msd-core/docs/how-to/resolve-prohibition-findings.md

How to resolve prohibition findings while writing a spec

Goal: Turn each must-NOT the spec phase surfaces into an explicit, checkable spec decision — so a constraint the author assumed but never wrote (the reminder that must not shame the user, the model that must not proxy on protected attributes, the log that must not store raw PII) becomes an acceptance criterion the verifier can enforce before any code exists, instead of an unwritten intent a literal ✅ done can silently violate.

Prerequisites: A phase whose /gsd-spec-phase run has passed the ambiguity gate and the edge-completeness probe (Step 5.5). The prohibition probe (Step 5.6) then runs automatically over the same requirements and presents its findings — you do not invoke it separately.

For the two-stage recall→precision protocol, the canon-referral rule, and the status × verification schema, see Spec-Phase Prohibition Probe. This guide covers only how to act on the findings.

---

Read a finding

Each finding is one bespoke must-NOT for one requirement — a values, safety, fairness, privacy, or transparency constraint the probe kept after dropping routine-engineering noise. A finding is phrased as a must-NOT statement, for example:

R1 · values — MUST NOT use shaming, guilt, or loss-aversion streak framing (e.g. "Don't lose your streak!") — the reminder must encourage without penalty framing

You resolve each finding into one of three states. Claude presents them as a numbered choice (or an AskUserQuestion menu).

---

Keep it — write a negative acceptance criterion

Choose this when the prohibition is genuine for this feature. Claude writes a must-NOT line into the spec's Acceptance Criteria, marks the prohibition resolved, and you pick its verification tier:

• test — a mechanical check can prove it: a negative test, a lint rule, an assertion that the audit log contains no raw SSN. Choose this when a green/red check exists.
• judgment — the prohibition is real but cannot be reduced to a mechanical test (e.g. "the framing is not manipulative"). It records intent and routes to a judgment-based review rather than a passing test.

• MUST NOT use shaming or loss-aversion framing in the reminder copy (judgment)

Pick the tier honestly — see what happens downstream for why a test-tier prohibition is held to a stricter bar.

---

Dismiss it — record why it does not apply

Choose this when the prohibition genuinely does not apply — and say why. A dismissal requires a non-empty reason; silence is rejected.

⛔ dismissed — pure integer utility; no user-facing surface, no values/safety/privacy dimension

A wrong dismissal is the exact silent failure this probe exists to prevent, so dismiss only when the reason is solid. The reason string is the audit trail.

---

Defer it — leave it unresolved and flagged

Choose this only when you are not ready to decide. The prohibition stays unresolved and is flagged. Unlike a dismissal, deferring makes no claim that the prohibition is safe — it is an explicit, visible assumption the planner must surface, not silently drop.

---

When a finding is canon, not yours

Some candidates are canon security/compliance constraints a dedicated tool already owns (OWASP / prototype-pollution / path-traversal / injection → /gsd-secure-phase + eslint; GDPR retention / consent → /gsd-secure-phase). The probe does not surface these as findings to resolve — it emits a one-line breadcrumb and drops them, so the list you triage stays the ~2–3 bespoke prohibitions no other tool would catch. You do not act on a breadcrumb here; pick it up in /gsd-secure-phase.

---

Clear the soft gate

After you have worked through the findings, the probe runs a soft gate:

• All applicable prohibitions resolved → the spec proceeds to the next step.
• One or more still unresolved → Claude asks what to do:
  • Resolve now — loop back and resolve the remaining prohibitions.
  • Write the spec anyway — the spec is written with those rows marked ⚠ Prohibition unresolved — planner must treat as assumption. Use this deliberately; you are choosing to ship a known gap.
  • Keep probing — continue surfacing.

The gate is soft: it never blocks you, but every unresolved prohibition stays visible in the spec's ## Prohibitions section.

---

Let Claude resolve them for you

If the prohibitions are low-stakes or already settled by earlier phases, run the spec phase in auto mode:

/gsd-spec-phase 3 --auto

In --auto, Claude marks a prohibition resolved where it can write a defensible negative acceptance criterion (at the test or judgment tier), and leaves it unresolved otherwise. It never auto-dismisses — dismissing a prohibition requires a human reason, because a wrong auto-dismissal is precisely the silent failure being eliminated. Claude logs the tally, for example:

[auto] prohibitions: 2 resolved, 1 unresolved

Review the logged choices afterwards; auto mode is a fast first pass, not a substitute for judgement on a prohibition that carries risk.

---

What happens to resolved findings downstream

When you next run /gsd-plan-phase, the planner reads the spec's ## Prohibitions section and:

• lifts every confirmed prohibition into the plan's must_haves.prohibitions,
• carries the test-tier and judgment-tier distinction with it,
• surfaces every unresolved prohibition as an explicit assumption.

At verify time, a test-tier prohibition whose mechanical check is not yet wired is held fail-closed — it reports as flagged/unverified, never as a silent pass — so a prohibition can never quietly disappear between spec and verification. A judgment-tier prohibition routes to a judgment-based review rather than a green/red test.

This is the payoff: a resolved prohibition becomes a checkable negative the goal-backward verifier accounts for, extending its reach to the must-NOT the requirement prose never stated.

---

Related

• Spec-Phase Prohibition Probe — protocol, schema, host-mapping table, and the front-of-pipeline rationale
• Resolve edge-coverage findings — the sibling probe on the data/behavior-shape axis
• /gsd-spec-phase — command reference and flags
• Plan a phase — where resolved prohibitions become must_haves.prohibitions
• docs index