Agent skill

ghm-id-register

Validates and registers new SoT IDs with cross-reference integrity. Triggers when creating BR-XXX, UJ-XXX, API-XXX, or CFD-XXX entries. Outputs formatted SoT entry with validated cross-references.

Stars 26
Forks 6

Install this agent skill to your Project

npx add-skill https://github.com/mattgierhart/PRD-driven-context-engineering/tree/main/.claude/skills/ghm-id-register

SKILL.md

ID Register

Validate and register new Source of Truth IDs with cross-reference integrity checks.

Workflow Overview

  1. Validate Format → Check ID follows [PREFIX]-[3-digit] pattern
  2. Check Uniqueness → Ensure ID doesn't already exist
  3. Verify Cross-Refs → All referenced IDs must exist
  4. Register Entry → Add to appropriate SoT file

Core Output Template

Element Definition Evidence
ID Unique identifier BR-101, UJ-045, API-012
Title Short descriptive name Clear, specific
Cross-References Links to related IDs All referenced IDs exist
Status Current state Draft / Active / Deprecated

ID Format Reference

Prefix Domain File
BR- Business Rules SoT/SoT.BUSINESS_RULES.md
UJ- User Journeys SoT/SoT.USER_JOURNEYS.md
API- API Contracts SoT/SoT.API_CONTRACTS.md
CFD- Customer Feedback SoT/SoT.customer_feedback.md

Step 1: Validate Format

Check ID follows the pattern:

[PREFIX]-[XXX]

Where:

  • PREFIX = BR, UJ, API, or CFD
  • XXX = 3-digit number (zero-padded)

Checklist

  • Prefix is valid (BR, UJ, API, CFD)
  • Number is 3 digits
  • Format matches [A-Z]+-[0-9]{3}

Step 2: Check Uniqueness

  1. Read target SoT file
  2. Extract all existing IDs of same prefix
  3. Verify new ID doesn't exist
  4. If auto-assigning: use highest existing + 1

Checklist

  • Target SoT file read
  • Existing IDs enumerated
  • New ID is unique

Step 3: Verify Cross-References

For each ID referenced in the new entry:

  1. Identify the prefix
  2. Check that ID exists in its SoT file
  3. Flag any missing references

Checklist

  • All BR-XXX references exist in BUSINESS_RULES
  • All UJ-XXX references exist in USER_JOURNEYS
  • All API-XXX references exist in API_CONTRACTS
  • All CFD-XXX references exist in CUSTOMER_FEEDBACK
  • Each cross-reference includes a relationship type (see references/cross-reference-patterns.md)
  • Relationship types match the directional hierarchy (vertical types for cross-layer, lateral types for same-layer)

Step 3.5: Evaluate Confidence (NEW)

Before registering, assign a confidence score (1-5) based on evidence strength:

Score Evidence Level Examples
1/5 Assumption / PM decision "We think users want X"
2/5 Secondary research Competitive analysis, market report
3/5 Direct feedback User interviews (3-5 conversations)
4/5 Validated behavior Beta testing, small-scale usage
5/5 Production evidence Real usage data at scale

Question to ask: What's the highest evidence supporting this entry right now? What would move it to the next confidence level?

Example confidence annotations:

  • confidence: 2/5, source: competitive-analysis
  • confidence: 3/5, source: 5-user-interviews-jan-2026
  • confidence: 4/5, source: beta-cohort-validation

See .claude/skills/PRINCIPLES.md for detailed confidence model by SoT type.

Checklist

  • Confidence score assigned (1-5)
  • Highest evidence source identified
  • Forward path identified ("would move to X/5 if...")

Step 4: Register Entry

Add formatted entry to SoT file:

markdown
### [ID]: [Title]

**Status**: Draft
**Created**: YYYY-MM-DD
**Confidence**: [1-5]/5 (source: [evidence source])
**Next Confidence Target**: [What would move this to next level]
**Cross-References**: [List of related IDs]

[Description]

**Acceptance Criteria**:
- [ ] Criterion 1
- [ ] Criterion 2

Example entry with confidence:

markdown
### CFD-042: Users want dark mode

**Status**: Active
**Created**: 2026-02-01
**Confidence**: 3/5 (source: 5-user-interviews-jan-2026)
**Next Confidence Target**: 4/5 (would require beta cohort validation)
**Cross-References**: FEA-008 (dark mode feature)

During interviews, 4 of 5 users mentioned desire for dark mode. Competitors (Notion, Linear, Figma) all have it.

**Acceptance Criteria**:
- [ ] Feature FEA-008 delivered to beta cohort
- [ ] Track usage: % of beta users enabling dark mode

Quality Gates

Pass Checklist

  • ID format is valid
  • ID is unique within its domain
  • All cross-references resolve
  • Entry follows SoT template
  • Confidence score assigned (1-5) with source documented
  • Next confidence target identified

Testability Check

  • ID can be searched and found
  • Cross-references are bidirectional (if required)
  • Confidence score is honest (reflects actual evidence, not wishful thinking)

Anti-Patterns

Pattern Example Fix
Duplicate ID Creating BR-101 when it exists → Check uniqueness first
Orphan reference References UJ-999 that doesn't exist → Verify all cross-refs
Wrong prefix Using BR- for an API contract → Match prefix to domain
Missing zero-pad BR-5 instead of BR-005 → Always use 3 digits
Inflated confidence Assigning 4/5 to a PM assumption → Be honest about evidence level
No confidence source "confidence: 3/5" with no source → Always record source (CFD-001, user-interview-jan, etc.)
Missing confidence target Confidence assigned but no forward path → Ask "what would move this to 4/5?"

Boundaries

DO:

  • Format validation
  • Uniqueness checks
  • Cross-reference verification
  • Entry formatting

DON'T:

  • Content decisions about ID meaning
  • Approve/reject based on business logic
  • Modify existing IDs

Handoff

After ID registration:

  • New ID is in SoT file
  • Cross-references are valid
  • EPIC Execution Plan updated with new ID
  • Ready for implementation

Didn't find tool you were looking for?

Be as detailed as possible for better results