feat(strategies): convert speckit and enterprise to vBRIEF-centric outputs (#361, #362, #364)

[MScottAdams]

Summary

Convert speckit and enterprise strategies to vBRIEF-centric outputs, replacing hand-authored markdown artifacts with vBRIEF narratives and render commands.

speckit.md (#361, #362)

• Phase 1: Output changed from project.md to Principles narrative in �brief/PROJECT-DEFINITION.vbrief.json
• Phase 2: Output changed from specs/[feature]/spec.md to WHAT/WHY narratives in �brief/specification.vbrief.json
• Phase 3: Output changed from specs/[feature]/plan.md to HOW narratives enriching �brief/specification.vbrief.json; added ask spec:render instruction for human review
• Removed all specs/ directory references; updated Artifacts Summary and Directory Structure

enterprise.md (#364)

• Stage 1: PRD narratives written to �brief/specification.vbrief.json; ask prd:render produces PRD.md for Gate 1 review
• Stage 3: Specification narratives enrich �brief/specification.vbrief.json; ask spec:render produces SPECIFICATION.md for Gate 3 review
• Output Artifacts updated: specification.vbrief.json is primary, rendered .md files are read-only exports
• Approval gates and ADRs in docs/adr/ preserved

Tests

• 9 new tests in ests/content/test_strategy_vbrief.py covering vBRIEF references, no-specs-dir assertion, render command references, gate preservation, and ADR independence

Checklist

• ask check passes (1423 passed, 2 xfailed)
• CHANGELOG.md updated
• New test file for new content
• Conventional commit message
• Feature branch (not master)
• Scope vBRIEFs exist in �brief/active/

Closes #361
Closes #362
Closes #364
Parent: #338

[greptile-apps]

Greptile Summary

This PR converts strategies/speckit.md and strategies/enterprise.md from hand-authored markdown outputs (specs/, project.md, spec.md, plan.md) to vBRIEF-centric outputs (vbrief/specification.vbrief.json, vbrief/PROJECT-DEFINITION.vbrief.json) with task spec:render / task prd:render for read-only stakeholder exports. All internal path references, directory structures, and artifacts summaries are internally consistent; approval gates and ADR references in enterprise.md are preserved. The 9 new tests follow the established _text = _read(...) class-level pattern from test_strategy_chaining.py and cover the key vBRIEF references and render commands.

Confidence Score: 5/5

Safe to merge — documentation-only conversion with no logic changes and passing test suite

All strategy file content is internally consistent, path references match across all sections, and no old specs/ or standalone .md artifacts remain. The sole finding is a P2 observation about absence-only test assertions, which does not block merge.

No files require special attention

Important Files Changed

Filename	Overview
strategies/speckit.md	Phase outputs converted from specs/ markdown files to vBRIEF JSON narratives; render commands and directory structure updated consistently throughout
strategies/enterprise.md	Stage 1 and Stage 3 outputs converted to vbrief/specification.vbrief.json with prd:render / spec:render commands; approval gates and ADR references preserved
tests/content/test_strategy_vbrief.py	9 new tests using the established class-level _text read pattern; absence-only assertions in a few tests provide weaker regression protection than paired presence checks
CHANGELOG.md	Unreleased section updated with accurate description of speckit and enterprise changes; no issues found

Flowchart

%%{init: {'theme': 'neutral'}}%%
flowchart TD
    subgraph speckit["SpecKit Strategy (vBRIEF-centric)"]
        SK1["Phase 1: Principles\nvbrief/PROJECT-DEFINITION.vbrief.json"]
        SK2["Phase 2: Specify WHAT/WHY\nvbrief/specification.vbrief.json"]
        SK3["Phase 3: Plan HOW\nvbrief/specification.vbrief.json\n+ task spec:render → SPECIFICATION.md"]
        SK4["Phase 4: Tasks\nvbrief/plan.vbrief.json"]
        SK5["Phase 5: Implement\nCode + tests"]
        SK1 --> SK2 --> SK3 --> SK4 --> SK5
    end

    subgraph enterprise["Enterprise Strategy (vBRIEF-centric)"]
        EN1["Stage 1: PRD Narratives\nvbrief/specification.vbrief.json\n+ task prd:render → PRD.md"]
        G1{"Gate 1:\nPRD Approval"}
        EN2["Stage 2: ADRs\ndocs/adr/adr-NNN-*.md"]
        G2{"Gate 2:\nADR Approval"}
        EN3["Stage 3: Specification\nvbrief/specification.vbrief.json\n+ task spec:render → SPECIFICATION.md"]
        G3{"Gate 3:\nSpec Approval"}
        EN4["Stage 4: Build\nCode + tests"]
        EN1 --> G1 --> EN2 --> G2 --> EN3 --> G3 --> EN4
    end

    style SK1 fill:#c4b5fd,stroke:#7c3aed
    style SK2 fill:#fef08a,stroke:#ca8a04
    style SK3 fill:#6ee7b7,stroke:#059669
    style EN1 fill:#fef08a,stroke:#ca8a04
    style EN3 fill:#6ee7b7,stroke:#059669
    style G1 fill:#fca5a5,stroke:#dc2626
    style G2 fill:#fca5a5,stroke:#dc2626
    style G3 fill:#fca5a5,stroke:#dc2626

Loading

Prompt To Fix All With AI

This is a comment left during a code review.
Path: tests/content/test_strategy_vbrief.py
Line: 76-88

Comment:
**Absence-only assertions miss the positive regression guard**

`test_speckit_no_standalone_plan_md_input` and `test_speckit_no_project_md_principles_reference` each check that a very specific legacy string is absent, but neither asserts that the replacement content is present. If someone accidentally removed the Phase 4 input or Phase 5 Principles reference entirely, both tests would still pass.

Pairing each absence check with a presence check on the new vBRIEF path would give stronger regression protection:

```python
def test_speckit_no_standalone_plan_md_input(self) -> None:
    assert "Approved `plan.md`" not in self._text
    # Also verify the replacement content exists
    assert "vbrief/specification.vbrief.json" in self._text  # already covered by test_speckit_references_specification_vbrief

def test_speckit_no_project_md_principles_reference(self) -> None:
    assert "project.md Principles" not in self._text
    # Phase 5 must positively reference the vBRIEF path
    assert "vbrief/PROJECT-DEFINITION.vbrief.json" in self._text  # already covered by test_speckit_references_project_definition_vbrief
```

The existing `test_speckit_references_*` tests already provide the positive side, so the absence-only tests are not wrong — just worth noting that coverage of the positive assertion comes from a different test method.

How can I resolve this? If you propose a fix, please make it concise.

_{Reviews (2): Last reviewed commit: "fix: address Greptile review findings (b..." | Re-trigger Greptile}