execution-alignment
Skill: Execution Alignment
Purpose
Keep project execution aligned with higher-level planning by running a post-task alignment loop: traceback from completed work to strategy, detect drift, and produce top-down recalibration recommendations.
Core Objective
Primary Goal: Produce an actionable Execution Alignment Report after task completion, with clear drift classification and prioritized recalibration actions.
Success Criteria (ALL must be met):
- ✅ Traceback completed: The completed task is traced through applicable project layers for the selected mode
- ✅ Drift classified: All detected misalignments use the drift model (goal, requirement, architecture, roadmap, priority), with impact scope and root cause per item
- ✅ Calibration produced: A top-down recalibration recommendation list is provided, including next tasks
- ✅ Report persisted: Execution Alignment Report is written to the agreed path
- ✅ Evidence readiness assessed: Missing or weak documentation is explicitly scored and reflected in confidence
- ✅ Unsafe writes avoided: If mapping is uncertain or updates are destructive, user confirmation is requested before proposing file-level changes
Acceptance Test: Can a teammate read the report and immediately understand whether execution is still aligned, what drift exists, what to do next, and why?
Scope Boundaries
This skill handles:
- Post-task alignment assessment
- Bottom-up traceback across project layers
- Drift detection, impact analysis, and root cause labeling
- Top-down recalibration suggestions
- Next-task recommendations with priority hints
- Evidence readiness assessment and graceful degradation when planning documents are incomplete
This skill does NOT handle:
- Rewriting requirements from scratch (use
analyze-requirements) - Redesigning architecture (use
brainstorm-design) - Creating a new roadmap or milestone system from scratch
- Implementing code changes
- Team retrospective facilitation ("what went well / poorly")
Handoff point: After the report is produced and reviewed, hand off to the relevant skill by issue type (requirements, architecture, planning, or repair loop).
Use Cases
- Post-task checkpoint: Validate alignment after any completed ticket
- Milestone closure review: Run full alignment before marking a milestone complete
- Release readiness: Detect planning drift before a release cut
- Scope-shift diagnosis: Investigate whether recent work still supports current goals
- Backlog reprioritization input: Generate evidence-backed next-task ordering signals
Behavior
Agent Prompt Contract
At execution start, follow this instruction contract:
You are responsible for project execution alignment.
When a task is completed, perform traceback analysis to ensure alignment
with project layers and produce a structured Execution Alignment Report.
Phase 0: Mode and Context Resolution
- Resolve mode with deterministic policy:
- If user explicitly sets mode, use it
- Else if context contains
release,milestone-closed, orepic-done, use Full Alignment Mode - Else use Lightweight Mode
- Resolve document paths:
- Default mapping assumes project-documentation-template layout
- Apply user path mapping overrides when provided
- Confirm minimum context:
- Completed task summary
- At least one traceability anchor (requirement ID, roadmap item, milestone reference, or equivalent)
Phase 0.5: Evidence Readiness Assessment
Assess evidence quality before traceback:
- strong: canonical docs exist for all required layers in selected mode
- weak: partial docs exist, but at least one required layer depends on secondary evidence (issues/PR/commit notes)
- missing: critical layers unavailable; traceback cannot produce reliable drift typing
Rules:
- Missing docs must not silently pass as aligned.
- Use secondary evidence only when canonical docs are missing, and label it explicitly.
- Confidence in conclusions must be adjusted by readiness level:
strong-> high confidenceweak-> medium confidencemissing-> low confidence or blocked
Mode Definitions
- Lightweight Mode: Task Backlog → Roadmap → Requirements
- Full Alignment Mode: Task Backlog → Roadmap → Milestones → Architecture → Requirements → Project Goals
Phase 1: Traceback (Bottom-Up)
- Identify completed task intent, output, and target outcome
- Walk upward through selected layers and record per-layer alignment status:
aligned|partial|misaligned|unknown
- Capture supporting evidence for each status
- If critical mapping is missing, enter
NeedsMappingConfirmation:- List missing links
- Offer 1-3 candidate mappings with rationale
- Request user confirmation before continuing
- If unresolved, output blocked report with required minimum inputs
- If readiness is
weakormissing, annotate per-layer evidence source:canonical(project docs)secondary(issue/PR/commit context)none
Phase 2: Drift Detection
Classify each drift item as:
- Goal Drift: Work no longer supports current project objective
- Requirement Drift: Requirement changed, deprecated, or already superseded
- Architecture Drift: Implementation direction diverges from current architecture decisions
- Roadmap Drift: Sequencing or roadmap assumptions changed
- Priority Drift: Priority is stale relative to current business direction
For each item, output:
TypeImpact ScopeRoot CauseSeverity(low|medium|high)
Phase 3: Calibration (Top-Down)
- Re-derive priority from top layers downward (Goals → Requirements → Architecture → Milestones → Roadmap → Backlog)
- Produce recalibration actions:
- Priority adjustments
- Sequence changes
- Dependency corrections
- Follow-up analysis handoffs
- Recommend next tasks with rationale and urgency window
- If suggesting edits to canonical planning docs, request explicit confirmation before generating file-level change proposals
Phase 4: Persist Report
Write report to:
- Default:
docs/calibration/YYYY-MM-DD-task-slug-calibration.md - Or user-specified path
Report must include a machine-readable drift block (YAML or JSON) in addition to human-readable sections. Report must also include an evidence readiness block and explicit confidence level.
Input & Output
Input
- Completed task description and outcome
- Optional mode override (
lightweight|full) - Optional document root/path mapping
- Optional context: release/milestone/epic markers
Output
Execution Alignment Report Template
# Execution Alignment Report: <task title>
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Mode:** Lightweight | Full
**Status:** aligned | partial | misaligned | blocked
**Confidence:** high | medium | low
## Completed Task
- Summary:
- Outcome:
## Traceback Path
Task Backlog -> Roadmap -> Milestones -> Architecture -> Requirements -> Project Goals
## Evidence Readiness
- Readiness: strong | weak | missing
- Missing Layers:
- Secondary Sources Used:
## Alignment Status
- Goal Alignment:
- Requirement Alignment:
- Architecture Alignment:
- Milestone Alignment:
- Roadmap Alignment:
## Drift Detected
- Type:
Impact Scope:
Root Cause:
Severity:
## Impact Analysis
- Delivery impact:
- Technical impact:
- Planning impact:
## Calibration Suggestions
1.
2.
3.
## Recommended Next Tasks
1.
2.
3.
## Machine-Readable Drift
drifts:
- driftType: "Architecture Drift"
severity: "high"
owner: "platform-team"
dueWindow: "this-sprint"
impactScope: "API gateway auth path"
rootCause: "Service mesh ADR replaced gateway-centric pattern"
evidence:
readiness: "weak"
confidence: "medium"
missingLayers:
- "architecture/adrs/latest-decision.md"
secondarySources:
- "PR#142"
- "commit:abc1234"
Restrictions
Hard Boundaries
- Do NOT invent traceability links when evidence is missing
- Do NOT claim high confidence when readiness is
weakormissing - Do NOT silently modify planning truth sources (goals, requirements, architecture, roadmap) without explicit user approval
- Do NOT collapse drift categories into a generic "misalignment" bucket; keep typed drift outputs
- Do NOT skip layer checks in Full mode unless the layer is truly unavailable (mark as
unknownand explain) - Do NOT present recommendations without rationale tied to traceback evidence
Skill Boundaries (Avoid Overlap)
Do NOT do these (other skills handle them):
- Requirements redefinition workflow →
analyze-requirements - Architecture option design workflow →
brainstorm-design - Repo-level onboarding workflow →
onboard-repo - Automated test-and-fix loop execution →
run-repair-loop
When to stop and hand off:
- Requirements are invalid or contradictory → hand off to
analyze-requirements - Architecture conflict is primary blocker → hand off to
brainstorm-design - Report indicates active implementation defects requiring repair → suggest
run-repair-loop
Self-Check
Core Success Criteria (ALL must be met)
- Traceback completed for selected mode
- Drift items typed using the five-category model
- Each drift has impact scope and root cause
- Top-down calibration actions provided
- Report persisted to agreed path
- Evidence readiness level and confidence are explicitly reported
- Confirmation requested where mapping or write safety is uncertain
Process Quality Checks
- Mode selection followed deterministic policy
- Mapping uncertainty triggered
NeedsMappingConfirmation - Canonical vs secondary evidence is clearly separated
- Evidence references are present for each alignment status
- Recommendations are prioritized and time-bounded
- Handoffs to adjacent skills are explicit when needed
Acceptance Test
Can a teammate execute the top 1-3 recommendations without additional clarification and explain why they are highest priority?
If NO: report is incomplete; refine traceback evidence and recalibration details.
If YES: report is complete; proceed to handoff or execution planning.
Examples
Example 1: Lightweight Mode (Routine Task)
Context: Completed task updates search filter UI behavior.
Mode resolution: No explicit override, no release/milestone/epic marker → Lightweight.
Traceback:
- Task aligns with roadmap item
search-improvements-q2 - Requirement still valid, but acceptance criteria changed last week
- Evidence readiness is
strongbecause requirement and roadmap docs are both canonical and current
Drift:
Requirement Drift(medium): Requirement wording changed to include keyboard navigation; completed task only covers click interactions
Calibration:
- Add follow-up task for keyboard navigation
- Move accessibility acceptance check before merging related UI tasks
- Reorder backlog items to unblock regression testing
Example 2: Full Mode (Milestone Closure)
Context: Milestone tagged milestone-closed after API gateway auth rollout.
Mode resolution: Marker hit → Full.
Traceback:
- Roadmap and milestone mapping valid
- Architecture layer conflicts with latest service mesh ADR
- Goal and requirements still valid
- Evidence readiness is
weak; architecture context depends on a merged PR note pending ADR update
Drift:
Architecture Drift(high): Gateway auth path no longer matches platform directionPriority Drift(high): Migration work was not promoted in backlog
Calibration:
- Insert migration epic into current sprint planning
- Defer non-critical gateway enhancements
- Trigger architecture-focused follow-up using
brainstorm-design
Example 3: Edge Case (Blocked Mapping)
Context: Completed task has no requirement ID or roadmap link.
Behavior:
- Enter
NeedsMappingConfirmation - Present candidate mappings with confidence notes
- Ask user to confirm mapping before drift classification
Result:
- If user confirms: continue normal flow
- If not confirmed: output
blockedreport with missing fields checklist - Confidence remains
lowuntil canonical mappings are established