!bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys review_mode,automation,workflow,story_granularity,qa.level,testing.strict,system_overrides

Resolved above — use as-is; --review overrides review_mode. No block → defaults in .claude/docs/config-resolution.md.

Story Done

This skill closes the loop between design and implementation. Run it at the end of implementing any story. It ensures every acceptance criterion is verified before the story is marked done, GDD and ADR deviations are explicitly documented rather than silently introduced, code review is prompted rather than forgotten, and the story file reflects actual completion status.

Output: Updated story file (Status: Complete) + surfaced next story.

---

Phase 1: Find the Story

See .claude/docs/director-gates.md for the full check pattern. Individual gate definitions live in .claude/docs/director-gates/[gate-id].md — the spawned agent reads its own gate file; do not read it in the parent session.

Every AskUserQuestion call follows .claude/docs/automation-modes.md (collaborative asks always · guided major-only · autonomous logs and proceeds; automation_always_ask categories always prompt).

Workflow tier: resolved per the story's system (per .claude/docs/workflow-modes.md) — the GDD filename stem of the story's GDD: path (design/gdd/<stem>.md → <stem>), with the [system] segment of its TR-[system]-NNN ID accepted only as a fallback alias: use the system_overrides row for that system if the block lists one, else the project value. It governs which Phase 4 deviation checks run — see Phase 4.

Workflow companion — modes.story_granularity (resolved above — supplied by modes.rigor unless set explicitly): cadence expectation only — story-done fires every 3–5 days at coarse, every 1–2 days at balanced, multiple times/day at fine. It does not change any completion check.

qa.level: controls whether test evidence is required, where testing.strict controls whether a failure blocks and workflow controls which docs exist. modes.rigor sets qa.level and workflow together; set either explicitly to vary it alone. testing.strict is not fronted by rigor at all. At minimal, no evidence is required → skip the Test Evidence Requirement check (Phase 3), the >50%-untested traceability escalation, and the Phase 4b QA gate entirely; the acceptance-criteria verification still runs. At standard, the story's own type requires evidence; at full, every type does. testing.strict then decides whether present-but-failing evidence blocks. (rigor: minimal sets both; qa.level: minimal on its own leaves the workflow tier where it was.)

If a file path is provided (e.g., /story-done production/epics/core/story-damage-calculator.md): read that file directly.

If no argument is provided:

1. Check production/session-state/active.md for the currently active story.
2. If not found there, read the most recent file in production/sprints/ and look for stories marked IN PROGRESS.
3. If multiple in-progress stories are found, use AskUserQuestion:
   • "Which story are we completing?"
   • Options: list the in-progress story file names.
4. If no story can be found, ask the user to provide the path.

---

Phase 2: Read the Story

Read the full story file. Extract and hold in context:

• Story name and ID
• GDD Requirement TR-ID(s) referenced (e.g., TR-combat-001)
• Manifest Version embedded in the story header (e.g., 2026-03-10)
• ADR reference(s) referenced
• Acceptance Criteria — the complete list (every checkbox item)
• Implementation files — files listed under "files to create/modify"
• Story Type — the Type: field from the story header (Logic / Integration / Visual/Feel / UI / Config/Data)
• Engine notes — any engine-specific constraints noted
• Definition of Done — if present, the story-level DoD
• Estimated vs actual scope — if an estimate was noted

Also read:

• docs/architecture/tr-registry.yaml — grep the story's TR-IDs (Grep pattern="id: <each TR-ID>" path="docs/architecture/tr-registry.yaml" output_mode="content" -A 6), not a full read of the registry. Read the current requirement text from each matched entry. This is the source of truth for what the GDD required — do not use any requirement text that may be quoted inline in the story (it may be stale).
• The referenced GDD section — just the acceptance criteria and key rules, not the full document. Use this to cross-check the registry text is still accurate.
• The referenced ADR(s) — just the ## Decision and ## Consequences sections, never an unbounded full read. Map headings first (Grep pattern="^## " path="docs/architecture/[adr-file].md" output_mode="content" -n), then bounded-Read only those two spans. This is the exact same content Phase 4 item 3's ADR constraints check needs — hold it here, do not re-read it there.
• docs/architecture/control-manifest.md header — extract the current Manifest Version: date (used in Phase 4 staleness check)

---

Phase 3: Verify Acceptance Criteria

For each acceptance criterion in the story, attempt verification using one of three methods:

Automatic verification (run without asking)

• File existence check: Glob for files the story said would be created.
• Test pass check: if a test file path is mentioned, run it via Bash.
• No hardcoded values check: Grep for numeric literals in gameplay code paths that should be in config files.
• No hardcoded strings check: Grep for player-facing strings in the code root (resolve per .claude/docs/code-root-resolution.md). If the code root is unresolved, report NOT ASSESSED — code root unresolved rather than zero hits. that should be in localization files.
• Dependency check: if a criterion says "depends on X", check that X exists.

Manual verification with confirmation (use AskUserQuestion)

• Criteria about subjective qualities ("feels responsive", "animations play correctly")
• Criteria about gameplay behaviour ("player takes damage when...", "enemy responds to...")
• Performance criteria ("completes within Xms") — ask if profiled or accept as assumed

Batch up to 4 manual verification questions into a single AskUserQuestion call:

question: "Does [criterion]?"
options: "Yes — passes", "No — fails", "Not tested yet"

Unverifiable (flag without blocking)

• Criteria that require a full game build to test (end-to-end gameplay scenarios)
• Mark as: DEFERRED — requires playtest session

Test-Criterion Traceability

After completing the pass/fail/deferred check above, map each acceptance criterion to the test that covers it:

For each acceptance criterion in the story:

1. Ask: is there a test — unit, integration, or confirmed manual playtest — that directly verifies this criterion?

   • Unit test: check tests/unit/ for a test file or function name that matches the criterion's subject (use Glob and Grep)
   • Integration test: check tests/integration/ similarly
   • Manual confirmation: if the criterion was verified via AskUserQuestion above with a "Yes — passes" answer, count that as a manual test
   • Retained screenshot: if the criterion names something on screen and a retained image under production/qa/evidence/[story-slug]/ shows it (the Run result: OBSERVED from /dev-story Phase 6 step 4), count that as covered — put the image path in the Test column. A visual criterion verified by looking is not UNTESTED; without this row every UI story reads as >50% untested and false-escalates.

2. Produce a traceability table:

| Criterion | Test | Status |
|-----------|------|--------|
| AC-1: [criterion text] | tests/unit/test_foo.gd::test_bar | COVERED |
| AC-2: [criterion text] | Manual playtest confirmation | COVERED |
| AC-3: [criterion text] | production/qa/evidence/[slug]/01-shop-open.png | COVERED |
| AC-4: [criterion text] | — | UNTESTED |

3. Apply these escalation rules (skip entirely at qa.level: minimal — no evidence is required, so untested criteria never escalate):

   • If >50% of criteria are UNTESTED: escalate to BLOCKING — test coverage is insufficient to confirm the story is actually done. The verdict in Phase 6 cannot be COMPLETE until coverage improves.
   • If some (≤50%) criteria are UNTESTED: remain ADVISORY — does not block completion, but must appear in Completion Notes.
   • If all criteria are COVERED: no action needed beyond including the table in the report.

4. For any ADVISORY untested criteria, add to the Completion Notes in Phase 7: "Untested criteria: [AC-N list]. Recommend adding tests in a follow-up story."

Test Evidence Requirement

First apply qa.level (resolved in Phase 1). At minimal, no evidence is required — skip this entire subsection (no gate from test evidence; the verdict rests on acceptance-criteria verification alone). At standard, require evidence for the story's own type. At full, require evidence for every story type. Only when evidence is required does the testing.strict resolution below apply.

Based on the Story Type extracted in Phase 2, check for required evidence.

Resolve the gate level for this story's type. A gate level is either BLOCKING (a gap prevents the COMPLETE verdict in Phase 6) or ADVISORY (a gap is noted in the Completion Notes but does not block). Resolve it from the testing.strict block already resolved in the resolved-config block at the top of this skill — not by reading project.yaml yourself:

1. Map the Story Type to a testing.strict key — Logic→logic, Integration→integration, Visual/Feel→visual, UI→ui, Config/Data→config. Take testing.strict.<key> from that resolved block. If its value is true (case-insensitive) → BLOCKING; if false → ADVISORY; unset → fall through.
2. Else read testing.strict as a plain boolean (legacy single-value form). If its value is true → BLOCKING or false → ADVISORY, it applies to every type.
3. Else use the default in the table below.

Use that resolved block, never project.yaml directly. testing.strict.* is on the /settings --local whitelist, so a developer can set testing.strict.logic=false in project.local.yaml for fast WIP commits — effects-map.md specifies exactly this ("stricter dev's local /story-done blocks earlier"). Reading project.yaml alone silently ignores that file: the setting is accepted, displayed by /settings, and has no effect. The resolve_config block at the top of this skill already merges local over base.

Only true and false (case-insensitive) are recognized at steps 1–2. A key that is present but holds any other value — maybe, 1, yes, etc. — is treated as unset: continue to the next step, and surface the unrecognized value to the user.

Story Type	Required Evidence	Default Gate Level
Logic	Automated unit test in tests/unit/[system]/ — must exist and pass (this skill verifies existence; see the note below Phase 3)	BLOCKING
Integration	Integration test in tests/integration/[system]/ OR playtest doc	BLOCKING
Visual/Feel	Retained screenshot + sign-off in production/qa/evidence/	BLOCKING
UI	Retained screenshot of each screen touched, in production/qa/evidence/	BLOCKING
Config/Data	Smoke check pass report in production/qa/smoke-*.md	ADVISORY

The Default Gate Level column applies when testing.strict is unset (the common case). When testing.strict is configured, the resolved value from steps 1–2 overrides it. Visual/Feel and UI default to BLOCKING because for a game the rendered result is the product; set testing.strict.visual or testing.strict.ui to false for an advisory gate.

Exception — /smoke-check. The ADVISORY default for Config/Data above governs per-story evidence gates, which is what this skill checks. /smoke-check is a build-health gate, not a per-story evidence gate, so its own unset default for testing.strict.config is BLOCKING — see .claude/skills/smoke-check/SKILL.md § "Resolve the gate enforcement level". The divergence is intentional; do not "fix" either side to match the other.

This phase checks that evidence EXISTS. It does not run anything. The Default Gate Level table above, and .claude/docs/coding-standards.md, both say a Logic story's test "must exist and pass". The checks below establish only the first half — every one of them is a Glob or a Grep. A unit test that exists and fails, or that contains no assertions, satisfies them.

Say which half you verified when you report. "Test file present at <path>" is the honest claim; "tests pass" is not one this phase can make. Pass/fail is established by /gate-check (runs the suite at a phase gate) and /smoke-check (runs it before QA hand-off), both of which do execute.

Unlike /regression-suite and /launch-checklist, which stop at existence because their allowed-tools has no Bash, this skill HAS Bash — the limit here is the instruction, not the grant. Running the story's own test before closing it is a live option; it is not enabled because it needs a configured runner and a decision about what a missing runner should mean.

For Logic stories: first read the story's Test Evidence section to extract the exact required file path. Use Glob to check that exact path. If the exact path is not found, also search tests/unit/[system]/ broadly (the file may have been placed at a slightly different location). If no test file is found at either location:

• Flag at the resolved gate level: "Logic story has no unit test file. Story requires it at [exact-path-from-Test-Evidence-section]. Create and run the test before marking this story Complete."

For Integration stories: read the story's Test Evidence section for the exact required path. Use Glob to check that exact path first, then search tests/integration/[system]/ broadly, then check production/session-logs/ for a playtest record referencing this story. If none found: flag at the resolved gate level (same rule as Logic).

For Visual/Feel and UI stories: glob production/qa/evidence/ for both an evidence doc referencing this story and a retained screenshot for it (*.png, *.jpg, *.gif).

• If neither is found: flag at the resolved gate level — "No visual evidence found. Capture a screenshot of each screen or effect this story touched, save it under production/qa/evidence/, create production/qa/evidence/[story-slug]-evidence.md using the test-evidence template, and obtain sign-off before final closure."
• If the evidence doc exists but no screenshot is retained beside it: flag at the resolved gate level — "Evidence doc found at [path] but no screenshot is retained. A described check is an assertion, not evidence — capture the screen and save the image under production/qa/evidence/ before final closure."
• If found: read the file and check the sign-off table for unchecked boxes. Grep for lines matching | .* | .* | .* | \[ \] Approved (a sign-off row with an unchecked checkbox). If any unchecked sign-off rows are found: flag at the resolved gate level — "Evidence file found at [path] but [N] sign-off(s) are still pending (shown as [ ] Approved in the sign-off table). Obtain required sign-offs before final closure. Note: for solo developers, all roles may be signed off by the same person."
• If the doc, the screenshot and all [x] Approved sign-off rows are present: note "Evidence doc and retained screenshot found, all sign-offs complete — gate satisfied."

The retained image is the Run result: OBSERVED from /dev-story Phase 6 step 4 (.claude/docs/run-and-observe.md); its absence means the run was NOT VERIFIED or never happened, and the flag above is the consequence. The run is not waived at qa.level: minimal.

For every other story type, read the Run result: line from the /dev-story summary (the session extract in production/session-state/active.md, or the story's ## Completion Notes). OBSERVED with a retained path: note it. N/A — <reason>: accept only if the reason names why nothing is observable — "it's a Logic story" is not a reason. NOT VERIFIED — <reason> on a story whose acceptance criteria name anything on screen: flag at the resolved gate level for the story's type. No Run result: line at all: flag as ADVISORY — "the implementation summary carries no run result; confirm the build was launched and looked at before closure."

For Config/Data stories: check for any production/qa/smoke-*.md file. If none: flag at the resolved gate level — "No smoke check report found. Run /smoke-check."

If no Story Type is set: flag as ADVISORY — "Story Type not declared. Add Type: [Logic|Integration|Visual/Feel|UI|Config/Data] to the story header to enable test evidence gate enforcement in future stories."

Any BLOCKING test evidence gap prevents the COMPLETE verdict in Phase 6.

---

Phase 4: Check for Deviations

Compare the implementation against the design documents.

Workflow tier adjustment (resolved in Phase 1, per the story's system). Checks 1 (GDD rules) and 3 (ADR constraints) below are the full baseline:

• full — run both: full GDD traceability against the current TR text + the ADR constraints check.
• standard — run the GDD rules check against the 5 required sections; run the ADR constraints check only where a critical ADR governs the story.
• minimal — acceptance-criteria check only: skip checks 1 and 3 (no GDD/ADR traceability expected). Checks 2 (manifest), 4 (hardcoded values), and 5 (scope) still run as written.

This adjustment governs only the Phase 4 deviation checks. The test-evidence gates (Phase 3 traceability, Phase 4b QA coverage) are governed by qa.level and testing.strict, not workflow — they run independently of the tier here.

Run these checks automatically:

1. GDD rules check: Using the current requirement text from tr-registry.yaml (looked up by the story's TR-ID), check that the implementation reflects what the GDD actually requires now — not what it required when the story was written. Grep the implemented files for key function names, data structures, or class names mentioned in the current GDD section.

2. Manifest version staleness check: Compare the Manifest Version: date embedded in the story header against the Manifest Version: date in the current docs/architecture/control-manifest.md header.

   • If they match → pass silently.
   • If the story's version is older → flag as ADVISORY: ADVISORY: Story was written against manifest v[story-date]; current manifest is v[current-date]. New rules may apply. Run /story-readiness to check.
   • If control-manifest.md does not exist → skip this check.

3. ADR constraints check: Use the ADR's ## Decision section already loaded in Phase 2 — do not read the ADR file again. Check for forbidden patterns from docs/architecture/control-manifest.md (if it exists). Grep for patterns explicitly forbidden in the ADR.

4. Hardcoded values check: Grep the implemented files for numeric literals in gameplay logic that should be in data files.

5. Scope check: Did the implementation touch files outside the story's stated scope? (files not listed in "files to create/modify")

For each deviation found, categorize:

• BLOCKING — implementation contradicts the GDD or ADR (must fix before marking complete)
• ADVISORY — implementation drifts slightly from spec but is functionally equivalent (document, user decides)
• OUT OF SCOPE — additional files were touched beyond the story's stated boundary (flag for awareness — may be valid or scope creep)

---

Phase 4b: QA Coverage Gate

Skip this phase entirely at qa.level: minimal (resolved in Phase 1) — no test evidence is required, so there is no coverage to review. Note: "QL-TEST-COVERAGE skipped — qa.level minimal." Proceed to Phase 5.

Review mode check — apply before spawning QL-TEST-COVERAGE:

• solo → skip. Note: "QL-TEST-COVERAGE skipped — Solo mode." Proceed to Phase 5.
• lean → skip (not a PHASE-GATE). Note: "QL-TEST-COVERAGE skipped — Lean mode." Proceed to Phase 5.
• full → spawn as normal.

After completing the deviation checks in Phase 4, spawn qa-lead via Agent using gate QL-TEST-COVERAGE (.claude/docs/director-gates/ql-test-coverage.md).

Pass:

• The story file path and story type
• Test file paths found during Phase 3 (exact paths, or "none found")
• The story's ## QA Test Cases section (the pre-written test specs from story creation)
• The story's ## Acceptance Criteria list

The qa-lead reviews whether the tests actually cover what was specified — not just whether files exist.

Apply the verdict:

• ADEQUATE → proceed to Phase 5
• GAPS → flag as ADVISORY: "QA lead identified coverage gaps: [list]. Story can complete but gaps should be addressed in a follow-up story."
• INADEQUATE → flag as BLOCKING: "QA lead: critical logic is untested. Verdict cannot be COMPLETE until coverage improves. Specific gaps: [list]."

Skip this phase for Config/Data stories (no code tests required).

---

Phase 5: Lead Programmer Code Review Gate

Review mode check — apply before spawning LP-CODE-REVIEW:

• solo → skip. Note: "LP-CODE-REVIEW skipped — Solo mode." Proceed to Phase 6 (completion report).
• lean → use AskUserQuestion before proceeding:
  • Prompt: "Code review is skipped in lean mode. Did you run /code-review on the implemented files?"
  • Options:
    • Yes — /code-review passed or was approved with suggestions
    • No — skipping code review for this story
    • No — I'll run /code-review before the sprint close-out
  • Record the answer in the completion notes (Phase 7). All three options proceed to Phase 6.
• full → spawn as normal.

Spawn lead-programmer via Agent using gate LP-CODE-REVIEW (.claude/docs/director-gates/lp-code-review.md).

Pass: implementation file paths, story file path, relevant GDD section, governing ADR.

Present the verdict to the user. If CONCERNS, surface them via AskUserQuestion:

• Options: Revise flagged issues / Accept and proceed / Discuss further If REJECT, do not proceed to Phase 6 verdict until the issues are resolved.

If the story has no implementation files yet (verdict is being run before coding is done), skip this phase and note: "LP-CODE-REVIEW skipped — no implementation files found. Run after implementation is complete."

---

Phase 6: Present the Completion Report

Before updating any files, present the full report:

## Story Done: [Story Name]
**Story**: [file path]
**Date**: [today]

### Acceptance Criteria: [X/Y passing]
- [x] [Criterion 1] — auto-verified (test passes)
- [x] [Criterion 2] — confirmed
- [ ] [Criterion 3] — FAILS: [reason]
- [?] [Criterion 4] — DEFERRED: requires playtest

### Test-Criterion Traceability
| Criterion | Test | Status |
|-----------|------|--------|
| AC-1: [text] | [test file::test name] | COVERED |
| AC-2: [text] | Manual confirmation | COVERED |
| AC-3: [text] | — | UNTESTED |

### Test Evidence
**Story Type**: [Logic | Integration | Visual/Feel | UI | Config/Data | Not declared]
**Required evidence**: [unit test file | integration test or playtest | screenshot + sign-off | walkthrough doc | smoke check pass]
**Evidence found**: [YES — `[path]` | NO — BLOCKING | NO — ADVISORY]

### Deviations
[NONE] OR:
- BLOCKING: [description] — [GDD/ADR reference]
- ADVISORY: [description] — user accepted / flagged for tech debt

### Scope
[All changes within stated scope] OR:
- Extra files touched: [list] — [note whether valid or scope creep]

### Verdict: COMPLETE / COMPLETE WITH NOTES / NOT ASSESSED / BLOCKED

Verdict definitions:

• COMPLETE: all criteria pass, no blocking deviations
• COMPLETE WITH NOTES: all criteria pass, advisory deviations documented
• NOT ASSESSED: one or more acceptance criteria could not be evaluated at all — name which, and why
• BLOCKED: failing criteria or blocking deviations must be resolved first

NOT ASSESSED — the story nobody could verify. Rank: it outranks COMPLETE and COMPLETE WITH NOTES (a review that could not evaluate a criterion has not shown the criterion is met) and ranks below BLOCKED (a criterion known to fail is more actionable than one nobody could check, and demoting it would bury it). It is not a gentler BLOCKED: "this acceptance criterion fails" and "I could not tell whether it passes" send the reader to different fixes.

Verdict precedence — first matching rule wins, evaluated in this order: BLOCKED, then NOT ASSESSED, then COMPLETE WITH NOTES, then COMPLETE. A run with both a failing criterion and an unassessable one is BLOCKED. Stating the order mechanically, rather than leaving it to be inferred from the rank sentence, is what keeps two reviewers from grading the same story differently.

Emit it when any of:

• An acceptance criterion cannot be evaluated at all — it names no observable outcome, so no evidence could settle it either way.

  Not the same as Phase 3's DEFERRED. A criterion that is evaluable but needs a playtest is DEFERRED — requires playtest session, it does not block, and Phase 3 keeps ownership of it. This trigger is for a criterion no session could ever settle as written. If Phase 3 already marked it DEFERRED, that classification stands and this trigger does not fire.

• The test evidence is present but unreadable or unclassifiable — corrupt, empty, or of a type that cannot be determined.

  Absent evidence is Phase 3's, not this trigger's. Phase 3 resolves a missing file through testing.strict: BLOCKING types produce BLOCKED, ADVISORY types produce COMPLETE WITH NOTES. Both outrank or are already decided, so re-routing "absent" here would silently override an explicit advisory ruling. Unreadable is the genuinely unassessable case, and it is the only one this trigger claims.

• /test-evidence-review returned NOT ASSESSED for this story — applicable only when that skill was actually run against it, which this skill does not do itself. It propagates: that skill's whole point is that "could not check" is not "checked and fine", and collapsing its unknown into a COMPLETE here would undo the distinction one skill downstream. coding-standards.md marks Logic and Integration evidence BLOCKING, so this is the path where an unverifiable story would otherwise acquire a verdict saying somebody verified it.
• A deviation's severity cannot be determined because the GDD or ADR it would be judged against is missing.

A NOT ASSESSED verdict takes the same Phase 7 path as BLOCKED: do not automatically proceed, list what could not be checked and what would make it checkable. Closing anyway remains the user's explicit call, and stays gated by Phase 7's scope_changes always-ask rule.

If the verdict is BLOCKED: do not automatically proceed to Phase 7. List what must be fixed and offer to help fix the blocking items. This is the default path, not an absolute stop — the user may still explicitly ask to close the story anyway despite the blockers. That request is what routes to Phase 7's menu below, and Phase 7's own scope_changes always-ask rule is exactly what stands between that request and a silent close in autonomous mode. Do not treat "do not automatically proceed" as "Phase 7 is now unreachable" — it is reachable, on request, and gated when reached.

---

Phase 7: Update Story Status

Reached one of two ways: normally, immediately after a COMPLETE or COMPLETE-WITH-NOTES verdict in Phase 6; or, after a BLOCKED or NOT ASSESSED verdict, only if the user explicitly asks to close the story despite the blockers (Phase 6 does not advance here on its own in either case).

Automation note: This is the story-completion gate. Closing a story whose verdict is BLOCKED (failing acceptance criteria) or NOT ASSESSED (criteria nobody could evaluate) — the "Accept deviations as-is and close anyway" option — is a scope_changes decision. Call is_always_ask_category scope_changes; when it returns 0 (the default), this gate prompts via AskUserQuestion regardless of modes.automation — autonomous mode must NOT silently close a BLOCKED story, even when the user's own request is what got you here. For a COMPLETE or COMPLETE-WITH-NOTES verdict, autonomous mode may pick "Close the story (Recommended)" and record it via log_decision.

Use AskUserQuestion before writing anything:

• Prompt: "Verification complete. How do you want to proceed?"
• Options:
  • Close the story — update file, mark Complete, log notes (Recommended)
  • Close and log advisory deviations as tech debt in docs/tech-debt-register.md
  • There are issues I want to fix first — don't close yet
  • Accept deviations as-is and close anyway

If "Close", "Close and log tech debt", or "Accept deviations": edit the story file. If "Close and log tech debt": after updating the story file, also append the advisory deviations to docs/tech-debt-register.md (create the file if it does not exist). If "Fix first": stop here and list what the user flagged. Do not write any files.

1. Update the status field: Status: Complete
2. Update the Last Updated: field in the story header to today's date (format: YYYY-MM-DD). If the field does not exist, add it after the Status: line.
3. Add a ## Completion Notes section at the bottom:

## Completion Notes
**Completed**: [date]
**Criteria**: [X/Y passing] ([any deferred items listed])
**Deviations**: [None] or [list of advisory deviations]
**Test Evidence**: [Logic: test file at path | Visual/Feel: evidence doc at path | None required (Config/Data)]
**Code Review**: [Pending / Complete / Skipped]

4. If the user chose "Close and log tech debt": append each advisory deviation to docs/tech-debt-register.md in this format:

   - **[date]** ([story title]): [deviation description] — tracked from [story file path]
   

   Create the file with a # Tech Debt Register heading if it does not exist.

5. Update production/sprint-status.yaml (if it exists):

   • Find the entry matching this story's file path or ID
   • Set status: done and completed: [today's date]
   • Update the top-level updated field
   • This is a silent update — no extra approval needed (already approved in step above)

6. Suggest a git commit: Output a ready-to-use commit command covering the implementation files from the dev-story summary and the updated story file:

Suggested commit:
git add [code-root and tests/ files changed during implementation] [story-file-path]
git commit -m "feat: [story title] ([TR-ID])"

The validate-commit.sh hook will verify design doc references and check for hardcoded values automatically.

Session State Update

After updating the story file, silently append to production/session-state/active.md:

## Session Extract — /story-done [date]
- Verdict: [COMPLETE / COMPLETE WITH NOTES / NOT ASSESSED / BLOCKED]
- Story: [story file path] — [story title]
- Tech debt logged: [N items, or "None"]
- Next recommended: [next ready story title and path, or "None identified"]

If active.md does not exist, create it with this block as the initial content. Confirm in conversation: "Session state updated."

---

Phase 8: Surface the Next Story

After completion, help the developer keep momentum:

1. Read the current sprint plan from production/sprints/.
2. Find stories that are:
   • Status: READY or NOT STARTED
   • Not blocked by other incomplete stories
   • In the Must Have or Should Have tier

Present:

### Next Up
The following stories are ready to pick up:
1. [Story name] — [1-line description] — Est: [X hrs]
2. [Story name] — [1-line description] — Est: [X hrs]

Run `/story-readiness [path]` to confirm a story is implementation-ready
before starting.

If no more Must Have stories remain in this sprint (all are Complete or Blocked):

### Sprint Close-Out Sequence

All Must Have stories are complete. QA sign-off is required before advancing.
Run these in order:

1. `/smoke-check sprint` — verify the critical path still works end-to-end
2. `/team-qa sprint` — full QA cycle: test case execution, bug triage, sign-off report
3. `/retrospective` — capture what went well, what didn't, and action items for the next sprint
4. `/gate-check` — advance to the next phase once QA approves (only if advancing a phase)
5. `/sprint-plan new` — plan the next sprint, incorporating velocity data and retrospective action items

Do not run `/gate-check` until `/team-qa` returns APPROVED or APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.

If there are Should Have stories still unstarted, surface them alongside the close-out sequence so the user can choose: close the sprint now, or pull in more work first.

If no more stories are ready but Must Have stories are still In Progress (not Complete): "No more stories ready to start — [N] Must Have stories still in progress. Continue implementing those before sprint close-out."

---

Collaborative Protocol

In collaborative mode (the default). For guided and autonomous modes, see .claude/docs/automation-modes.md — the rules below describe collaborative behavior. The BLOCKED-override close (Phase 7) always prompts regardless of mode (it's a scope_changes always-ask decision).

• Never mark a story complete without user approval — Phase 7 requires an explicit "yes" before any file is edited.
• Never auto-fix failing criteria — report them and ask what to do.
• Deviations are facts, not judgments — present them neutrally; the user decides if they are acceptable.
• BLOCKED and NOT ASSESSED verdicts are advisory — the user can override and mark complete anyway; document the risk explicitly if they do. For NOT ASSESSED, the documented risk is that the criterion was never evaluated, not that it failed — record which criteria those were, so the gap is recoverable later rather than closed over.
• Use AskUserQuestion for the code review prompt and for batching manual criteria confirmations.

---

Recommended Next Steps

• Run /story-readiness [next-story-path] to validate the next story before starting implementation
• If all Must Have stories are complete: run /smoke-check sprint → /team-qa sprint → /gate-check
• If tech debt was logged: track it via /tech-debt to keep the register current