!../principles/SKILL_BODY.md

!../tool-gitnexus/SKILL_BODY.md

---

Modify Existing Feature / Module Workflow

Disambiguating modify-feature vs fix-bug

Use this skill when: the code does X correctly — you want it to do Z instead (desired behavior is changing). Use fix-bug when: the code should do X but does Y — you want to restore correct behavior.

Quick test: "Is the current behavior broken, or just not what we want going forward?" → Broken / was never right → stop. Tell the user: "This looks like a bug rather than a behavior change — the fix-bug workflow is a better fit. You can say something like 'this is broken / it used to work' to trigger the right workflow, or tell me to proceed anyway and I'll apply baseline rules only." Do not proceed unless the user explicitly says to proceed. → Worked correctly, requirements evolved → modify-feature (continue here).

Edge case: Performance problems and security gaps feel like bugs but are almost always modify-feature — the code "works," it just doesn't meet a non-functional requirement. Continue with this skill.

Core Principle

Modification requests are riskier than additions — you're touching a running system; pulling one thread affects the whole. The core strategy is understand first, analyze, then refine, and only then act.

---

Complete Execution Workflow

Progress tracking: Output the progress block twice per step:

1. Before starting the step — mark it → — in progress, then immediately do the work.
2. After completing the step — output the block again with that step marked ✓ — <one-line finding>.

Do NOT batch all updates into a single block at the end. Each step must print its own start and completion block.

Include only the steps that apply to the current task scale — omit inapplicable steps entirely:

• Lightweight: Step 5 only
• Medium: Steps 1, 5, 6 (Step 3 optional — include if you run it)
• Large: All steps (1 → 2 → 3 → 4 → 5 → 6)

Large-task example mid-execution (adapt by removing rows for smaller scales):

Modify Feature Progress
✓ Step 1: Read & Establish Context  — <one-line finding>
→ Step 2: Impact Analysis           — in progress
○ Step 3: Requirements Refinement
○ Step 4: Solution Design + Confirm
○ Step 5: Implement
○ Step 6: Compliance Audit

---

Step 1: Read the Code — Establish Full Context

Required for medium and above tasks. Lightweight tasks (minor single-function adjustments) can be simplified to just reading the target function itself.

Before acting, you must build a complete understanding of the target code and its surroundings.

Questions to answer:

• What is the responsibility boundary of the target code? Which layer does it belong to?
• What are its callers? (Who uses it — trace upward)
• What are its dependencies? (What does it use — trace downward)
• Is it indirectly depended upon by other modules via events/callbacks/interfaces?
• What is the design intent of the current code? (Read comments, commit messages, PR descriptions)
• Are there implicit contracts? (e.g., return value format, call order, state assumptions)

🔗 When GitNexus is available, use context MCP tool to get callers and callees automatically.

─── Reading Scope (must cover) ──────────────────────
[ ] Complete implementation of the target function/class/module itself
[ ] Direct callers (at least one level up)
[ ] Direct dependencies (at least one level down)
[ ] Related interface definitions / abstract base classes / type declarations
[ ] Related config items / constant definitions
[ ] Related unit tests / integration tests (if any)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Step 2: Impact Analysis — Map the Change Radiation

Required when involving public interfaces, cross-module changes, or shared data structures.

Analysis dimensions:

• Direct impact: Behavioral changes to the modified function/class itself
• Upstream impact: Do callers depend on the behavior that is about to change?
• Downstream impact: Does the way dependencies are used need to be adjusted synchronously?
• Cross-module impact: Are other modules associated through event bus, shared state, or shared DTOs?
• Contract impact: Do the interface signature, parameter types, or return structure change (Breaking Change)?
• Data impact: Does it involve database schema changes, cache invalidation, or data migration?

🔗 When GitNexus is available, use impact MCP tool for upstream/downstream analysis.

─── Change Impact Analysis Report ───────────────────
Change target: <module/function name>
Change type: [ ] Behavior modification  [ ] Signature change  [ ] Internal refactor  [ ] Extension enhancement

Direct impact scope:
  - <list modified files/functions>

Indirect impact scope:
  - <list affected callers/dependents>

Is it a Breaking Change: Yes / No
Does it require synchronous changes to other modules: Yes (list) / No
Does it involve data changes: Yes (describe) / No
Risk level: Low / Medium / High
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Step 3: Requirements Refinement — Re-examine Under Architecture Constraints

Don't directly implement after receiving requirements — use the established code context to validate and refine them.

Questions to confirm:

• In the current architecture, where is the most natural implementation point for the behavioral change?
• Can the requirements be achieved through extending existing abstraction points, or must core logic be modified?
• Do the requirements conflict with existing design intent?
• Are the boundary conditions of the requirements clear?

Core principle: Prioritize finding an "extension-based modification" path; only then consider "invasive modification."

─── Modification Strategy Priority (best to worst) ──
1. Configuration: Modifying config/params is sufficient → zero code changes
2. Extension: Add implementation class/strategy/handler, register with existing extension point → don't touch old code
3. Decoration: Wrap existing behavior with decorator/middleware/AOP → old code is unaware
4. Local modification: Modify logic inside existing function/method → minimal change principle
5. Signature change: Need to modify interface/parameters/return value → must synchronize all callers
6. Structural reorganization: Need to split/merge/move modules → requires explicit user authorization
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Step 4: Solution Design — Create Modification Plan and Get Confirmation

Confirm first when involving public interfaces, cross-module changes, or Breaking Changes.

─── Modification Plan ───────────────────────────────
Requirement summary: <one-sentence description>
Modification strategy: <Configuration / Extension / Decoration / Local modification / Signature change / Structural reorganization>

Change list:
  1. <File A> - <change description>
  2. <File B> - <change description>

Impact scope: <directly/indirectly affected modules>
Breaking Change: Yes / No
Risk points: <if any>

Confirm execution?
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Confirmation Gate (between Step 4 and Step 5)

After presenting the Modification Plan, before writing any code, use the confirmation gate with:

• question: The Modification Plan block above
• options:
  • "Yes, proceed with implementation"
  • "No — let's revise the approach"

Decision rules by risk level:

Risk	Behavior
High (Breaking Change, cross-module, or Structural reorganization)	Always use the confirmation gate. Do not touch any file until user selects "Yes".
Medium (multi-file, internal-only, no Breaking Change)	Always use the confirmation gate. Do not touch any file until user selects "Yes".
Low (Lightweight, single-function config or local change)	Skip — proceed directly to Step 5.

If user selects "No": ask "What direction would you prefer?", revise the Modification Plan, and use the confirmation gate again before proceeding.

---

Step 4.5: TDD Mode — Baseline + Contract Tests (Large Tasks Only)

Large tasks only. Run after the modification plan is confirmed in Step 4, before writing any implementation code.

§P config check: read .sextant.yaml before prompting.

• tdd: enforce → skip the prompt; TDD is mandatory
• tdd: default_on → treat as default Y
• tdd: off or absent → use the default below

TDD mode: write regression baseline and contract tests first? [Y/n] (default Y — opt out explicitly if this is a structural-only refactor with no behavior change)

If Y:

1. Regression baseline: Write complete, runnable tests that capture the current behavior before touching any code. These tests must pass right now, and must continue to pass after the change is complete. They are your regression safety net.
2. New behavior contracts: Write complete, runnable tests for the new behavior (Arrange + Act + Assert — no TODO placeholders). The Act calls the existing function with inputs that should produce the new output — the test fails because the implementation does not yet satisfy the new contract. Valid red-light failure: assertion on wrong return value, raised exception where none was expected, or vice versa. An incomplete test that cannot run is not a valid red.

• For full test writing guidance, link sextant:write-tests.

If N (or Lightweight task): Proceed directly to Step 5.

Step 5: Implement — Follow the Minimal Change Principle

Execution discipline:

• Maintain style consistency: Naming, indentation, comment language fully consistent with surrounding code
• No hitchhiking: Don't "optimize" unrelated code while implementing requirements
• Changes are traceable: Format: # change: <requirement description> - <reason for change>
• Backward compatibility: Prefer compatible approaches (default parameters, overloading, adapters) unless user explicitly states otherwise
• Incremental implementation: Do structural adjustments first, then behavioral changes

Common backward compatibility approaches:

# ✅ Add optional parameter, old calling style unaffected
def process_order(order_id: str, priority: int = 0):  # priority is newly added
    ...

# ✅ Keep old function as adapter, internally calls new implementation
def get_user(user_id):                    # Old interface, preserved
    return get_user_v2(user_id).to_legacy_format()

❌ Forbidden actions:

• Modifying public interface signatures without confirmation
• Sneaking in "optimizations" unrelated to the current requirement
• Deleting code that's temporarily unused without informing the user
• Changing return value structures without updating all callers

Step 6: Compliance Audit (Required for Medium and Above Tasks)

─── Modification Architecture Audit Checklist ───────
[ ] Does the change follow the minimal change principle? Any unnecessary extra changes?
[ ] Is style consistency with surrounding code maintained?
[ ] Has the existing interface contract been broken? (Parameters, return values, exceptions)
[ ] Have all callers been adapted to the change? Any missed?
[ ] Has any new circular dependency been introduced?
[ ] Has the encapsulation boundary of existing modules been broken?
[ ] Is the dependency direction still compliant? Any new reverse dependencies?
[ ] Are there conflicts with adjacent features? (Shared state, events, shared data structures)
[ ] Do the original unit tests still pass? Do tests need to be updated?
[ ] Does documentation / comments / type definitions / CHANGELOG need to be updated?
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────

---

Workflow Tailoring by Task Scale

Lightweight (minor single-function logic adjustment, config changes, style fixes):

• Required: Step 5 only
• Optional: Step 1 (quick scan)
• Skip: Steps 2–4, Step 4.5, Step 6

Medium (modify module internal logic, add/remove internal functions):

• Required: Step 1 → Step 5 → Step 6
• Optional: Step 3
• Skip: Steps 2, 4, Step 4.5

Large (cross-module changes, public interface modifications, Breaking Changes):

• Required: Steps 1 → 2 → 3 → 4 → 5 → 6 in order
• Optional: Step 4.5 (TDD mode, default Y) — runs after Step 4 confirmation, before Step 5

Step 4.5 (TDD mode) is only meaningful after Step 4 confirms the modification plan. It is never run before Step 4, and never run on Lightweight tasks.

---

Common Pitfalls

Pitfall	Description	Correct Approach
Act without reading	Modified function without reading callers	At minimum trace one level up
Hitchhiking	Smuggled in "opportunistic optimizations"	Strict separation: change only serves the current requirement
Implicit Breaking Change	Changed return value structure assuming callers unaffected	Proactively check all callers
Over-modification	User requested minor adjustment but entire module was rewritten	Follow minimal change principle
Forgot compatibility	Directly changed signature when modifying public interface	Prefer default parameters/overloading
Missed sync	Changed code but forgot to update related docs/types/tests	Audit checklist covers sync items

---

Sprint State Integration

If .sextant/state.json exists in the project root and the current task matches a sprint task:

• On start: offer to update the task's status from pending → in_progress. Ask: "Update sprint state to mark Task N as in_progress?"
• On completion (acceptance condition met): offer to update status to done. Ask: "Update sprint state to mark Task N as done?"
• On blocker (test failure, missing dependency, unresolvable ambiguity that halts progress): surface the issue, then ask: "Mark Task N as blocked and record the reason in flags?" If confirmed, set status: "blocked" and append {"task": N, "reason": "<one-sentence blocker description>"} to the top-level flags array. Do not proceed to the next task while a task is blocked.

Do not write the file without explicit user confirmation. If the user declines, continue without state updates.

---

Reply Format

Lightweight task (single-function logic change, config update, style fix): one sentence only.

✅ Modified `<function>`: <what changed> using <strategy> (<file>:<line>).

Medium/large task (cross-file, public interface, or Breaking Change): full block.

Modification Summary:

#	Item	Detail
[1]	Conclusion	<one sentence: what changed, which strategy was used, and the outcome>
[2]	Changes	<files / functions modified; callers updated; backward-compat shims added>
[3]	Risks / Assumptions	<Breaking Change status; compatibility assumptions; callers not yet adapted>
[4]	Verification	<Step 6 audit result: Passed ✅ / Issues ⚠️ (details); unit test status>
[5]	Needs your input	<Breaking Change approval; callers that must still be updated by the user>