Handover Files

Flow-Next defines six handover objects.

#	Handover	Artifact
1	Business-layer spec	`.flow/specs/<id>.md`
2	Full technical spec	Same spec, after technical pass
3	Implementation plan	`.flow/tasks/<id>.M.md`
4	Working implementation	Done summary + evidence commits
5	Cross-model review	`.flow/review-receipts/<branch>.json`
6	PR cognitive aid	PR body rendered by `/flow-next:make-pr`

Each handover is reviewable alone, verifiable against the previous artifact, and frozen once handed off.

Handover chain

flowchart LR
  H1["1 Business spec"] --> H2["2 Technical spec"]
  H2 --> H3["3 Task plan"]
  H3 --> H4["4 Implementation evidence"]
  H4 --> H5["5 Review receipt"]
  H5 --> H6["6 PR cognitive aid"]

Each artifact should answer the next person’s first question without relying on the original chat.

Review questions

Handover	Reviewer asks
Business-layer spec	Is this the right outcome, user, and boundary?
Technical spec	Can this be implemented safely in this repo?
Implementation plan	Are tasks complete, ordered, and reviewable?
Working implementation	Which acceptance criteria did this satisfy and what evidence proves it?
Cross-model review	Are introduced findings addressed or explicitly deferred?
PR cognitive aid	Can a human review the right files in the right order?

What belongs in handover text

Concrete IDs: spec ID, task IDs, acceptance IDs, commit hashes when available.
Decisions and alternatives.
Evidence commands and results.
Open questions and explicit deferrals.
Links or paths to the next artifact.

Do not write “done” without evidence. The next actor should be able to verify the state from files in the repo.

Handover failure modes

Failure	Symptom	Fix
Spec too vague	Plan review asks product questions	Rerun business interview
Technical context missing	Planner invents architecture	Rerun technical interview with repo/docs context
Task graph too broad	Worker changes unrelated modules	Split tasks or add dependencies
Review receipt ignored	Same finding returns	Address, suppress with evidence, or defer visibly
PR body too generic	Reviewer has to rediscover everything	Regenerate make-pr after improving task summaries