doughnut: Skill for Claude Code

Apply .cursor/rules/problem-decomposition.mdc and .cursor/rules/planning.mdc. Do not create another plan file or change the selected story outcome.

<input_gate> Require an existing PLAN under .planning/phases/ or .planning/quick/.

• No PLAN yet → use slice-planning.
• Story understanding must change → use story-refinement; use story-decomposition for parent-problem or candidate-ordering changes.
• Existing slices are already clear, cohesive, single-proof-loop, meet the target, and have no unexplained hard-limit path → execute directly; refinement is optional. </input_gate>

<refinement_triggers> Refine when any remaining slice:

• contains multiple independent post-conditions or proof loops;
• requires several separable implementation beats before any green result;
• hides preparation not tied to the immediate next Behavior;
• has low sizing confidence because the execution path or integration boundary is unclear;
• is likely to exceed the target or could plausibly exceed the hard limit, excluding a focused test whose runtime alone explains the duration;
• has already exceeded the target without converging; or
• has exceeded the hard limit without a stated exception. </refinement_triggers>

Classify each remaining slice:

Result	Decision
Ready	One Behavior/Structure gate, one proof loop, cohesive change, meets the target
Refine	Same story, but the leaf violates its gate, has multiple beats, has low confidence, or could exceed the budget
Escalate	Learning escalation requires story review

Route Escalate using the input gate above. Refine every Refine slice here.

For every replacement leaf:

1. Keep one Behavior, or one Structure immediately before its Behavior.
2. Keep one outside-in proof loop and a CI-safe commit boundary.
3. Include implementation, focused verification, and slice-local cleanup in the sizing hypothesis.
4. Preserve value/learning order and genuine prerequisites.
5. Split again when the leaf still has separable beats or a plausible hard-limit path.

Do not split tests from the Behavior they prove, end a leaf on red, or create horizontal layer slices.

1. Record elapsed time, completed evidence, failure/thrash point, and the sizing assumption that proved false.
2. Confirm attempt-owned WIP was safely parked or reverted before editing the PLAN. Preserve developer changes; if ownership is unclear, stop for human judgment.
3. Replace with smaller leaves only if Learning escalation allows.
4. Refine later slices only when the same disproved assumption applies to them.
5. Keep a stated exception when elapsed time came from one focused test or external wait that decomposition cannot reduce.

• Do not create a new file or directory.
• Preserve completed-slice history needed for resume.
• Replace obsolete planned detail rather than appending a second competing breakdown.
• Reconcile promise ownership and observations against the original leaves under planning.mdc's Proof decisions before declaring the revised PLAN ready.
• Record only learnings that changed the refinement.
• Do not implement, commit, or push unless the invoking workflow separately authorizes those actions.