wordle/.claude/skills/bmad-loop-resolve/SKILL.md

---

name: bmad-loop-resolve

description: 'Interactive escalation-resolution workflow for the bmad-loop orchestrator. A bmad-loop run paused on a CRITICAL escalation (a contradiction or gap a dev/review session could not safely resolve alone); you and the human disambiguate the frozen spec so the story can be re-driven. Invoked as /bmad-loop-resolve . Unlike the automated dev/review sessions this session is interactive — a human is present and you SHOULD ask.'

bmad-loop Escalation Resolution

A bmad-loop run drove a story through dev → review, a session raised a CRITICAL escalation (work could not proceed safely — usually a contradiction or an unanswered question in the frozen spec), and the orchestrator paused the whole run for a human. The session that escalated is gone; you are a fresh interactive session whose job is to resolve the ambiguity with the human and update the frozen spec, so the orchestrator can re-arm the story and re-drive it against a corrected spec.

This is interactive: a human IS present. Ask questions, present options, recommend — but the human makes the call. ($BMAD_LOOP_MODE is intentionally unset for this session; the never-ask automation rules do NOT apply.)

Identity & I/O contract

These environment variables are set:

• $BMAD_LOOP_RUN_DIR — the paused run's directory.
• $BMAD_LOOP_STORY_KEY — the escalated story key (also your invocation argument).
• $BMAD_LOOP_RESOLVE_CONTEXT — path to a context.json written for you.

Read $BMAD_LOOP_RESOLVE_CONTEXT FIRST. Its schema:

{
  "story_key": "6-4-cli-list-command",
  "run_id": "20260613-111429-6a14",
  "spec_file": "/abs/path/to/_bmad-output/implementation-artifacts/spec-<story>.md",
  "baseline_commit": "<sha>",
  "paused_reason": "CRITICAL escalation from review session: ...",
  "escalations": [
    {
      "type": "<kind>",
      "severity": "CRITICAL",
      "detail": "<what's ambiguous/contradictory>"
    }
  ],
  "resolution_path": "/abs/path/to/<run>/resolve/<story>/resolution.json"
}

Your output marker is the file at resolution_path. Writing it is the LAST action of a successful resolution. Schema:

{
  "story_key": "<key>",
  "decision": "<one or two sentences: the rule you and the human chose>",
  "spec_file": "<the spec you edited>",
  "spec_updated": true
}

What you MUST do

1. Read the context, then read the frozen spec at spec_file in full — especially its <frozen-after-approval> block (the intent the dev/review sessions treat as authoritative). The escalation is almost always that this block is silent on, or contradicts, a case the implementation hit.
2. Present the escalation plainly to the human: what is ambiguous or contradictory, why it blocks safe implementation, and 2–4 concrete resolution options with a clear recommendation and its trade-offs. Keep it tight — quote the relevant spec lines.
3. Get the human's decision. Ask follow-ups if the choice is unclear. Do not invent requirements; if the human is unsure, help them reason, don't guess.
4. Update the frozen spec to encode the decision unambiguously: amend the <frozen-after-approval> block and any affected acceptance criteria / test matrix rows so a fresh dev session has exactly one correct reading. Make the smallest change that removes the ambiguity. You MAY use the bmad-spec or bmad-correct-course skills if a larger spec change is warranted.
5. Write the resolution marker at resolution_path (schema above), then tell the human the resolution is recorded and they can exit this session — the orchestrator will offer to re-arm the story and resume the run (a clean rebuild against the corrected spec).

What you MUST NOT do

• Do NOT write the orchestrator's result.json — that is a dev/review artifact; this is not one of those sessions.
• Do NOT change sprint-status.yaml, and do NOT set the spec's status: field — the orchestrator deterministically re-arms the spec status on resume. Edit spec content only.
• Do NOT implement the story, write feature code, run tests, or commit. Your job ends at a corrected spec + the resolution marker.
• Do NOT widen scope. Resolve exactly the escalated ambiguity; if you notice unrelated problems, note them to the human but leave them alone.

If you cannot resolve it

If the human defers, the information needed is genuinely unavailable, or the right fix is out of scope for a spec edit (e.g. it needs a PRD/architecture change), say so plainly and do not write the resolution marker. Exiting without the marker leaves the story escalated and the run paused — the safe default. The orchestrator will not re-arm a story with no recorded resolution.