# DAO Decisions — Skill Update

---

### DAO-SU-001
- **Timestamp:** 2026-03-10T04:00:00Z
- **Task:** TASK-NEW (→ aligns with EPIC-048)
- **Feature:** N/A (cross-cutting: FEATURE-048-A through D + potential scope extension)
- **Source:** human
- **Message:** "Study task-based code-implementation skill's tool delegation pattern. 1) Which task-based skills directly use code-related practices? 2) For those skills, adopt dynamic tool selection mechanism like ideation and code-implementation."
- **Disposition:** instruction
- **Content:** Execute EPIC-048 (already planned, 4 features in 'Planned' status). Study phase is COMPLETE — requirement-details-part-20.md contains full analysis identifying: bug-fix (HIGH delegation need), code-refactor (MEDIUM — already has partial tools), technical-design (consultation only), refactoring-analysis (consultation only). User also mentions acceptance-testing — evaluate whether to extend EPIC-048 scope to include feature-acceptance-test and human-playground. Suggested entry point: begin with FEATURE-048-A (tool skill contract extension) as MVP, then proceed through B→C→D.
- **Confidence:** 0.92
- **Rationale:** The user's request maps 1:1 to EPIC-048 which was created in TASK-780 (03-06-2026) and broken down in TASK-781 into 4 features, all still in 'Planned' status. The study (part 1) is already documented in requirement-details-part-20.md. Part 2 (adopt dynamic tool selection) = executing the planned features. The only new element is the user mentioning "ac testing" which wasn't in EPIC-048's original scope. DAO recommends surfacing existing EPIC-048 to avoid duplicate analysis, and proceeding with its execution pipeline (Feature Refinement → Technical Design → Code Implementation for each feature).
- **Skills suggested:** x-ipe-meta-skill-creator (for updating multiple skills), x-ipe-task-based-feature-refinement (start FEATURE-048-A refinement)
- **Key discovery:** EPIC-048 already exists with 4 planned features covering exactly this request. No new requirement gathering needed — proceed to feature refinement → implementation pipeline.

---

### DAO-SU-002
- **Timestamp:** 2026-03-10T05:15:00Z
- **Task:** TASK-NEW (→ CR for EPIC-048)
- **Feature:** N/A (cross-cutting: EPIC-048 scope extension)
- **Source:** human (delegated to DAO: "DAO represent me for feedbacks")
- **Message:** Agent completed study of which task-based skills touch code and should adopt dynamic tool selection. Found gap: acceptance-test and human-playground are NOT in EPIC-048 scope, and EPIC-048 predates tools.json config filtering. Agent presented 3 options for how to proceed.
- **Disposition:** approval
- **Content:** **Approve Option 1 — CR to EPIC-048: add config filtering + extend scope to acceptance-test & human-playground.** This is the KISS-optimal path. EPIC-048's motivation ("align code-touching skills with tool-implementation architecture") applies equally to acceptance-test and human-playground — they generate code, they should use tool delegation. Adding tools.json config filtering is a natural evolution of the same EPIC (it didn't exist when EPIC-048 was written). Splitting into a separate EPIC (Option 3) creates unnecessary overhead with zero benefit. Keeping scope narrow (Option 2) defers work that shares the same motivation, requiring a future EPIC that duplicates rationale.
- **Confidence:** 0.95
- **Rationale:** Three-perspective analysis: (1) **Human perspective** — wants consistency and simplicity; extending EPIC-048 is the least overhead path. (2) **Engineer perspective** — acceptance-test and human-playground share identical motivation with the existing 4 skills; config filtering is a missing foundational capability that affects all features. (3) **Product perspective** — one cohesive EPIC is easier to track, review, and close than fragmented work. Gains of Option 1: single tracking unit, shared motivation, no duplicate requirement gathering, natural scope evolution. Losses: slightly larger scope (6 skills instead of 4), but manageable since acceptance-test and human-playground are simpler (no "fix"/"refactor" operations — just "implement" delegation). Option 2 loses: deferred gap, future overhead. Option 3 loses: YAGNI violation (unnecessary EPIC creation), duplicate motivation documentation.
- **Skills suggested:** x-ipe-task-based-change-request (to formally process the CR to EPIC-048)
- **Key discovery:** The scope extension is minimal — acceptance-test and human-playground only need `operation: "implement"` delegation (already supported), plus config filtering awareness. No new contract extensions needed beyond what FEATURE-048-A already delivers.
