or workload, applicable regulation). Recommendations failing the evidence test are returned as `Category: YAGNI candidate` findings with the reopening trigger named. Recommendations whose upstream concern is satisfied by a strictly simpler implementation should propose the simpler implementation. The agents most prone to over-engineering — han-core:software-architect, han-core:system-architect, han-core:devops-engineer, han-core:data-engineer, han-core:on-call-engineer — already encode this rule in their definitions; honor it.
• A directive to treat any T# entries in feature-technical-notes.md as committed mechanics the plan must honor — not open questions to re-debate. If the specialist disagrees with a T# note, they must raise it as a "`T#` contradiction" finding that cites the specific T# ID, describes the behavioral conflict, and names the alternative mechanic they recommend. The plan will route such findings through the facilitation loop (Step 5) and, if necessary, reopen the spec-stage decision — a specialist may not silently override a committed T#.
• A directive to cite sections by filename and heading when raising findings — e.g., feature-specification.md#primary-flow, or a specific D# in the spec's artifacts/decision-log.md, or T3 in the spec's artifacts/feature-technical-notes.md — so the han-core:project-manager can cross-reference them precisely during synthesis.

Collect every agent's verbatim output. If an agent returns "no concerns from my side," that is a valid answer — record it.

Step 5: Round 1 — Deterministic Aggregation

han-core:project-manager is NOT called per-round in facilitation mode. The mechanical work of consolidating specialist findings into a claim ledger, classifying spec-maturity, and choosing a next-step recommendation is performed deterministically by this skill itself. PM is reserved for two specific calls only: the final synthesis in Step 8, and a single facilitation pass when the spec-maturity gate trips (see below).

Aggregate the verbatim specialist outputs from Step 4 into the round-1 entry of artifacts/implementation-iteration-history.md using these rules:

Build the claim ledger. Group findings by category (assumption-refuted, overlap, ambiguity, edge-case, security, mechanic-leak, T#-contradiction, YAGNI-candidate). For each finding, mark its state:

• Evidenced — the finding cites a file path with line number, an ADR ID, a coding-standard section, or another concrete artifact that resolves the claim.
• Anecdotal — the finding asserts but does not cite an artifact.
• Disputed — two or more specialists made conflicting claims on the same point.

When two specialists raise the same claim, consolidate into a single ledger row that names every supporting specialist.

Tag spec-maturity. Tag every finding as:

• plan-level — resolvable inside plan-implementation by evidence, reframing, or user input.
• spec-level — requires a behavioral decision the spec never committed to (e.g., "the spec doesn't say what happens when two users invite the same email simultaneously"). Cannot be resolved in the plan stage without fabricating behavior.
• T#-contradiction — the specialist recommends a mechanic that conflicts with a committed T# note. Load-bearing by construction.

Use simple text rules: a finding that names a spec section and says "the spec is silent" / "not specified" / "undefined behavior" is spec-level. A finding that names a T# ID and proposes a different mechanic is T#-contradiction. Everything else is plan-level.

Compute the spec-maturity gate. The gate trips when either condition holds:

• ≥ 2 `T#`-contradictions raised by ≥ 2 distinct specialists (on any combination of T# notes — need not be the same one), or
• ≥ 5 `spec-level` findings raised by ≥ 3 distinct specialists.

A single T#-contradiction does NOT trip the gate on its own — it routes through the normal Open Questions loop (Step 6) and the user decides. One specialist raising many findings also does not trip the gate — one detailed reviewer is not a spec-immaturity signal.

Build the Open Questions list. Any finding that cannot be settled deterministically (claim is Anecdotal, two specialists Disputed, or the finding is tagged spec-level / T#-contradiction and was not user-deferred) becomes an OQ-N entry. Open Questions are first-class output and feed into Step 6.

Pick the next-step recommendation deterministically:

• If the spec-maturity gate tripped → pause and sharpen the spec.
• If at least one specialist named a specific other specialist as a needed handoff → continue iterating (with the named handoffs).
• If at least one Open Question is plan-level and unresolved → continue iterating (use Step 6 to resolve via evidence or han-core:junior-developer reframing).
• Otherwise → go to synthesis.

Write the round entry to artifacts/implementation-iteration-history.md using implementation-iteration-history-template.md. Populate the claim ledger, Open Questions, spec-maturity tags, and next-step recommendation fields directly from this aggregation.

If the spec-maturity gate tripped, this skill makes the one and only PM facilitation call in the round: launch han-core:project-manager in facilitation mode with the verbatim specialist outputs, the deterministic aggregation, and a directive to confirm or refine the gate-trip assessment and surface anything the deterministic aggregator might have missed before the user is asked to pause spec-stage work. Pass the directive: do NOT write a facilitation-summary file to disk. Return the facilitation output verbatim. Append PM's verbatim output to the round entry under a Project-manager review (gate-trip pass): field.

Then surface the tripping findings to the user with:

• The list of spec-level findings and T#-contradictions that tripped the gate, grouped by the spec section they affect.
• A recommendation to run han-planning:iterative-plan-review on the source spec (for mechanic-leak cleanup and gap filling) or re-enter han-planning:plan-a-feature (for structural gaps where whole sections are missing).
• An explicit override option. The user may direct the skill to continue anyway — in which case plan-implementation proceeds, and the tripping findings are documented in the round entry, noting the user's override and the reasoning provided.

If the user overrides, the plan ships with the spec accepted as-is; if the user chooses to pause, stop the skill and hand control back to spec-stage work.

Step 6: Iterative Resolution Loop

Repeat this loop until the deterministic next-step recommendation is go to synthesis or blocked pending user input and all blocking questions have been escalated.

For each iteration:

1. Process the deterministic aggregation's Open Questions. For each question:

• First, try evidence. Re-check the feature specification, codebase, ADRs, coding standards, and already-resolved items from prior rounds. If evidence settles the question, record the resolution in the iteration notes and remove it from the Open Questions list.
• If evidence is insufficient, ask `han-core:junior-developer` to reframe. Launch han-core:junior-developer in conversational mode with the question, the specialist input that raised it, and a directive to restate the issue in plain language and surface the clarifying questions a three-to-five-year generalist would ask. The reframing often exposes an unstated assumption or a simpler question the specialists can answer among themselves.
• If the reframing resolves it, record the resolution and move on.
• If the reframing does not resolve it, escalate to the user. Present the question with: the specialist(s) who raised it, the evidence considered, the han-core:junior-developer's reframing, a recommended answer with rationale, and the alternatives considered. Capture the user's answer verbatim. Do not ask more than a focused batch of questions at once — enough to unblock the next round, not a firehose.

1. Re-engage specialists as the aggregation directs. If a specialist named in their Step 4 output called for another specialist to weigh in, or if a Step 5/6 aggregation flagged a handoff, launch the named specialists in parallel with the new context (use domain-scoped briefs from Step 4), and collect their output.

1. Re-aggregate deterministically. Apply the same Step 5 rules to the updated state: the prior round's iteration-history entry, the newly resolved Open Questions, the new specialist input from sub-step 2, and any user answers. Recompute the claim ledger, spec-maturity tags, Open Questions, and next-step recommendation. Do not call `han-core:project-manager` for this unless the spec-maturity gate trips for the first time in this round (in which case use the same single PM call described in Step 5).

1. Append a round entry to `artifacts/implementation-iteration-history.md`. Before deciding whether to loop again, write the round's record using the implementation-iteration-history-template.md format. The entry consolidates the deterministic aggregation into the structured fields: R# ID, specialists engaged, new input provided, claim ledger, Open Questions raised, spec-maturity tags, resolution source per question, and the deterministic next-step recommendation. Leave Decisions produced: and Changed in plan: as — for now; both fields are backfilled by the han-core:project-manager in Step 8 once decisions are committed and the plan is written.

1. Decide whether to continue looping (deterministic stop rule). Exit the loop when ANY of the following holds:

• The deterministic next-step recommendation is "go to synthesis."
• The deterministic next-step recommendation is "blocked pending user input" and all blocking Open Questions have been escalated to the user with recommendations still awaiting answers.
• The most recent round produced ≤ 2 new findings AND zero major findings (security, T#-contradiction, missing coordination, unhandled failure mode, or any finding tagged spec-level).

Otherwise, continue with another iteration.

The round cap from Step 3 sets the upper bound: small = 1 round, medium = 2 rounds, large = 3 rounds. Never exceed the size cap. If the team is still iterating at the cap, surface the remaining Open Questions to the user with recommendations and a note that the team has reached a facilitation plateau.

Step 7: Final User Escalation Pass

Before synthesis, ensure every Open Question that cannot be resolved by evidence or han-core:junior-developer reframing has been surfaced to the user and answered. Do not guess the user's answers. If any are still pending and the user has indicated they want to defer, record them as open items the plan will ship with.

Step 7.5: YAGNI Sweep

Before synthesis, walk every committed item the iterative loop has produced and run the YAGNI rule from ../../references/yagni-rule.md. Items in scope: every recommendation captured in artifacts/implementation-iteration-history.md's claim ledgers across all rounds, every Open Question that proposes adding an artifact, and every specialist recommendation that survived the loop without explicit deferral.

For each in-scope item, apply the two gates:

1. Evidence test. Does the item cite at least one piece of accepted evidence per the rule (user-described need from the spec, named direct dependency, existing production code path that breaks, applicable regulation, documented incident or measured metric)? If no — the item is a YAGNI candidate.
2. Simpler-version test. When evidence applies, is there a strictly simpler implementation (one fewer abstraction, one fewer file, one fewer infrastructure component, one fewer test category, a single concrete implementation instead of an interface, an inline check instead of a helper, etc.) that satisfies the same evidence? If yes — the simpler implementation replaces the larger one.

Apply the named anti-patterns from the rule doc as auto-flags — runbooks for never-fired alerts, observability for non-flowing telemetry, SLOs for absent traffic, single-implementation interfaces, configuration knobs no caller sets, multi-region for unproven workloads, indexes for unrun queries, audit columns nobody reads, tests for code paths that don't exist yet.

For every item the sweep flags, record a YAGNI ledger entry that PM will absorb into synthesis:

• Item — what is being demoted or replaced.
• Failure — which gate failed, citing the named anti-pattern when applicable.
• Resolution — defer with reopening trigger | replace with simpler implementation: {one-line description} | escalate to user if the resolution would change a behavior the spec committed to.
• Source — which specialist or round originally proposed the item, plus the corresponding R# and claim-ledger entry.

If the sweep produces YAGNI items that would change a behavior the spec committed to, surface them to the user before synthesis with a recommended resolution and the option to override. The user always wins; the rule's job is to make the cost of including the item visible.

The YAGNI ledger is a synthesis input — pass it to PM in Step 8 alongside the round entries and resolutions.

Step 8: Project Manager Synthesis

Launch han-core:project-manager in synthesis mode — this is the one call in this skill that runs on the han-core:project-manager's default model; pass no model override. Provide it with:

• The feature specification path (or a note that no source file was provided and what conversational context was used instead), plus the spec's artifacts/decision-log.md, artifacts/team-findings.md, and artifacts/feature-technical-notes.md paths if they exist (falling back to the spec folder root for legacy layouts).
• The full verbatim output from every specialist engaged across all rounds.
• The aggregated round entries from artifacts/implementation-iteration-history.md (claim ledger, Open Questions, spec-maturity tags, next-step recommendations). These are the deterministic-aggregation summaries that replaced per-round PM facilitation; PM did not facilitate per round, so there are no separate facilitation summaries to read.
• If the spec-maturity gate tripped at any point, the verbatim PM facilitation output for that single gate-trip pass.
• Every resolution from Step 6 (what evidence, reframing, or user input settled each question).
• The YAGNI ledger from Step 7.5 (items demoted or replaced under the YAGNI rule, plus any user overrides made during the sweep).
• Any remaining open items and the user's disposition on each, including any spec-maturity-gate overrides and the reasoning the user provided.
• The three target output paths: {same-folder-as-source}/feature-implementation-plan.md, {same-folder-as-source}/artifacts/implementation-decision-log.md, and {same-folder-as-source}/artifacts/implementation-iteration-history.md (the latter already populated with round entries from Step 6, awaiting backfill).
• The templates: feature-implementation-plan-template.md, implementation-decision-log-template.md, and implementation-iteration-history-template.md.

Ask the han-core:project-manager to produce the final synthesis across all three files:

1. Write `artifacts/implementation-decision-log.md` — classify each decision as full or trivial before writing it. Full: has rejected alternatives, evidence beyond the user's framing or the source spec's commitments, was changed across rounds, has dependent decisions, or has recorded dissent. Trivial: settled directly by the user, the source spec, or an obvious convention. Full decisions go under ## Full decisions with the structured fields (rationale, evidence, rejected alternatives, specialist owner, revisit criterion, dissent, Driven by rounds:, Dependent decisions:, Referenced in plan:). Trivial decisions go under ## Trivial decisions as a one-line bullet (D-N: {title} — {outcome}. — Referenced in plan: {sections}.). The D-N counter is shared across both sections, and every plan inline link still resolves to a D-N whether full or trivial.
2. Write `feature-implementation-plan.md` — the primary plan covering Source Specification, Outcome, Context, Team Composition, Implementation Approach, Decomposition and Sequencing, RAID Log, Testing Strategy, Security Posture, Operational Readiness, On-Call Resilience Posture, Definition of Done, Specialist Handoffs, Deferred (YAGNI), Open Items, and Summary. Several sections are lazily created — write each only when it has real content and omit it entirely otherwise, never rendering an empty stub: RAID Log (include only the sub-tables that have entries; omit the section when all four are empty), Security Posture (only when there is a threat surface or han-core:adversarial-security-analyst contributed), Operational Readiness (only when there is an operational surface or han-core:devops-engineer contributed), On-Call Resilience Posture (only when there is a resilience surface or han-core:on-call-engineer contributed), and Deferred (YAGNI) (only if at least one item was deferred under the YAGNI rule, per Step 7.5's ledger and PM's own application of the rule during synthesis). Omitting a lazy section records the judgment that the surface is genuinely absent, not a skipped concern — confirm before omitting. This keeps a small plan proportionate: sizing already caps the team and rounds, and lazy sections stop a small plan from carrying empty operational scaffolding. For each deferred item, record: the item, why deferred (which gate failed), the reopening trigger, and the source (specialist or round that proposed it). For every claim that embodies a non-obvious decision, append an inline parenthetical link to the decision, e.g. ([D-3](artifacts/implementation-decision-log.md#d-3-rollout-strategy)). Link only non-obvious claims. Do not inline rationale or rejected alternatives. Do not repeat round-by-round history.
3. Backfill `artifacts/implementation-iteration-history.md` — for each R# entry already present from Step 6, populate Decisions produced: with the D# IDs added or changed that round and Changed in plan: with the plan sections updated that round.
4. Preserve the cross-reference invariants across all three files:

• Every D# in artifacts/implementation-decision-log.md lists its Driven by rounds: (R# IDs), Dependent decisions: (D# IDs), and Referenced in plan: (plan section headings).
• Every R# in artifacts/implementation-iteration-history.md lists its Decisions produced: (D# IDs) and Changed in plan: (plan section headings).
• Every non-obvious claim in feature-implementation-plan.md has its inline ([D-N](artifacts/implementation-decision-log.md#...)) link.
• When an Open Question was settled by your own re-reading of the spec during this synthesis pass (not in the Step 6 loop), label its Resolution source: in artifacts/implementation-iteration-history.md as `PM synthesis (Step 8 evidence)` — not bare evidence — so the audit record distinguishes a loop-stage resolution from a synthesis-stage one.

1. Audit and correct, do not just populate. Beyond preserving the structural invariants above, actively reconcile the artifacts against each other and rewrite any inconsistency in place — the same active-correction mandate plan-a-feature's synthesis carries ("any leak the han-core:project-manager finds is rewritten in place"). During synthesis, audit and fix:

• Every decision-log entry's title matches its body. A title copied from another decision (a D-3 carrying D-1's title) is rewritten to describe its own decision.
• Every path, filename, or directory referenced in one plan section is consistent with the file layout described in another. An install-script path that the layout section never places there is reconciled to one layout.
• The altitude rule is honored (see Operating Principles): a full file block inlined in the plan is replaced with a named reference plus only the decision-bearing values. This is a semantic audit on top of the structural-invariant preservation, not a replacement for it; LLM generation is probabilistic, so the audit lowers the odds of a copy-paste title or path mismatch rather than guaranteeing zero.

The `Source Specification` section of `feature-implementation-plan.md` must be populated. If a feature specification file was provided, the han-core:project-manager must include a relative markdown link to it (typically [feature-specification.md](feature-specification.md) since both files live in the same folder). If the spec's decision-log.md, team-findings.md, and/or feature-technical-notes.md also exist (in artifacts/ for the current layout, or at the folder root for legacy layouts), list them under Source Specification with the correct relative path. The feature-technical-notes.md entry is present only when the file exists — its absence is not a gap. If no file was provided and the plan was built from conversational context only, the section must state that explicitly and summarize what context was used.

The han-core:project-manager's synthesis is authoritative.

Step 9: Present the Final Implementation Plan

Summarize for the user:

• All three output file paths: feature-implementation-plan.md, artifacts/implementation-decision-log.md, artifacts/implementation-iteration-history.md.
• The team composition (each specialist and why they were included) — point to artifacts/implementation-iteration-history.md for per-round detail.
• The number of iterations the loop ran before convergence — point to artifacts/implementation-iteration-history.md.
• The number of decisions settled by evidence, by han-core:junior-developer reframing, and by user input — point to artifacts/implementation-decision-log.md.
• The number of YAGNI deferrals captured in feature-implementation-plan.md's ## Deferred (YAGNI) section (omit this line if the section was not written because nothing qualified).
• Any remaining open items and whether they block implementation — in feature-implementation-plan.md.
• The han-core:project-manager's recommendation (ship as planned, hold for specialist handoff, or blocked pending open item).

Ask whether the user wants to iterate on specific sections or consider the plan ready for implementation.