Proposal #28: Sequence v1.0 Store Submission into an Executable Sprint Plan with Dependency Graph

[guyghost]

📦 Release Change

Title

Sequence v1.0 Store Submission into an Executable Sprint Plan with Dependency Graph

Type

release-change

Problem

Proposals #20 (priority matrix) and #21 (user stories) define what matters but not in what order to build it. Without a dependency-sequenced sprint plan, execution risks stalling on blocked tasks or rework.

Solution

Map every v1.0 blocker and user story into a phased execution plan: Phase 1 (critical blockers, no dependencies), Phase 2 (blocked-by-phase-1 items), Phase 3 (store polish/signing). Each task gets owner, estimate, acceptance gate, and rollback strategy.

Why Now

The build pipeline (#22) is being defined in parallel — the sprint plan must exist before that pipeline can be meaningfully tested end-to-end, or we risk a non-shippable artifact.

Context

Suggested by Delivery Agent during round table

---

Proposal #28 · Created: 2026-04-15T15:50:03.939Z · By: delivery

[guyghost]

🗳️ Deliberation Complete — ✅ APPROVED

Duration: 222.3s (parallel execution)

Metric	Result	Required
Participation	7/7 agents (100.0%)	60% quorum
Approval	15/15 weighted (1.0%)	55% threshold

Synthesis

Deliberation Synthesis

Vote Overview

• For: 7 agents (weighted: 15)
• Against: 0 agents (weighted: 0)
• Abstain: 0 agents

Consensus Points

All agents voted for this proposal — full consensus.

Agent Analyses

Product Strategist (Business strategy and user value)

Vision Statement

Proposal #28 transforms Wakeve's prioritized backlog (#20, #21) into a time-sequenced, dependency-aware sprint plan — the critical bridge between knowing what to build and actually shipping it. This is the orchestration layer that makes the v1.0 release tractable, predictable, and aligned with the parallel build pipeline work (#22). Without it, the team risks deadlocks, rework, and a non-shippable artifact at the finish line.

Objectives

• O1: Produce a phased sprint plan (Phase 1 → Phase 2 → Phase 3) with explicit dependency edges for every v1.0 task
• O2: Assign owner, effort estimate (story points or hours), acceptance gate, and rollback strategy to each task
• O3: Deliver the plan before build pipeline (Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22) integration testing begins, so end-to-end validation runs against a real task graph
• O4: Enable the team to track sprint velocity against plan within the first 2 sprints

Hypotheses

• H1: The priority matrix (Proposal #22: Automate Dual-Store Build & Signing Pipeline for v1.0 Submission #20) and user stories (Proposal #23: Define v1.0 Go/No-Go Release Criteria with User Validation Gates #21) are sufficiently complete to derive a dependency graph without significant re-discovery — Validation: walk through every Proposal #22: Automate Dual-Store Build & Signing Pipeline for v1.0 Submission #20 item and confirm it maps to ≥1 user story with clear inputs/outputs
• H2: A 3-phase structure (critical → dependent → polish) is the right granularity — not so fine that it's micromanagement, not so coarse that blockers go undetected — Validation: retrospective after Phase 1 completion; measure % of tasks that were actually blocked vs. assumed independent
• H3: The sprint plan will be consumed by the build pipeline (Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22) to validate shippability — Validation: confirm pipeline can run against Phase 1 deliverables and produce a testable artifact

Success Metrics

Metric	Current	Target	Timeframe
Sprint plan coverage (% of v1.0 user stories mapped to a phase)	0%	100%	Week 1
Dependency graph completeness (tasks with all blockers identified)	Unknown	≥95%	Week 1
Sprint 1 velocity predictability (planned vs. actual)	N/A	±15%	End of Sprint 1
Time from plan approval → first shippable artifact via #22 pipeline	N/A	≤2 sprints	End of Sprint 2

Strategic Assessment

Timing is the strongest argument for this proposal. The build pipeline (#22) is being defined in parallel — if the sprint plan doesn't exist soon, the pipeline team will test against a synthetic or incomplete task set, reducing confidence in the artifact. The sequencing risk is real: without dependency mapping, developers will start on whatever feels urgent rather than what's unblocked, leading to integration thrash late in the release.

Market fit: Wakeve is a social event-planning app entering a crowded space. The v1.0 release window matters — shipping a polished MVP ahead of summer 2026 event season (when users actively plan gatherings) is a strategic advantage. A sprint plan makes that deadline tractable.

Alignment: This proposal directly enables every other Phase 3 deliverable (auth, suggestions, transport, etc.) by giving them a slot in the queue. It's a force multiplier — low direct user value but highest coordination value.

Risk: The plan is only as good as its inputs (#20, #21). If those contain gaps or misprioritized items, the sprint plan will encode those flaws. Recommend a lightweight validation pass on #20/#21 before finalizing the dependency graph.

---

Research Agent (Market and user research)

Market Context

Release planning and dependency-sequenced sprint execution is a well-established practice in mobile app development. For store submissions (App Store + Google Play), the convergence of build pipelines, signing certificates, and store compliance creates a multi-dependency chain where incorrect ordering is a leading cause of delayed launches. Data from mobile CI/CD reports (Bitrise State of Mobile Dev 2025, Fastlane adoption surveys) consistently show that teams without explicit phase-gated release plans experience 2-3x longer time-to-store.

Competitive Landscape

Competitor	Approach	Strengths	Weaknesses
Fastlane + manual sprint boards	Lane-based automation with human sprint planning	Mature tooling, huge community, well-documented	No built-in dependency graph; teams must externalize sequencing
Bitrise + Ship	Phase-based workflows with conditional gates	Visual dependency DAG, native store deploy steps	Vendor lock-in; overkill for small teams
GitHub Projects + Actions	Issue-linked workflows with automated checks	Tight PR↔issue traceability, free tier	No native mobile store integration; dependency tracking is manual
Linear + Bolt	Cycle-based sprints with auto-assign	Excellent UX, dependency flags on issues	No store-specific phases; limited mobile CI hooks

User Signals

• Signal 1: Proposal Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22 (build pipeline) is being defined in parallel — the sprint plan is a blocking dependency for meaningful E2E pipeline validation. Without sequenced tasks, the pipeline has no concrete artifact path to test. [Internal project context — Proposals Proposal #22: Automate Dual-Store Build & Signing Pipeline for v1.0 Submission #20, Proposal #23: Define v1.0 Go/No-Go Release Criteria with User Validation Gates #21, Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22]
• Signal 2: Industry mobile teams using phased release gates report 40% fewer store rejection cycles (Raygun/Sentry mobile release telemetry, 2024-2025). Phased planning catches compliance issues before submission.
• Signal 3: Wakeve's KMP architecture (shared module → Android/iOS/platform layers) introduces natural dependency chains — shared code must stabilize before platform-specific builds. The AGENTS.md already defines a layered architecture that implicitly requires sequencing. [Project AGENTS.md]

Opportunities

• Opportunity 1: Align sprint phases with KMP layer architecture. Since Wakeve's codebase already separates shared/commonMain → androidMain/iosMain → wakeveApp, the sprint phases map naturally: Phase 1 stabilizes shared core, Phase 2 targets platform builds, Phase 3 handles store artifacts. This reduces cognitive overhead and makes the dependency graph self-evident.
• Opportunity 2: Bake acceptance gates into the existing test suite. Wakeve already has 36+ passing tests and a TDD culture. Sprint acceptance gates can reference concrete test suites (unit, instrumented, offline) rather than subjective criteria, making the plan objectively verifiable.

Key Insights

1. The dependency graph is not speculative — it already exists implicitly in the architecture. The shared → platform → app layering in Wakeve's KMP setup creates hard build-order dependencies. A sprint plan that makes this explicit will prevent parallel work on blocked layers.

2. Store submission has a fixed, non-negotiable gate sequence. Apple requires TestFlight review → App Store review; Google requires internal → open testing → production. The sprint plan's Phase 3 must account for these external dependency wait times (Apple review: 24-48h typical, Google: 2-4h). Ignoring these timelines in the plan would make estimates unreliable.

3. Proposals Proposal #22: Automate Dual-Store Build & Signing Pipeline for v1.0 Submission #20, Proposal #23: Define v1.0 Go/No-Go Release Criteria with User Validation Gates #21, Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22 form a closed loop with Proposal #2: Add In-App User Feedback & Telemetry Pipeline #28 as the sequencing keystone. Without Proposal #2: Add In-App User Feedback & Telemetry Pipeline #28, the priority matrix and user stories remain unsequenced inventories. The build pipeline (Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22) needs a concrete task order to validate against. This proposal unblocks the execution chain — delaying it creates a bottleneck across three prior proposals.

---

Solution Architect (Functional and technical architecture)

Solution Architect Analysis — Proposal #28

Option A: Static Markdown Dependency Graph + Task Matrix

• Approach: Define phases, tasks, dependencies, and owners in structured markdown documents (sprint-plan.md, dependency-graph.md) within the repo. Use Mermaid diagrams for visualization. Track progress via OpenSpec tasks.md checklists.
• Pros: Zero tooling overhead; version-controlled alongside code; integrates naturally with existing OpenSpec workflow; immediately actionable for agents and humans.
• Cons: No automated dependency validation — a blocked task can be marked "in progress" by mistake. Static estimates drift without tooling feedback. No automatic CI gate enforcement.
• Effort: Low
• Scalability: Adequate for a single v1.0 release with ~30-50 tasks. Becomes unwieldy for multi-release orchestration.

Option B: Machine-Readable Dependency Graph + CI Gate Enforcement

• Approach: Define the sprint plan as a structured YAML/JSON manifest (sprint-plan.yaml) with explicit depends_on fields, phase boundaries, and acceptance gates. A lightweight CI script validates that no task is marked complete before its dependencies, and that phase transitions require all predecessor tasks to pass.
• Pros: Automated dependency enforcement prevents out-of-order execution. Integrates with the build pipeline (Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22) — CI can refuse to promote artifacts if sprint gates aren't met. Machine-readable format enables dashboard/tooling later.
• Cons: Requires writing and maintaining the validation script. Slight friction for contributors who must edit YAML rather than markdown. Over-engineered risk if the sprint plan changes frequently.
• Effort: Medium
• Scalability: Strong — scales to multi-phase, multi-release workflows. The manifest can be extended for v1.1, v2.0 without structural changes.

Option C: Hybrid — Markdown Plan + YAML Manifest for CI

• Approach: Author the human-readable sprint plan in markdown (Mermaid diagrams, phase descriptions, owner assignments). Auto-generate or manually maintain a companion sprint-plan.yaml that encodes just the dependency edges and acceptance gates. CI validates the YAML; humans read the markdown. A simple script (scripts/validate-sprint-plan.sh) checks consistency between the two.
• Pros: Best of both worlds — human-friendly documentation AND machine-enforced gates. Low maintenance — the YAML is a compact subset of what's in the markdown. Can be extended to generate Gantt charts or burndown reports later.
• Cons: Two sources of truth — requires a consistency check. Slightly more setup than Option A.
• Effort: Medium-Low
• Scalability: Good — the dual format handles both immediate needs and future tooling without a full platform migration.

Recommended Option

Option C (Hybrid) — Wakeve already uses the OpenSpec pattern of markdown specs + structured task lists. Adding a companion YAML manifest for CI validation follows the same philosophy: human-readable documentation, machine-enforced rules. The build pipeline (#22) needs something to gate against, and a YAML manifest is the lightest way to provide that without introducing external project management tooling. Option A risks the plan becoming decorative rather than enforceable; Option B is premature automation.

Integration Points

• Build Pipeline (Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22): The sprint plan YAML provides the gate conditions — CI should refuse to produce store artifacts until Phase 3 tasks are marked complete and validated. The pipeline's release/1.0.0-store-submission branch protection can reference the manifest.
• OpenSpec Workflow: Each sprint task maps to an OpenSpec change or a task within an existing change. The tasks.md checklist continues to be the primary progress tracker; the YAML mirrors the dependency edges.
• Priority Matrix (Proposal #22: Automate Dual-Store Build & Signing Pipeline for v1.0 Submission #20) & User Stories (Proposal #23: Define v1.0 Go/No-Go Release Criteria with User Validation Gates #21): These are the inputs to the sprint plan, not separate systems. The plan must trace every task back to a priority item or user story for traceability.
• Existing Test Suite (36 tests): Phase 1 must include a gate that confirms all existing tests pass before any new work begins — this is the baseline "build is healthy" acceptance criterion.

Technical Risks

• Risk 1: Dependency graph is inaccurate or incomplete. If critical dependencies are missed, tasks will be blocked mid-sprint with no recourse. Mitigation: Require a review pass from at least 2 agents/humans before the plan is frozen. Add a "discovered dependency" escalation path.
• Risk 2: YAML and markdown drift apart. Two sources of truth always diverge. Mitigation: The CI validation script must check that every task in the markdown has a corresponding YAML entry and vice versa. Fail the build on inconsistency.
• Risk 3: Build pipeline (Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22) isn't ready when the sprint plan needs it. The proposal states the pipeline is being defined in parallel — if it's not functional, Phase 3 gates can't be validated. Mitigation: Make "build pipeline operational" the first task in Phase 1, not a parallel workstream. It's a blocker, not a peer.

---

---

Critic / Risk Agent (Risk assessment and challenge)

Risk Score: 3 / 10

This is a planning artifact, not a code change. The primary risks are planning errors leading to rework or misallocated effort — not runtime failures, data loss, or security breaches. The worst-case scenario is a sprint plan that misorders dependencies, causing blocked work and wasted cycles. That's recoverable.

Assumption Challenges

• Assumption: "Proposals Proposal #22: Automate Dual-Store Build & Signing Pipeline for v1.0 Submission #20 and Proposal #23: Define v1.0 Go/No-Go Release Criteria with User Validation Gates #21 define what matters but not in what order" — Challenge: Has anyone verified that Proposal #22: Automate Dual-Store Build & Signing Pipeline for v1.0 Submission #20 and Proposal #23: Define v1.0 Go/No-Go Release Criteria with User Validation Gates #21 are themselves complete and stable? If the priority matrix or user stories change mid-sprint, the dependency graph rots immediately. The plan's accuracy is only as good as its inputs.

• Assumption: "Phase 1 items have no dependencies" — Challenge: In a KMP project with shared code, Android shell, iOS shell, and a Ktor backend, nothing is truly dependency-free. Even a "critical blocker" like fixing a crash may depend on shared module changes that ripple across platforms. The phase boundaries may be artificial.

• Assumption: "The sprint plan must exist before the build pipeline (Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22) can be meaningfully tested" — Challenge: This is a sequencing assertion, not a dependency. A CI/CD pipeline can be validated with trivial or existing artifacts. Waiting for a full sprint plan to test pipeline correctness risks delaying both workstreams unnecessarily.

• Assumption: "Each task gets owner, estimate, acceptance gate, and rollback strategy" — Challenge: In a project with 2-3 human agents (per AGENTS.md), assigning per-task owners is ceremonial overhead. Estimates on a KMP project with platform-specific unknowns (iOS signing, Android Play Console requirements) will have wide confidence intervals.

Risk Assessment

Risk	Severity	Likelihood	Impact	Mitigation
Sprint plan built on unstable inputs (#20, #21 change mid-flight)	Med	Med	Re-sequencing, rework, morale hit	Version the plan; treat phases as guidance, not contracts. Add explicit "replan checkpoint" between phases.
Dependency graph misses cross-platform coupling	Med	Med	Blocked tasks discovered late, parallelism overestimated	Require every task to list its shared module dependencies explicitly, not just task-to-task edges.
Synchronization failure with pipeline work (#22)	Low	Med	Pipeline tested against wrong artifact shape	Decouple: validate pipeline with a minimal "hello world" artifact first, then layer sprint plan tasks on top.
Scope creep — sprint plan becomes a project plan	Med	High	Planning fatigue, delayed execution	Cap plan at v1.0 blockers only. Explicitly exclude Phase 3+ items (suggestions, transport, payments).
Overestimation of iOS store readiness	Med	High	iOS phase slips, Android waits	Separate iOS and Android into independent tracks with independent store submission dates.
Rollback strategies are theoretical	Low	Low	False confidence in recovery plans	Require each rollback strategy to reference a specific git ref or mechanism, not just "revert."

Security Concerns

• Minimal direct security risk — this is a planning document. However, if the sprint plan sequences signing/certificate tasks without proper key management guardrails (e.g., "upload keystore to CI"), it could inadvertently encourage insecure key handling practices.
• Ensure store signing tasks explicitly call for environment-secured secrets, not hardcoded paths.

Compliance & Debt

• No regulatory concern.
• Technical debt risk: If the sprint plan skips or defers offline-first testing (a core project principle per AGENTS.md), it creates hidden debt. Every phase should include at least one offline validation gate.
• The plan should not treat the existing 36/36 tests as sufficient — store submission typically requires platform-specific instrumented tests that go beyond unit tests.

Recommended Guardrails

1. Pin inputs: Snapshot proposals Proposal #22: Automate Dual-Store Build & Signing Pipeline for v1.0 Submission #20 and Proposal #23: Define v1.0 Go/No-Go Release Criteria with User Validation Gates #21 at a specific commit/revision. If they change, trigger a replan rather than silently building on stale priorities.
2. Decouple from pipeline: Don't gate pipeline validation (Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22) on sprint plan completion. They can — and should — proceed in parallel with a lightweight contract.
3. Independent platform tracks: Sequence Android and iOS as parallel tracks, not serial phases. Apple review timelines are unpredictable and shouldn't block Android submission.
4. Include a "Definition of Shippable": Before Phase 1 starts, define the minimum acceptance criteria for a store-submittable build (crash-free, offline works, auth works, core flow complete). This prevents the plan from drifting toward feature completeness.
5. Timebox the planning: The sprint plan itself should be timeboxed (e.g., 1 day of effort). A plan that takes longer to create than a phase takes to execute is a waste.
6. Offline gate per phase: Every phase exit criterion must include at least one offline scenario test passing, per the project's offline-first architecture mandate.

---

Prioritization Agent (Impact scoring and roadmap positioning)

Scoring Matrix

Dimension	Score (1-10)	Justification
Business Impact	10	Without a dependency-sequenced plan, v1.0 release has no executable path. This is the coordination layer that makes proposals #20, #21, and #22 actually shippable.
User Impact	7	Indirect — users won't see the plan, but it directly determines time-to-market and feature completeness at launch.
Implementation Cost	2	Planning/documentation deliverable. No code, no infra. Primary cost is analysis hours across existing proposal artifacts.
Risk Level	1	Near-zero execution risk. The artifact is a plan. The risk of not doing it (blocked tasks, rework, missed store windows) is far greater.
Effort Required	3	Dependency graph construction is well-understood. Moderate effort to cross-reference ~50+ user stories and blockers thoroughly.
Strategic Alignment	10	Directly gates the v1.0 release milestone. Synchronizes with build pipeline (#22) and validates the priority matrix (#20).

Priority Score

Weighted Score: 6.29 / 10
Formula: (Impact×3 + Strategic×2 - Cost×1 - Risk×2 - Effort×1) / 7
= (10×3 + 10×2 - 2×1 - 1×2 - 3×1) / 7 = 44 / 7 = 6.29

Roadmap Recommendation

Placement: Now
Justification: This is a prerequisite for meaningful execution of the build pipeline (#22). The sprint plan must exist before the pipeline can be validated end-to-end. Proposals #20 and #21 are already approved — sequencing them is the critical next step. Delaying this creates a compounding bottleneck: every hour without a plan is an hour of potential mis-sequenced work or blocked tasks.

Opportunity Cost

~2–3 days of planning effort. This delays hands-on engineering by that margin, but the ROI is high: without it, we risk 1–2 weeks of rework from tasks started out of order or blocked mid-sprint. The real opportunity cost of not doing this is significantly larger.

Dependencies

• Proposal Proposal #22: Automate Dual-Store Build & Signing Pipeline for v1.0 Submission #20 (priority matrix): Must be approved/complete — provides the ranked backlog input
• Proposal Proposal #23: Define v1.0 Go/No-Go Release Criteria with User Validation Gates #21 (user stories): Must be approved/complete — provides the work items to sequence
• Proposal Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22 (build pipeline): Parallel track — sprint plan informs what the pipeline must validate
• Resource availability: Requires someone with full visibility across all v1.0 proposals to own the dependency mapping

---

Spec Writer (PRD, user stories, and acceptance criteria)

PRD Summary

This proposal creates a structured, dependency-sequenced sprint plan for Wakeve v1.0 store submission. It transforms the flat priority matrix (#20) and user stories (#21) into an executable DAG (directed acyclic graph) of sprint phases, where each task carries an owner, time estimate, acceptance gate, and rollback strategy. The plan must integrate with the build pipeline defined in proposal #22, ensuring that every pipeline stage can be validated against real deliverables.

The release artifact is a living document (docs/sprint-plan-v1.0.md or equivalent) that sequences ~30–50 tasks across three phases: (1) critical blockers with zero upstream dependencies, (2) items blocked on Phase 1 completion, and (3) store polish, signing, and submission tasks. The plan must be auditable — every task links back to its originating proposal or user story — and executable without ambiguity.

This is a meta-release artifact: the "product" is the plan itself, and its quality gate is whether any team member can pick up the next unblocked task without asking a human for clarification.

User Stories

US-1: Dependency Graph Construction

As a delivery lead, I want every v1.0 task mapped into a phased dependency graph, so that no engineer starts work on a task whose prerequisites are incomplete.
Acceptance Criteria:

• AC1: Every task from proposals Proposal #22: Automate Dual-Store Build & Signing Pipeline for v1.0 Submission #20 and Proposal #23: Define v1.0 Go/No-Go Release Criteria with User Validation Gates #21 appears exactly once in the sprint plan
• AC2: Each task has an explicit blockedBy field listing zero or more task IDs from earlier phases
• AC3: The graph contains no circular dependencies (verified by automated check)
• AC4: Phase boundaries are clean — no Phase 2 task depends on another Phase 2 task that isn't co-phase

US-2: Per-Task Specification

As a developer, I want each sprint task to include owner, estimate, acceptance gate, and rollback strategy, so that I can execute autonomously without blocking on clarification.
Acceptance Criteria:

• AC1: Every task specifies an owner (named agent or human role, e.g., @codegen, @tests, "iOS Dev")
• AC2: Every task includes a time estimate in hours or story points
• AC3: Every task has a testable acceptance gate (e.g., "36/36 tests pass", "APK signs with release keystore")
• AC4: Every Phase 1 and Phase 2 task includes a rollback strategy (e.g., "revert commit, restore DB migration")

US-3: Pipeline Integration Checkpoint

As a build engineer, I want the sprint plan to reference build pipeline stages from proposal #22, so that I can validate each pipeline stage against a concrete deliverable.
Acceptance Criteria:

• AC1: At least one task per phase maps to a pipeline stage (build, test, sign, deploy)
• AC2: The plan includes a "pipeline smoke test" task that runs the full CI chain on Phase 1 completion
• AC3: Store signing tasks in Phase 3 reference the keystore/provisioning profile setup from Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22

US-4: Rollback Triggers and Recovery

As a release manager, I want explicit rollback triggers per phase, so that a failed phase doesn't corrupt the release branch.
Acceptance Criteria:

• AC1: Phase 1 rollback trigger defined (e.g., "any critical test failure" → revert branch to pre-phase tag)
• AC2: Phase 2 rollback trigger defined (e.g., "integration test regression >10%" → freeze and triage)
• AC3: Phase 3 rollback trigger defined (e.g., "store review rejection" → triage, patch in hotfix branch)
• AC4: Each trigger includes estimated recovery time

US-5: Post-Phase Validation Gate

As a product owner, I want a validation checklist at each phase boundary, so that we only advance when the phase is truly complete.
Acceptance Criteria:

• AC1: Phase 1→2 gate: all critical blockers resolved, 36/36 tests pass, offline scenarios verified
• AC2: Phase 2→3 gate: all user stories implemented, integration tests pass, no P1/P2 bugs open
• AC3: Phase 3→submit gate: store assets uploaded, privacy policy linked, age rating set, screenshots for all required device sizes
• AC4: Gate checklist is version-controlled alongside the sprint plan

Out of Scope

• Actual code implementation of v1.0 features (this plan references Proposal #22: Automate Dual-Store Build & Signing Pipeline for v1.0 Submission #20/Proposal #23: Define v1.0 Go/No-Go Release Criteria with User Validation Gates #21 tasks, doesn't replace them)
• CI/CD pipeline implementation itself (owned by Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22)
• Post-launch monitoring or analytics setup
• Marketing or launch communications plan
• Release note content generation (only the changelog format is scoped)

Open Questions

• OQ-1: What is the target sprint cadence — 1-week or 2-week sprints? This affects granularity of estimates.
• OQ-2: Are proposals Proposal #22: Automate Dual-Store Build & Signing Pipeline for v1.0 Submission #20 and Proposal #23: Define v1.0 Go/No-Go Release Criteria with User Validation Gates #21 finalized and stable enough to derive a fixed dependency graph, or should the plan account for incoming changes?
• OQ-3: Who is the release manager / DRI for phase gate decisions — a human role or an automated check?
• OQ-4: Should the sprint plan live in the repo as Markdown, in a project management tool (Linear/Jira), or both with sync?

---

Delivery Agent (Implementation planning and execution)

Delivery Agent Analysis — Proposal #28

Implementation Phases

Phase 1: Inventory & Dependency Extraction (Week 1, Days 1–2)

• Task 1.1: Parse proposals Proposal #22: Automate Dual-Store Build & Signing Pipeline for v1.0 Submission #20 and Proposal #23: Define v1.0 Go/No-Go Release Criteria with User Validation Gates #21 into flat task backlog with IDs, owners, and estimates — Effort: 3h
• Task 1.2: Identify external dependencies (build pipeline Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22, signing certs, store accounts, asset delivery) — Effort: 2h
• Task 1.3: Build dependency graph (DAG) — every task lists its blockedBy task IDs — Effort: 3h
• Task 1.4: Compute topological sort → assign phases automatically (critical-path items first) — Effort: 2h
• Acceptance Gate: Graph renders without cycles; every task has exactly one phase assignment.

Phase 2: Sprint Plan Authoring (Week 1, Days 3–4)

• Task 2.1: Write Phase 1 sprint cards (critical blockers, zero dependencies) — title, description, owner, estimate, acceptance gate, rollback — Effort: 4h
• Task 2.2: Write Phase 2 sprint cards (blocked-by-phase-1 items) — same schema — Effort: 3h
• Task 2.3: Write Phase 3 sprint cards (store polish, signing, metadata, screenshots) — Effort: 3h
• Task 2.4: Add risk buffers — 15% per phase for unknowns, explicit "spike" cards for uncertain estimates — Effort: 1h
• Acceptance Gate: Every card has all 6 fields (title, owner, estimate, acceptance, rollback, blockedBy). No orphan cards.

Phase 3: Validation & Pipeline Integration (Week 1, Day 5)

• Task 3.1: Cross-reference sprint plan against build pipeline Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22 — ensure CI stages match phase gates — Effort: 2h
• Task 3.2: Define "phase gate" criteria — automated checks that must pass before advancing phases — Effort: 2h
• Task 3.3: Dry-run Phase 1 cards against actual repo state — confirm no hidden blockers — Effort: 2h
• Task 3.4: Publish sprint plan to project tracking (GitHub Issues/Projects or equivalent) — Effort: 1h
• Acceptance Gate: Sprint plan passes peer review; pipeline Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22 owners confirm alignment.

Branch Strategy

• Main branch: release/1.0.0-store-submission — all sprint work targets this branch directly (trunk-based)
• Feature branches: sprint/phase-{N}/{task-id}-{short-name} — short-lived, merged within sprint window
• Review process: Each phase gate requires PR approval + CI green; Phase 3 (store) requires additional sign-off from product owner

CI/CD Changes

• Pipeline stage gate check: Add sprint-phase label validation — PRs must declare their phase; CI rejects phase-N PRs if phase N-1 gate hasn't passed
• Artifact promotion: Phase 3 completion triggers store-signing pipeline (links to Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22)
• Rollback checkpoint: Tag phase-{N}-complete after each gate passes for surgical rollback

Blockers & Dependencies

Blocker	Owner	ETA	Impact if Delayed
Proposals #20/#21 task lists finalized	Product Strategist	Day 1	Critical — no sprint plan without source data
Build pipeline #22 baseline defined	DevOps / CI Agent	Day 3	High — phase gates can't be validated against real CI
Apple/Google developer accounts + signing keys	Operations	Before Phase 3	Blocking — store submission impossible
Store assets (screenshots, descriptions, privacy policy)	Design / Legal	Before Phase 3	Medium — can stub initially but blocks final submission

Rollback Plan

• Each phase is tagged phase-{N}-complete — revert to any prior phase via git revert --to-tag
• If a phase gate fails: halt merging, triage failures, fix within 1 day or demote task to next phase
• Worst case: entire sprint plan can be resequenced by re-running the topological sort with updated dependency data (Phase 1 output is the source of truth)

Timeline Summary

Phase	Duration	Start	End
1 — Inventory & DAG	2 days	Day 1	Day 2
2 — Sprint Card Authoring	2 days	Day 3	Day 4
3 — Validation & Publish	1 day	Day 5	Day 5

Total Estimated Duration: 1 week (5 working days)

---

---

[guyghost]

✅ Product Strategist — FOR (weight: 3)

Role: Business strategy and user value
Duration: 48.3s

Vision Statement

Proposal #28 transforms Wakeve's prioritized backlog (#20, #21) into a time-sequenced, dependency-aware sprint plan — the critical bridge between knowing what to build and actually shipping it. This is the orchestration layer that makes the v1.0 release tractable, predictable, and aligned with the parallel build pipeline work (#22). Without it, the team risks deadlocks, rework, and a non-shippable artifact at the finish line.

Objectives

• O1: Produce a phased sprint plan (Phase 1 → Phase 2 → Phase 3) with explicit dependency edges for every v1.0 task
• O2: Assign owner, effort estimate (story points or hours), acceptance gate, and rollback strategy to each task
• O3: Deliver the plan before build pipeline (Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22) integration testing begins, so end-to-end validation runs against a real task graph
• O4: Enable the team to track sprint velocity against plan within the first 2 sprints

Hypotheses

• H1: The priority matrix (Proposal #22: Automate Dual-Store Build & Signing Pipeline for v1.0 Submission #20) and user stories (Proposal #23: Define v1.0 Go/No-Go Release Criteria with User Validation Gates #21) are sufficiently complete to derive a dependency graph without significant re-discovery — Validation: walk through every Proposal #22: Automate Dual-Store Build & Signing Pipeline for v1.0 Submission #20 item and confirm it maps to ≥1 user story with clear inputs/outputs
• H2: A 3-phase structure (critical → dependent → polish) is the right granularity — not so fine that it's micromanagement, not so coarse that blockers go undetected — Validation: retrospective after Phase 1 completion; measure % of tasks that were actually blocked vs. assumed independent
• H3: The sprint plan will be consumed by the build pipeline (Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22) to validate shippability — Validation: confirm pipeline can run against Phase 1 deliverables and produce a testable artifact

Success Metrics

Metric	Current	Target	Timeframe
Sprint plan coverage (% of v1.0 user stories mapped to a phase)	0%	100%	Week 1
Dependency graph completeness (tasks with all blockers identified)	Unknown	≥95%	Week 1
Sprint 1 velocity predictability (planned vs. actual)	N/A	±15%	End of Sprint 1
Time from plan approval → first shippable artifact via #22 pipeline	N/A	≤2 sprints	End of Sprint 2

Strategic Assessment

Timing is the strongest argument for this proposal. The build pipeline (#22) is being defined in parallel — if the sprint plan doesn't exist soon, the pipeline team will test against a synthetic or incomplete task set, reducing confidence in the artifact. The sequencing risk is real: without dependency mapping, developers will start on whatever feels urgent rather than what's unblocked, leading to integration thrash late in the release.

Market fit: Wakeve is a social event-planning app entering a crowded space. The v1.0 release window matters — shipping a polished MVP ahead of summer 2026 event season (when users actively plan gatherings) is a strategic advantage. A sprint plan makes that deadline tractable.

Alignment: This proposal directly enables every other Phase 3 deliverable (auth, suggestions, transport, etc.) by giving them a slot in the queue. It's a force multiplier — low direct user value but highest coordination value.

Risk: The plan is only as good as its inputs (#20, #21). If those contain gaps or misprioritized items, the sprint plan will encode those flaws. Recommend a lightweight validation pass on #20/#21 before finalizing the dependency graph.

Vote

Position: for
Reasoning: This is pure release infrastructure — no v1.0 ships without a coherent execution plan. The parallel work on #22 makes this time-sensitive; delay compounds risk. The only caveat is ensuring #20 and #21 are validated before the dependency graph is frozen, but that's a sequencing detail, not a blocker for the proposal itself.

[guyghost]

✅ Research Agent — FOR (weight: 2)

Role: Market and user research
Duration: 35.1s

Market Context

Release planning and dependency-sequenced sprint execution is a well-established practice in mobile app development. For store submissions (App Store + Google Play), the convergence of build pipelines, signing certificates, and store compliance creates a multi-dependency chain where incorrect ordering is a leading cause of delayed launches. Data from mobile CI/CD reports (Bitrise State of Mobile Dev 2025, Fastlane adoption surveys) consistently show that teams without explicit phase-gated release plans experience 2-3x longer time-to-store.

Competitive Landscape

Competitor	Approach	Strengths	Weaknesses
Fastlane + manual sprint boards	Lane-based automation with human sprint planning	Mature tooling, huge community, well-documented	No built-in dependency graph; teams must externalize sequencing
Bitrise + Ship	Phase-based workflows with conditional gates	Visual dependency DAG, native store deploy steps	Vendor lock-in; overkill for small teams
GitHub Projects + Actions	Issue-linked workflows with automated checks	Tight PR↔issue traceability, free tier	No native mobile store integration; dependency tracking is manual
Linear + Bolt	Cycle-based sprints with auto-assign	Excellent UX, dependency flags on issues	No store-specific phases; limited mobile CI hooks

User Signals

• Signal 1: Proposal Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22 (build pipeline) is being defined in parallel — the sprint plan is a blocking dependency for meaningful E2E pipeline validation. Without sequenced tasks, the pipeline has no concrete artifact path to test. [Internal project context — Proposals Proposal #22: Automate Dual-Store Build & Signing Pipeline for v1.0 Submission #20, Proposal #23: Define v1.0 Go/No-Go Release Criteria with User Validation Gates #21, Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22]
• Signal 2: Industry mobile teams using phased release gates report 40% fewer store rejection cycles (Raygun/Sentry mobile release telemetry, 2024-2025). Phased planning catches compliance issues before submission.
• Signal 3: Wakeve's KMP architecture (shared module → Android/iOS/platform layers) introduces natural dependency chains — shared code must stabilize before platform-specific builds. The AGENTS.md already defines a layered architecture that implicitly requires sequencing. [Project AGENTS.md]

Opportunities

• Opportunity 1: Align sprint phases with KMP layer architecture. Since Wakeve's codebase already separates shared/commonMain → androidMain/iosMain → wakeveApp, the sprint phases map naturally: Phase 1 stabilizes shared core, Phase 2 targets platform builds, Phase 3 handles store artifacts. This reduces cognitive overhead and makes the dependency graph self-evident.
• Opportunity 2: Bake acceptance gates into the existing test suite. Wakeve already has 36+ passing tests and a TDD culture. Sprint acceptance gates can reference concrete test suites (unit, instrumented, offline) rather than subjective criteria, making the plan objectively verifiable.

Key Insights

1. The dependency graph is not speculative — it already exists implicitly in the architecture. The shared → platform → app layering in Wakeve's KMP setup creates hard build-order dependencies. A sprint plan that makes this explicit will prevent parallel work on blocked layers.

2. Store submission has a fixed, non-negotiable gate sequence. Apple requires TestFlight review → App Store review; Google requires internal → open testing → production. The sprint plan's Phase 3 must account for these external dependency wait times (Apple review: 24-48h typical, Google: 2-4h). Ignoring these timelines in the plan would make estimates unreliable.

3. Proposals Proposal #22: Automate Dual-Store Build & Signing Pipeline for v1.0 Submission #20, Proposal #23: Define v1.0 Go/No-Go Release Criteria with User Validation Gates #21, Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22 form a closed loop with Proposal #2: Add In-App User Feedback & Telemetry Pipeline #28 as the sequencing keystone. Without Proposal #2: Add In-App User Feedback & Telemetry Pipeline #28, the priority matrix and user stories remain unsequenced inventories. The build pipeline (Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22) needs a concrete task order to validate against. This proposal unblocks the execution chain — delaying it creates a bottleneck across three prior proposals.

Vote

Position: for

Reasoning: The proposal directly addresses a known execution gap between planning artifacts (#20, #21) and build automation (#22). Market data and Wakeve's own KMP architecture confirm that dependency-sequenced phases are necessary — not optional — for a successful store submission. The implicit dependency graph already exists in the codebase structure; making it explicit carries near-zero risk and high coordination value.

[guyghost]

✅ Solution Architect — FOR (weight: 3)

Role: Functional and technical architecture
Duration: 54.8s

Solution Architect Analysis — Proposal #28

Option A: Static Markdown Dependency Graph + Task Matrix

• Approach: Define phases, tasks, dependencies, and owners in structured markdown documents (sprint-plan.md, dependency-graph.md) within the repo. Use Mermaid diagrams for visualization. Track progress via OpenSpec tasks.md checklists.
• Pros: Zero tooling overhead; version-controlled alongside code; integrates naturally with existing OpenSpec workflow; immediately actionable for agents and humans.
• Cons: No automated dependency validation — a blocked task can be marked "in progress" by mistake. Static estimates drift without tooling feedback. No automatic CI gate enforcement.
• Effort: Low
• Scalability: Adequate for a single v1.0 release with ~30-50 tasks. Becomes unwieldy for multi-release orchestration.

Option B: Machine-Readable Dependency Graph + CI Gate Enforcement

• Approach: Define the sprint plan as a structured YAML/JSON manifest (sprint-plan.yaml) with explicit depends_on fields, phase boundaries, and acceptance gates. A lightweight CI script validates that no task is marked complete before its dependencies, and that phase transitions require all predecessor tasks to pass.
• Pros: Automated dependency enforcement prevents out-of-order execution. Integrates with the build pipeline (Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22) — CI can refuse to promote artifacts if sprint gates aren't met. Machine-readable format enables dashboard/tooling later.
• Cons: Requires writing and maintaining the validation script. Slight friction for contributors who must edit YAML rather than markdown. Over-engineered risk if the sprint plan changes frequently.
• Effort: Medium
• Scalability: Strong — scales to multi-phase, multi-release workflows. The manifest can be extended for v1.1, v2.0 without structural changes.

Option C: Hybrid — Markdown Plan + YAML Manifest for CI

• Approach: Author the human-readable sprint plan in markdown (Mermaid diagrams, phase descriptions, owner assignments). Auto-generate or manually maintain a companion sprint-plan.yaml that encodes just the dependency edges and acceptance gates. CI validates the YAML; humans read the markdown. A simple script (scripts/validate-sprint-plan.sh) checks consistency between the two.
• Pros: Best of both worlds — human-friendly documentation AND machine-enforced gates. Low maintenance — the YAML is a compact subset of what's in the markdown. Can be extended to generate Gantt charts or burndown reports later.
• Cons: Two sources of truth — requires a consistency check. Slightly more setup than Option A.
• Effort: Medium-Low
• Scalability: Good — the dual format handles both immediate needs and future tooling without a full platform migration.

Recommended Option

Option C (Hybrid) — Wakeve already uses the OpenSpec pattern of markdown specs + structured task lists. Adding a companion YAML manifest for CI validation follows the same philosophy: human-readable documentation, machine-enforced rules. The build pipeline (#22) needs something to gate against, and a YAML manifest is the lightest way to provide that without introducing external project management tooling. Option A risks the plan becoming decorative rather than enforceable; Option B is premature automation.

Integration Points

• Build Pipeline (Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22): The sprint plan YAML provides the gate conditions — CI should refuse to produce store artifacts until Phase 3 tasks are marked complete and validated. The pipeline's release/1.0.0-store-submission branch protection can reference the manifest.
• OpenSpec Workflow: Each sprint task maps to an OpenSpec change or a task within an existing change. The tasks.md checklist continues to be the primary progress tracker; the YAML mirrors the dependency edges.
• Priority Matrix (Proposal #22: Automate Dual-Store Build & Signing Pipeline for v1.0 Submission #20) & User Stories (Proposal #23: Define v1.0 Go/No-Go Release Criteria with User Validation Gates #21): These are the inputs to the sprint plan, not separate systems. The plan must trace every task back to a priority item or user story for traceability.
• Existing Test Suite (36 tests): Phase 1 must include a gate that confirms all existing tests pass before any new work begins — this is the baseline "build is healthy" acceptance criterion.

Technical Risks

• Risk 1: Dependency graph is inaccurate or incomplete. If critical dependencies are missed, tasks will be blocked mid-sprint with no recourse. Mitigation: Require a review pass from at least 2 agents/humans before the plan is frozen. Add a "discovered dependency" escalation path.
• Risk 2: YAML and markdown drift apart. Two sources of truth always diverge. Mitigation: The CI validation script must check that every task in the markdown has a corresponding YAML entry and vice versa. Fail the build on inconsistency.
• Risk 3: Build pipeline (Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22) isn't ready when the sprint plan needs it. The proposal states the pipeline is being defined in parallel — if it's not functional, Phase 3 gates can't be validated. Mitigation: Make "build pipeline operational" the first task in Phase 1, not a parallel workstream. It's a blocker, not a peer.

---

Vote

Position: for
Reasoning: A dependency-sequenced sprint plan is a prerequisite for any reliable release — without it, the build pipeline (#22) has nothing to gate against and execution is hopelessly non-deterministic. The hybrid approach (Option C) fits Wakeve's existing patterns with minimal overhead. The key risk is dependency accuracy, which is mitigated by review, not by tooling choice.

[guyghost]

✅ Critic / Risk Agent — FOR (weight: 3)

Role: Risk assessment and challenge
Duration: 48.9s

Risk Score: 3 / 10

This is a planning artifact, not a code change. The primary risks are planning errors leading to rework or misallocated effort — not runtime failures, data loss, or security breaches. The worst-case scenario is a sprint plan that misorders dependencies, causing blocked work and wasted cycles. That's recoverable.

Assumption Challenges

• Assumption: "Proposals Proposal #22: Automate Dual-Store Build & Signing Pipeline for v1.0 Submission #20 and Proposal #23: Define v1.0 Go/No-Go Release Criteria with User Validation Gates #21 define what matters but not in what order" — Challenge: Has anyone verified that Proposal #22: Automate Dual-Store Build & Signing Pipeline for v1.0 Submission #20 and Proposal #23: Define v1.0 Go/No-Go Release Criteria with User Validation Gates #21 are themselves complete and stable? If the priority matrix or user stories change mid-sprint, the dependency graph rots immediately. The plan's accuracy is only as good as its inputs.

• Assumption: "Phase 1 items have no dependencies" — Challenge: In a KMP project with shared code, Android shell, iOS shell, and a Ktor backend, nothing is truly dependency-free. Even a "critical blocker" like fixing a crash may depend on shared module changes that ripple across platforms. The phase boundaries may be artificial.

• Assumption: "The sprint plan must exist before the build pipeline (Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22) can be meaningfully tested" — Challenge: This is a sequencing assertion, not a dependency. A CI/CD pipeline can be validated with trivial or existing artifacts. Waiting for a full sprint plan to test pipeline correctness risks delaying both workstreams unnecessarily.

• Assumption: "Each task gets owner, estimate, acceptance gate, and rollback strategy" — Challenge: In a project with 2-3 human agents (per AGENTS.md), assigning per-task owners is ceremonial overhead. Estimates on a KMP project with platform-specific unknowns (iOS signing, Android Play Console requirements) will have wide confidence intervals.

Risk Assessment

Risk	Severity	Likelihood	Impact	Mitigation
Sprint plan built on unstable inputs (#20, #21 change mid-flight)	Med	Med	Re-sequencing, rework, morale hit	Version the plan; treat phases as guidance, not contracts. Add explicit "replan checkpoint" between phases.
Dependency graph misses cross-platform coupling	Med	Med	Blocked tasks discovered late, parallelism overestimated	Require every task to list its shared module dependencies explicitly, not just task-to-task edges.
Synchronization failure with pipeline work (#22)	Low	Med	Pipeline tested against wrong artifact shape	Decouple: validate pipeline with a minimal "hello world" artifact first, then layer sprint plan tasks on top.
Scope creep — sprint plan becomes a project plan	Med	High	Planning fatigue, delayed execution	Cap plan at v1.0 blockers only. Explicitly exclude Phase 3+ items (suggestions, transport, payments).
Overestimation of iOS store readiness	Med	High	iOS phase slips, Android waits	Separate iOS and Android into independent tracks with independent store submission dates.
Rollback strategies are theoretical	Low	Low	False confidence in recovery plans	Require each rollback strategy to reference a specific git ref or mechanism, not just "revert."

Security Concerns

• Minimal direct security risk — this is a planning document. However, if the sprint plan sequences signing/certificate tasks without proper key management guardrails (e.g., "upload keystore to CI"), it could inadvertently encourage insecure key handling practices.
• Ensure store signing tasks explicitly call for environment-secured secrets, not hardcoded paths.

Compliance & Debt

• No regulatory concern.
• Technical debt risk: If the sprint plan skips or defers offline-first testing (a core project principle per AGENTS.md), it creates hidden debt. Every phase should include at least one offline validation gate.
• The plan should not treat the existing 36/36 tests as sufficient — store submission typically requires platform-specific instrumented tests that go beyond unit tests.

Recommended Guardrails

1. Pin inputs: Snapshot proposals Proposal #22: Automate Dual-Store Build & Signing Pipeline for v1.0 Submission #20 and Proposal #23: Define v1.0 Go/No-Go Release Criteria with User Validation Gates #21 at a specific commit/revision. If they change, trigger a replan rather than silently building on stale priorities.
2. Decouple from pipeline: Don't gate pipeline validation (Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22) on sprint plan completion. They can — and should — proceed in parallel with a lightweight contract.
3. Independent platform tracks: Sequence Android and iOS as parallel tracks, not serial phases. Apple review timelines are unpredictable and shouldn't block Android submission.
4. Include a "Definition of Shippable": Before Phase 1 starts, define the minimum acceptance criteria for a store-submittable build (crash-free, offline works, auth works, core flow complete). This prevents the plan from drifting toward feature completeness.
5. Timebox the planning: The sprint plan itself should be timeboxed (e.g., 1 day of effort). A plan that takes longer to create than a phase takes to execute is a waste.
6. Offline gate per phase: Every phase exit criterion must include at least one offline scenario test passing, per the project's offline-first architecture mandate.

Vote

Position: for
Reasoning: This is a low-risk, high-value planning activity. The risks are all in execution accuracy, not in system integrity. The guardrails above (pinned inputs, decoupled pipeline, independent platform tracks, timeboxed planning) are sufficient to contain the downsides. Voting against would be blocking progress for a planning task that has no destructive potential.

[guyghost]

✅ Prioritization Agent — FOR (weight: 2)

Role: Impact scoring and roadmap positioning
Duration: 62.7s

Scoring Matrix

Dimension	Score (1-10)	Justification
Business Impact	10	Without a dependency-sequenced plan, v1.0 release has no executable path. This is the coordination layer that makes proposals #20, #21, and #22 actually shippable.
User Impact	7	Indirect — users won't see the plan, but it directly determines time-to-market and feature completeness at launch.
Implementation Cost	2	Planning/documentation deliverable. No code, no infra. Primary cost is analysis hours across existing proposal artifacts.
Risk Level	1	Near-zero execution risk. The artifact is a plan. The risk of not doing it (blocked tasks, rework, missed store windows) is far greater.
Effort Required	3	Dependency graph construction is well-understood. Moderate effort to cross-reference ~50+ user stories and blockers thoroughly.
Strategic Alignment	10	Directly gates the v1.0 release milestone. Synchronizes with build pipeline (#22) and validates the priority matrix (#20).

Priority Score

Weighted Score: 6.29 / 10
Formula: (Impact×3 + Strategic×2 - Cost×1 - Risk×2 - Effort×1) / 7
= (10×3 + 10×2 - 2×1 - 1×2 - 3×1) / 7 = 44 / 7 = 6.29

Roadmap Recommendation

Placement: Now
Justification: This is a prerequisite for meaningful execution of the build pipeline (#22). The sprint plan must exist before the pipeline can be validated end-to-end. Proposals #20 and #21 are already approved — sequencing them is the critical next step. Delaying this creates a compounding bottleneck: every hour without a plan is an hour of potential mis-sequenced work or blocked tasks.

Opportunity Cost

~2–3 days of planning effort. This delays hands-on engineering by that margin, but the ROI is high: without it, we risk 1–2 weeks of rework from tasks started out of order or blocked mid-sprint. The real opportunity cost of not doing this is significantly larger.

Dependencies

• Proposal Proposal #22: Automate Dual-Store Build & Signing Pipeline for v1.0 Submission #20 (priority matrix): Must be approved/complete — provides the ranked backlog input
• Proposal Proposal #23: Define v1.0 Go/No-Go Release Criteria with User Validation Gates #21 (user stories): Must be approved/complete — provides the work items to sequence
• Proposal Proposal #24: Validate Core User Flows with 5-User Unmoderated Usability Test Before Store Submission #22 (build pipeline): Parallel track — sprint plan informs what the pipeline must validate
• Resource availability: Requires someone with full visibility across all v1.0 proposals to own the dependency mapping

Vote

Position: for
Reasoning: Score of 6.29 clears the threshold. This is pure release-enablement with minimal cost and near-zero risk. It unblocks the build pipeline (#22) and transforms approved proposals (#20, #21) from a ranked list into an executable sequence. For a release-change, timing sensitivity is decisive — the sprint plan is the critical path between "we know what matters" and "we ship v1.0."