# Phase 7: Track Enrichment and Verification Integration - Research

**Researched:** 2026-04-11
**Domain:** Style prompt auto-generation, vocal delivery metatag selection, linguistic verification integration into production briefs
**Confidence:** HIGH

## Summary

Phase 7 is an integration phase. Phases 4, 5, and 6 built the components; Phase 7 wires them together and adds two enrichment capabilities. The three plans map cleanly to distinct concerns: (1) auto-generating optimized style prompts from the artist bible, (2) suggesting per-section vocal delivery metatags based on the artist's vocal identity and each section's emotional arc, and (3) replacing the placeholder linguistic verification note in the production brief with a real per-section verification report.

The critical insight is that Phase 7 modifies the existing `create-track` skill files (Steps 02 and 03) -- it does NOT create new files from scratch. The current Step 02 already composes a style prompt manually using the 5-tier priority formula and places basic delivery tags from the bible. Phase 7 upgrades this to automated, optimized generation. The current Step 03 already has a "Rapport de Verification" section with a placeholder note: "La verification linguistique complete (comptage syllabes, analyse rimes) sera disponible dans une phase future." Phase 7 replaces that placeholder with real linguistic verification by invoking the French (Phase 5) and English (Phase 6) verification procedures.

There is no code to write. The entire system is markdown skill instructions that Claude reads and follows. Phase 7's output is updated instructions in the step files that tell Claude HOW to auto-generate style prompts, HOW to select delivery metatags per section, and HOW to run the linguistic verification procedures and format the results. This is an orchestration problem, not a technology problem.

**Primary recommendation:** Modify `create-track/steps/02-structure-and-write.md` to include automated style prompt generation logic and per-section vocal delivery metatag suggestion rules. Modify `create-track/steps/03-verify-and-save.md` to replace the placeholder verification note with a complete linguistic verification procedure that invokes the appropriate language-specific reference files and produces a per-section report. The production brief file format in Step 03 must be updated to include the expanded verification report.

## Standard Stack

This phase produces no code -- only updated markdown skill instructions within the existing `create-track` skill.

### Core

| Component | Location | Purpose | Why Standard |
|-----------|----------|---------|--------------|
| Step 02 (updated) | `.claude/skills/create-track/steps/02-structure-and-write.md` | Style prompt auto-generation + vocal delivery metatag suggestions | Already exists. Phase 7 upgrades the manual style prompt and basic delivery tag placement. |
| Step 03 (updated) | `.claude/skills/create-track/steps/03-verify-and-save.md` | Linguistic verification integration into production brief | Already exists. Phase 7 replaces the placeholder with real verification. |

### Supporting (Existing -- Read Only)

| Component | Location | Purpose | When to Use |
|-----------|----------|---------|-------------|
| Artist bible | `artists/[name]/bible.md` | Source data for style prompt tags and vocal delivery choices | Read: genre, sous-genres, tempo, Tags Suno, emotions, themes |
| Suno format reference | `reference/suno/format.md` | Style prompt formula, tag library, delivery metatag categories, char limits | Authoritative source for tag vocabulary, priorities, constraints |
| French syllable rules | `reference/linguistic/french/syllables.md` | 6-step syllable counting procedure | Invoked when track language == French |
| French rhyme classification | `reference/linguistic/french/rhymes.md` | 6-step IPA-based rhyme verification | Invoked when track language == French |
| French pronunciation guide | `reference/linguistic/french/pronunciation.md` | 6-scan pronunciation risk assessment | Invoked when track language == French |
| English syllable rules | `reference/linguistic/english/syllables.md` | 6-step syllable counting with stress analysis | Invoked when track language == English |
| English rhyme classification | `reference/linguistic/english/rhymes.md` | 6-step IPA-based rhyme verification | Invoked when track language == English |
| Song structure templates | `reference/templates/songs/*.md` | Section flow, delivery guidance per section | Used to determine which sections exist and their emotional roles |
| Glossary | `reference/glossary.md` | Canonical terminology | Section names for report formatting |

### Alternatives Considered

| Instead of | Could Use | Tradeoff |
|------------|-----------|----------|
| Updating existing step files | Creating new step files (e.g., `04-verify-linguistics.md`) | Adding a 4th step breaks the compact 3-step workflow established in Phase 4. The verification is naturally part of Step 03 (verify and save). Style prompt and delivery tags are naturally part of Step 02 (structure and write). Keeping 3 steps is cleaner. |
| Embedding all rules in step files | Creating a separate `style-prompt-engine.md` reference file | The style prompt generation logic is specific to the create-track workflow, not a reusable reference. It belongs in the step file, not in reference/. The reference files (format.md, bible-template.md) already contain the source data. |
| Fully automated delivery tag selection | User-reviewable suggestions | The user already reviews lyrics in Step 02. Delivery tag suggestions are presented WITH the lyrics for review. The user can override. This matches the existing creative review pattern. |

## Architecture Patterns

### What Phase 7 Modifies

```
.claude/skills/create-track/steps/
  02-structure-and-write.md    # MODIFY: upgrade style prompt + delivery tag sections
  03-verify-and-save.md        # MODIFY: replace placeholder with real verification
```

No new files. No new directories. Phase 7 is purely about upgrading the content of two existing step files.

### Pattern 1: Style Prompt Auto-Generation from Bible

**What:** An algorithmic procedure that extracts tags from the artist bible and constructs an optimized style prompt without manual user input. The current Step 02 has a manual 5-tier priority table; Phase 7 replaces this with an automated extraction + assembly procedure.

**When to use:** Every track creation, during Step 02 "Composition du Style Prompt".

**How it works:**

The bible contains all the data needed. The procedure extracts tags systematically:

```markdown
## Auto-Generation du Style Prompt

### Extraction automatique depuis la Bible

**Etape 1: Genre (Priorite 1)**
- Lire `Identite Musicale > Genre principal` -> tag 1
- Lire `Identite Musicale > Sous-genres` -> tags 2-3 (prendre les 1-2 sous-genres les plus pertinents au concept du track)

**Etape 2: Mood/Energie (Priorite 2)**
- Identifier l'emotion dominante du track (choisie en Step 1, issue de la palette de l'artiste)
- Mapper vers un mood tag: consulter format.md section "Mood et Energy Tags"
- Ajouter 1-2 tags mood

**Etape 3: Direction Vocale (Priorite 3)**
- Lire `Style Vocal > Tags Suno` directement depuis la bible -> copier tels quels
- Ces tags sont pre-computes lors de la creation de l'artiste (Phase 2)

**Etape 4: Instrumentation (Priorite 4)**
- Deduire 2-3 instruments coherents avec le genre + mood:
  - Consulter format.md section "Instrument Tags" pour le vocabulaire
  - Choisir des instruments typiques du genre (ex: 808 Bass pour Trap, Piano pour Ballad)
  - Adapter au mood (ex: Dark Synth Pads pour melancolique, Bright Acoustic Guitar pour uplifting)

**Etape 5: Production + BPM (Priorite 5)**
- Lire `Identite Musicale > Tempo range` -> choisir un BPM dans le range
- Ajouter 1 tag production (Lo-Fi, Hi-Fi, Polished, Raw, etc.) coherent avec le genre

**Etape 6: Tag Langue**
- SI langue == Francais -> ajouter "All lyrics in French"
- SI langue == English -> ne rien ajouter

**Etape 7: Assembler et Verifier**
- Concatener tous les tags par des virgules, dans l'ordre de priorite
- Verifier: 5-8 tags au total (exclure le tag langue du comptage)
- SI < 5 tags: ajouter des tags instrumentation ou production
- SI > 8 tags: retirer les tags les moins prioritaires (tier 5, puis tier 4)
- Compter les caracteres: viser 200-500 chars (sweet spot)
```

**Key difference from Phase 4:** Phase 4's procedure is a reference guide ("Suivre la formule 5 priorites"). Phase 7 makes it algorithmic ("Extraire, mapper, assembler, verifier"). The user does not compose the style prompt -- Claude generates it automatically from bible data and presents it for review.

### Pattern 2: Per-Section Vocal Delivery Metatag Suggestion

**What:** For each section of the generated lyrics, Claude suggests an appropriate vocal delivery metatag based on (a) the artist's vocal style from the bible and (b) the emotional arc of each section.

**When to use:** During lyrics generation in Step 02, after the narrative arc is planned but as part of the section-by-section generation.

**How it works:**

```markdown
## Suggestion de Metatags de Delivery Vocal

### Principe
Chaque section recoit UN tag de delivery principal. Le tag est choisi en croisant:
1. Le style vocal de l'artiste (bible > Style Vocal > Style vocal + Techniques preferees)
2. Le role emotionnel de la section (depuis le template de structure et l'arc narratif)
3. Le vocabulaire de delivery de format.md (section "Metatags de Delivery Vocal")

### Mapping Section -> Emotion -> Delivery

| Section | Role emotionnel typique | Delivery tags suggestibles |
|---------|------------------------|---------------------------|
| [Intro] | Pose l'atmosphere | [Whispered], [Soft], [Spoken], [Humming], [Instrumental] |
| [Verse 1] | Narration, installation | Le style vocal par defaut de l'artiste (bible) |
| [Verse 2] | Progression, escalade | Meme famille que Verse 1 avec legere variation (ex: si Verse 1 = [Soft], Verse 2 = [Breathy]) |
| [Pre-Chorus] | Tension, montee | [Building], [Crescendo], [Intense] ou montee du tag Verse |
| [Chorus] | Pic emotionnel | [Powerful], [Belted], [Emotional], [Soulful] -- toujours plus intense que les Verses |
| [Bridge] | Contraste, pivot | Tag oppose au reste du track (ex: si track intense -> [Whispered]; si track doux -> [Powerful]) |
| [Outro] | Resolution, fermeture | [Whispered], [Fade Out], [Soft], [Humming] |

### Regles
1. **UN tag de delivery principal par section** -- pas d'empilement (format.md: "Eviter d'empiler plusieurs tags -- cela reduit la clarte")
2. **Coherence avec la bible** -- si la bible dit "Style vocal: Raspy", le tag par defaut des Verses est [Raspy]
3. **Progression dynamique** -- les tags doivent dessiner une courbe d'intensite qui suit l'arc narratif
4. **Le Chorus est TOUJOURS plus intense que les Verses** -- c'est le pic emotionnel
5. **Le Bridge CONTRASTE avec le reste** -- c'est sa raison d'etre structurelle
6. **Respecter les "Techniques preferees" de la bible** -- si l'artiste a "Whispered verses, Belted choruses", le respecter
```

**Key difference from Phase 4:** Phase 4 says "Placer les delivery tags du style vocal de l'artiste (depuis la bible, champ Tags Suno) -- un tag principal par section. Placement basique." Phase 7 replaces "placement basique" with a structured selection engine that considers emotional arc and section role.

### Pattern 3: Linguistic Verification Integration

**What:** Replace the placeholder note "La verification linguistique complete sera disponible dans une phase future" with an actual per-section verification report that invokes the French or English linguistic procedures.

**When to use:** In Step 03, after Suno constraint checks but before file save.

**How it works:**

```markdown
## Verification Linguistique

### Dispatch par langue

**SI** langue == Francais, **ALORS** executer:
1. Procedure de Verification des Syllabes (reference/linguistic/french/syllables.md)
2. Procedure de Verification des Rimes (reference/linguistic/french/rhymes.md)
3. Procedure de Scan de Prononciation (reference/linguistic/french/pronunciation.md)

**SI** langue == English, **ALORS** executer:
1. Procedure de Verification des Syllabes Anglaises (reference/linguistic/english/syllables.md)
2. Procedure de Verification des Rimes Anglaises (reference/linguistic/english/rhymes.md)

### Rapport par section

Pour chaque section avec lyrics (Verse, Chorus, Pre-Chorus, Bridge -- pas Intro/Outro instrumentaux):

| Section | Syllabes/ligne | Rimes | Qualite | Alertes |
|---------|---------------|-------|---------|---------|
| [Verse 1] | [range min-max] | [schema + classification] | [OK/ATTENTION] | [details si probleme] |
| [Chorus] | [range min-max] | [schema + classification] | [OK/ATTENTION] | [details si probleme] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

### Regles du rapport
- Montrer le schema de rimes identifie (AABB, ABAB, etc.)
- Pour le francais: classifier chaque paire de rimes (pauvre/suffisante/riche/richissime)
- Pour l'anglais: classifier chaque paire de rimes (perfect/slant/near/eye)
- Signaler les rimes sous le seuil de la section (francais: chorus = riche 3+, verse = suffisante 2+)
- Signaler les eye rhymes en anglais comme ERREUR
- Signaler les problemes de prononciation (francais seulement: scan 6 etapes)
- Ne PAS bloquer la sauvegarde sur des avertissements linguistiques -- ce sont des recommandations
- BLOQUER uniquement si: eye rhyme en chorus (anglais), rime pauvre en chorus (francais)
```

### Pattern 4: Updated Production Brief Format

**What:** The production brief file format must be updated to include the expanded verification report.

**Current format (Phase 4):**

```
## Rapport de Verification

| Controle | Resultat | Detail |
|----------|----------|--------|
| Style prompt | [OK/OPTIMAL/WARNING] | [X] chars -- [zone] |
| Lyrics | [OK/WARNING] | [X] chars |
| Tags style | [OK/WARNING] | [X] tags |
| Metatags | [OK] | [X] sections |
| Langue | [OK] | Monolingual [langue] |

> La verification linguistique complete sera disponible dans une phase future.
```

**Updated format (Phase 7):**

```
## Rapport de Verification

### Contraintes Suno

| Controle | Resultat | Detail |
|----------|----------|--------|
| Style prompt | [OK/OPTIMAL/WARNING] | [X] chars -- [zone] |
| Lyrics | [OK/WARNING] | [X] chars / 3000 (recommande) | 5000 (limite) |
| Tags style | [OK/WARNING] | [X] tags |
| Metatags | [OK] | [X] sections |
| Langue | [OK] | Monolingual [langue] |

### Verification Linguistique

**Langue :** [Francais/English]

| Section | Syllabes/ligne | Schema de rimes | Classification des rimes | Verdict |
|---------|---------------|-----------------|--------------------------|---------|
| [Verse 1] | 8-10 | ABAB | suffisante/suffisante | OK |
| [Chorus] | 9-11 | AABB | riche/riche | OK |
| [Verse 2] | 8-11 | ABAB | riche/suffisante | OK |
| [Bridge] | 7-9 | AB | suffisante | OK |

**Alertes linguistiques :**
- [section]: [description du probleme] -> [suggestion]

**Scan de prononciation** (francais uniquement):
| Ligne | Scan | Severite | Detail | Mitigation |
|-------|------|----------|--------|------------|
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
```

### Anti-Patterns to Avoid

- **Running full linguistic verification on every line during generation:** The verification procedures are for post-generation analysis. Claude should generate lyrics freely in Step 02, then verify in Step 03. Trying to verify while generating creates cognitive overload and breaks creative flow.

- **Overriding the artist's vocal style with "better" delivery tags:** The bible is the law. If the artist's style is [Raspy], the default delivery tag for Verses is [Raspy], not [Smooth] because Claude thinks it sounds better. The emotional arc adjustments (louder for chorus, softer for bridge) work WITHIN the artist's vocal identity, not outside it.

- **Blocking save on linguistic warnings:** Linguistic verification produces recommendations, not hard blocks. Only two cases warrant blocking: eye rhymes in English chorus (not a real rhyme) and pauvre rhymes in French chorus (below minimum threshold). Everything else is a suggestion. Creative judgment prevails.

- **Dumping raw IPA analysis in the production brief:** The verification report should be concise and actionable. The IPA decomposition is the internal reasoning, not the output. Show the classification result (riche, suffisante, perfect, slant) and flag problems. Don't show every phoneme comparison step.

- **Generating style prompts over 8 tags:** The requirement says 5-8 tags. format.md says 8-15 is optimal. The resolution: aim for 5-8 MEANINGFUL tags (per the requirement), knowing the sweet spot for Suno is 200-500 characters. With short tags averaging 15-25 chars plus commas, 8 tags fills about 150-250 chars -- right in the sweet spot. Going beyond 8 risks dilution.

## Don't Hand-Roll

| Problem | Don't Build | Use Instead | Why |
|---------|-------------|-------------|-----|
| Style prompt tag vocabulary | Custom tag lists in step file | `reference/suno/format.md` section "Bibliotheque de Tags" | format.md has comprehensive, categorized tag lists. The step file should reference it, not duplicate it. |
| Vocal delivery tag vocabulary | Custom delivery tag lists | `reference/suno/format.md` section "Metatags de Delivery Vocal" | 8 categories already organized with full tag lists. |
| French rhyme verification logic | Inline rhyme checking rules in Step 03 | `reference/linguistic/french/rhymes.md` -- 6-step procedure | The complete procedure exists. Step 03 should say "Execute the procedure in rhymes.md" not restate the rules. |
| English rhyme verification logic | Inline rhyme checking rules | `reference/linguistic/english/rhymes.md` -- 6-step procedure | Same pattern. |
| Syllable counting rules | Inline counting rules | `reference/linguistic/french/syllables.md` or `english/syllables.md` | Complete procedures with lookup tables already exist. |
| Pronunciation risk scanning | Inline scan rules | `reference/linguistic/french/pronunciation.md` -- 6-scan procedure | Complete procedure with watchlists and severity levels. |
| Emotion-to-mood tag mapping | Hard-coded mapping table | `reference/suno/format.md` Mood tags + artist bible Palette Emotionnelle | The bible emotions and format.md mood tags are the source data. Claude maps contextually. |
| Section emotional role definitions | Custom section role descriptions | `reference/templates/songs/[genre].md` Section Flow | Each template already defines each section's role, delivery guidance, and notes. |

**Key insight:** Phase 7 is a wiring phase. Every piece of domain knowledge already exists in reference files or the bible. Phase 7's step file updates should be orchestration instructions ("read X, apply Y, format Z"), not domain knowledge repositories.

## Common Pitfalls

### Pitfall 1: Style Prompt Tag Count Confusion (5-8 vs 8-15)

**What goes wrong:** The requirement says "5-8 tags" but format.md says "8-15 optimal". The step file implements one or the other, creating either sparse or bloated style prompts.

**Why it happens:** The requirement (TRACK-03) specifies "5-8 tags, genre-first ordering" as the auto-generation target. format.md says "Nombre optimal de tags: 8-15" for manual composition. These serve different audiences: the auto-generation should produce a focused, high-signal prompt (5-8), while manual users can go higher.

**How to avoid:** Auto-generation targets 5-8 tags as per the requirement. This produces prompts of approximately 100-200 characters -- within the sweet spot. The instruction should be: "Generate 5-8 tags. If the artist has rich vocal/instrumental identity, tend toward 8. If the artist has a simple, focused sound, tend toward 5." The user can always add more tags manually after review.

**Warning signs:** Auto-generated prompts consistently hitting 15+ tags. Prompts under 100 characters (too few/short tags).

### Pitfall 2: Delivery Tag Empilement (Stacking Multiple Tags)

**What goes wrong:** Claude places multiple delivery tags before a section ([Whispered] [Breathy] [Soft]) when format.md explicitly warns against this.

**Why it happens:** The bible may list multiple vocal techniques. Claude may try to apply all of them at once for "accuracy."

**How to avoid:** The instruction must be explicit: "UN tag de delivery principal par section." If the artist has multiple techniques (e.g., "Raspy" + "Harmonies"), use the primary delivery style as the section tag, and note techniques like [Harmonies] only where specifically appropriate (e.g., on a specific chorus repetition). Refer to format.md: "Un tag de delivery principal par section. Eviter d'empiler plusieurs tags -- cela reduit la clarte."

**Warning signs:** Sections preceded by 2+ delivery tags. Tags that contradict each other ([Whispered] [Powerful]).

### Pitfall 3: Linguistic Verification Overwhelming the Production Brief

**What goes wrong:** The verification report becomes longer than the lyrics themselves. Every line gets full IPA decomposition, every syllable is counted with work shown, every phoneme comparison is documented.

**Why it happens:** The French and English verification procedures require showing work (step-by-step decomposition). If all of this is dumped into the production brief, it becomes unreadable.

**How to avoid:** Two-level reporting: (1) the production brief gets a SUMMARY table (section, syllable range, rhyme scheme, classification, verdict), (2) the detailed work (IPA decomposition, step-by-step counting) is the internal reasoning Claude performs but does NOT write to the file. The brief should be concise: the user needs to know "Verse 1 rhymes are suffisante, Chorus rhymes are riche, Verse 2 line 3 has a pronunciation alert" -- not the full IPA analysis of every word.

**Warning signs:** Verification reports exceeding 50 lines. Users skipping the report because it's too dense.

### Pitfall 4: Ignoring the Existing Placeholder Note

**What goes wrong:** Phase 7 adds the new verification but forgets to remove the old placeholder: "La verification linguistique complete sera disponible dans une phase future." Both the placeholder and the actual verification appear in the file.

**Why it happens:** The placeholder is in the current Step 03 file. If Phase 7 adds verification without removing the placeholder, both coexist.

**How to avoid:** Phase 7 plan must explicitly instruct: "Remove the placeholder note about future linguistic verification. Replace the entire Rapport de Verification section with the new expanded format." This is a modification, not an addition.

**Warning signs:** Production briefs containing both the actual verification AND the "future phase" note.

### Pitfall 5: Style Prompt Auto-Generation Ignoring Track-Specific Mood

**What goes wrong:** The auto-generated style prompt always uses the artist's primary emotion instead of the track-specific emotion chosen in Step 01.

**Why it happens:** The bible's Palette Emotionnelle lists primary and secondary emotions. The auto-generation procedure may default to primary emotions. But the track concept (collected in Step 01) has a specific mood that should drive the mood tag in the style prompt.

**How to avoid:** The auto-generation procedure at Etape 2 (Mood/Energie) must use the track's concept emotion (identified in Step 01), NOT the bible's first primary emotion. The bible's palette constrains which emotions are valid; the track concept chooses which one to use for this specific track. The instruction should be: "Mapper l'emotion dominante du track (choisie en Step 1) vers un mood tag."

**Warning signs:** All tracks for an artist having identical mood tags in their style prompts. Style prompts that don't reflect the track's specific concept.

### Pitfall 6: French vs English Verification Scope Mismatch

**What goes wrong:** The verification report for English tracks includes a pronunciation scan (which only exists for French) or the French report misses the pronunciation scan.

**Why it happens:** The French linguistic engine has 3 reference files (syllables, rhymes, pronunciation). The English engine has 2 (syllables, rhymes). Phase 7 must dispatch correctly based on language.

**How to avoid:** The dispatch logic must be explicit:
- French: syllable verification + rhyme verification + pronunciation scan (3 procedures)
- English: syllable verification + rhyme verification (2 procedures, NO pronunciation scan)
- The pronunciation scan section in the report should only appear for French tracks

**Warning signs:** English tracks with empty pronunciation scan sections. French tracks missing the pronunciation scan.

## Code Examples

These are markdown instruction patterns for the step file updates.

### Example 1: Style Prompt Auto-Generation Instruction Block

```markdown
## Auto-Generation du Style Prompt

Le style prompt est genere AUTOMATIQUEMENT depuis la bible de l'artiste. L'utilisateur ne compose
pas le style prompt manuellement -- il le revoit et peut l'ajuster.

### Procedure d'extraction (7 etapes)

1. **Genre (tags 1-2):** Copier `Identite Musicale > Genre principal` + le sous-genre le plus
   pertinent au concept du track depuis `Identite Musicale > Sous-genres`.

2. **Mood (tags 3-4):** Mapper l'emotion dominante du track (choisie en Step 1) vers 1-2 tags
   mood. Consulter `reference/suno/format.md` section "Mood et Energy Tags" pour le vocabulaire.

3. **Direction vocale (tags 5-6):** Copier les tags depuis `Style Vocal > Tags Suno` dans la bible.
   Ces tags sont pre-computes -- les utiliser tels quels.

4. **Instrumentation (tags 7-8):** Choisir 1-2 instruments coherents avec le genre + mood.
   Consulter `reference/suno/format.md` section "Instrument Tags".

5. **Production + BPM (optionnel, si < 5 tags):** Ajouter 1 tag production + BPM depuis
   `Identite Musicale > Tempo range`. N'ajouter que si le total est sous 5 tags.

6. **Tag langue:** SI langue == Francais, ajouter "All lyrics in French". Ne PAS compter
   ce tag dans le total de 5-8.

7. **Assembler:** Concatener dans l'ordre de priorite, separes par des virgules.
   - Verifier: 5-8 tags descriptifs (hors tag langue)
   - Verifier: 120-300 caracteres (sweet spot auto-generation)
   - SI trop de tags: retirer instrumentation ou production (priorites les plus basses)
   - SI pas assez de tags: ajouter instrumentation

### Presentation

Presenter le style prompt auto-genere a l'utilisateur avec:
- Le prompt complet
- Le comptage de caracteres
- La source de chaque tag (ex: "Dark Pop [genre bible], Melancholic [emotion track]")
- "Ce style prompt a ete genere automatiquement depuis la bible. Ajustements ?"
```

### Example 2: Delivery Metatag Suggestion Instruction

```markdown
## Suggestions de Delivery Vocal par Section

Pour chaque section des lyrics, choisir UN tag de delivery. Le choix croise:
- Le style vocal de l'artiste (bible > Style Vocal)
- Le role emotionnel de la section (template de structure)
- Le concept/mood du track

### Procedure

1. Lire `Style Vocal > Style vocal` et `Style Vocal > Techniques preferees` depuis la bible.
2. Identifier le tag de delivery par defaut de l'artiste (le style vocal principal).
3. Pour chaque section:
   a. Consulter le template de structure pour le role de la section
   b. Choisir le delivery tag en suivant la table de mapping ci-dessous
   c. Placer le tag sur sa propre ligne, AVANT les lyrics de la section

### Table de mapping

| Section | Si artiste = soft/breathy | Si artiste = powerful/raspy | Si artiste = rap |
|---------|--------------------------|---------------------------|------------------|
| Intro | [Whispered] ou [Humming] | [Soft] ou [Spoken] | [Spoken] ou rien |
| Verse | [Breathy] ou [Soft] | [Raspy] ou style par defaut | [Rapped] ou [Trap Flow] |
| Pre-Chorus | [Building] ou intensification du Verse | [Intense] ou [Crescendo] | [Melodic Rap] |
| Chorus | [Emotional] ou [Powerful] | [Belted] ou [Powerful] | [Melodic Rap] ou [Sung] |
| Bridge | [Whispered] (contraste) | [Vulnerable] ou [Soft] (contraste) | [Soft] ou [Spoken] |
| Outro | [Whispered] ou [Fade Out] | [Soft] ou [Fade Out] | [Spoken] ou [Fade Out] |

### Regles strictes

- UN tag par section (format.md: pas d'empilement)
- Le Chorus est TOUJOURS plus intense que les Verses
- Le Bridge CONTRASTE avec le ton general
- Si la bible specifie "Techniques preferees: Whispered verses, Belted choruses" -> le respecter exactement
- Consulter `reference/suno/format.md` section "Metatags de Delivery Vocal" pour les tags valides
```

### Example 3: Linguistic Verification Dispatch in Step 03

```markdown
## Verification Linguistique

Apres les controles Suno, executer la verification linguistique selon la langue du track.

### SI langue == Francais

Pour chaque section avec lyrics:

1. **Syllabes:** Executer la Procedure de Verification des Syllabes de
   `reference/linguistic/french/syllables.md` ligne par ligne.
   - Decomposer chaque ligne mot par mot (montrer le travail INTERNEMENT, pas dans le rapport)
   - Reporter le range min-max de syllabes par ligne pour la section
   - Comparer aux cibles par genre (syllables.md section "Cibles de syllabes par genre")

2. **Rimes:** Executer la Procedure de Verification des Rimes de
   `reference/linguistic/french/rhymes.md` pour les paires de fin de ligne.
   - Transcrire en IPA (OBLIGATOIRE -- anti-piege orthographique)
   - Classifier chaque paire (pauvre/suffisante/riche/richissime)
   - Comparer au seuil de la section (rhymes.md: Chorus = riche 3+, Verse = suffisante 2+)
   - SI sous le seuil: signaler ET proposer un remplacement via le Workflow de Suggestion

3. **Prononciation:** Executer le Scan de Prononciation (6 scans) de
   `reference/linguistic/french/pronunciation.md`.
   - Reporter les alertes ALERTE et ATTENTION uniquement
   - Inclure les mitigations suggerees

### SI langue == English

Pour chaque section avec lyrics:

1. **Syllabes:** Executer la Procedure de Verification des Syllabes Anglaises de
   `reference/linguistic/english/syllables.md` ligne par ligne.
   - Inclure l'analyse de stress (OBLIGATOIRE pour l'anglais)
   - Reporter le range min-max de syllabes par ligne pour la section

2. **Rimes:** Executer la Procedure de Verification des Rimes Anglaises de
   `reference/linguistic/english/rhymes.md` pour les paires de fin de ligne.
   - Transcrire en IPA (OBLIGATOIRE -- anti-piege orthographique)
   - Classifier chaque paire (perfect/slant/near/eye/internal)
   - Evaluer par genre et section (rhymes.md: Guide par genre et section)
   - SI eye rhyme: signaler comme ERREUR

### Format du rapport (les deux langues)

Reporter dans le format RESUME -- pas de dump IPA dans le fichier:

| Section | Syllabes/ligne | Schema | Rimes | Verdict |
|---------|---------------|--------|-------|---------|
| [Verse 1] | 8-10 | ABAB | suffisante/suffisante | OK |
| [Chorus] | 9-11 | AABB | riche/riche | OK |

**Alertes linguistiques :**
- Lister uniquement les problemes (rimes sous seuil, prononciation ALERTE/ATTENTION)
- Pour chaque alerte: [section]: [probleme] -> [suggestion]

### Regles de blocage

- **BLOQUER** si: rime pauvre en Chorus francais OU eye rhyme en Chorus anglais
- **ATTENTION** (ne pas bloquer): rimes sous seuil en Verse/Bridge, alertes de prononciation
- Les avertissements linguistiques sont des recommandations -- le jugement creatif prevaut
```

## State of the Art

| From Prior Phases | Available for Phase 7 | Impact |
|-------------------|----------------------|--------|
| Phase 4: Step 02 manual style prompt | 5-tier priority formula, manual tag selection | Phase 7 automates this with bible extraction |
| Phase 4: Step 02 basic delivery tags | "Placement basique" from bible Tags Suno | Phase 7 upgrades to per-section emotional arc mapping |
| Phase 4: Step 03 placeholder verification | "Future phase" note | Phase 7 replaces with real linguistic verification |
| Phase 5: French syllable procedure | Complete 6-step procedure with lookup tables | Phase 7 invokes this procedure in Step 03 |
| Phase 5: French rhyme procedure | Complete 6-step IPA-based classification | Phase 7 invokes this procedure in Step 03 |
| Phase 5: French pronunciation scan | Complete 6-scan procedure with severity levels | Phase 7 invokes this procedure in Step 03 |
| Phase 6: English syllable procedure | Complete 6-step procedure with stress analysis | Phase 7 invokes this procedure in Step 03 |
| Phase 6: English rhyme procedure | Complete 6-step IPA-based classification | Phase 7 invokes this procedure in Step 03 |
| Phase 2: Bible template Tags Suno | Pre-computed vocal tags for style prompts | Phase 7 copies these directly into auto-generated prompts |
| Phase 2: Bible Regles de Coherence | Negative constraints | Not Phase 7's concern -- Phase 8 uses these |

| What Phase 7 Does | What Phase 7 Does NOT Do |
|--------------------|--------------------------| 
| Auto-generate style prompt from bible | Create new style prompt tags (uses existing format.md vocabulary) |
| Suggest delivery metatags per section | Override the artist's vocal identity |
| Run linguistic verification on generated lyrics | Create new linguistic rules (uses existing Phase 5/6 procedures) |
| Format verification results into production brief | Implement formal coherence checking (Phase 8) |
| Replace the Phase 4 placeholder with real verification | Make the verification blocking by default (recommendations, not blocks) |

**Deprecated/outdated:**
- **Phase 4's placeholder note:** "La verification linguistique complete sera disponible dans une phase future" -- this is replaced by the actual verification in Phase 7.
- **Phase 4's manual style prompt instructions:** "Suivre la formule 5 priorites" -- this is replaced by the auto-generation procedure.
- **Phase 4's "basic delivery tag placement":** This is replaced by the per-section delivery tag suggestion engine.

## Open Questions

1. **Should the verification report show the detailed IPA work or just the summary?**
   - What we know: The French and English verification procedures require step-by-step decomposition showing IPA transcriptions. The PhonologyBench research says forced decomposition improves LLM accuracy.
   - What's unclear: Should the decomposition appear in the production brief file, or should Claude do it internally and only write the summary?
   - Recommendation: Claude performs the full decomposition internally (for accuracy) but writes only the SUMMARY table to the production brief. The brief is a practical document for pasting into Suno -- it should be concise. If the user wants to see the detailed analysis, they can ask Claude to explain a specific rhyme or syllable count.

2. **Should weak rhymes be auto-fixed or just flagged?**
   - What we know: The French rhyme suggestion workflow (rhymes.md) includes a complete process for finding replacement rhymes. The English workflow also includes suggestions.
   - What's unclear: Should Phase 7 automatically rewrite weak rhymes, or just flag them and let the user decide?
   - Recommendation: Flag in the report with a suggestion. Do NOT auto-rewrite lyrics. The lyrics were already reviewed by the user in Step 02. Auto-rewriting would change lyrics the user approved. Instead: "ATTENTION: [Chorus] rime pauvre 'nuit/vie' (1 phoneme). Suggestion: remplacer 'vie' par 'pluie' (suffisante, 2 phonemes) ou reformuler avec 'sombre/ombre' (riche, 3 phonemes)." The user decides.

3. **What happens when the verification flags a problem AFTER the user already approved the lyrics in Step 02?**
   - What we know: Step 02 presents lyrics for creative review. Step 03 runs verification. A timing tension exists.
   - What's unclear: If Step 03 finds a weak rhyme in a chorus the user already approved, what's the workflow?
   - Recommendation: Step 03 presents the verification report and offers to fix. "Le rapport de verification a identifie les points suivants: [list]. Voulez-vous que je propose des ajustements, ou on garde les lyrics tels quels?" This respects the user's creative authority while surfacing quality issues. If the user says "garde", save as-is with the alerts in the report. If the user says "ajuste", Claude revises and re-verifies.

4. **How to handle the tag count target: 5-8 (requirement) vs 8-15 (format.md)?**
   - What we know: TRACK-03 says "5-8 tags". format.md says "8-15 optimal". These serve different contexts.
   - What's unclear: Which takes precedence for auto-generation?
   - Recommendation: The requirement (5-8) governs auto-generation. The format.md range (8-15) covers manual composition where users can be more expansive. The auto-generator produces focused, high-signal prompts. 5-8 tags at 15-25 chars each = 100-250 chars, well within the sweet spot. The user can always add more after review.

## Sources

### Primary (HIGH confidence)
- `.claude/skills/create-track/steps/02-structure-and-write.md` -- Current step 02 that Phase 7 modifies (project-local)
- `.claude/skills/create-track/steps/03-verify-and-save.md` -- Current step 03 that Phase 7 modifies (project-local)
- `reference/suno/format.md` -- Style prompt formula, tag library, delivery metatags, constraints (project-local, authoritative)
- `reference/templates/bible-template.md` -- Bible schema with Tags Suno field and all extractable data (project-local, authoritative)
- `reference/linguistic/french/syllables.md` -- French syllable verification procedure (project-local, authoritative)
- `reference/linguistic/french/rhymes.md` -- French rhyme classification procedure (project-local, authoritative)
- `reference/linguistic/french/pronunciation.md` -- French pronunciation scan procedure (project-local, authoritative)
- `reference/linguistic/english/syllables.md` -- English syllable verification procedure (project-local, authoritative)
- `reference/linguistic/english/rhymes.md` -- English rhyme classification procedure (project-local, authoritative)
- `.planning/REQUIREMENTS.md` -- TRACK-03, TRACK-04, LING-01, LING-06 requirements (project-local)
- `.planning/ROADMAP.md` -- Phase 7 success criteria and scope (project-local)

### Secondary (MEDIUM confidence)
- `.planning/phases/04-core-track-production/04-RESEARCH.md` -- Phase 4 decisions, scope boundaries with Phase 7 (project-local)
- `.planning/phases/05-french-linguistic-engine/05-RESEARCH.md` -- French engine design patterns (project-local)
- `.planning/phases/06-english-linguistic-engine/06-RESEARCH.md` -- English engine design patterns (project-local)
- `.planning/STATE.md` -- Accumulated decisions from all prior phases (project-local)

### Tertiary (LOW confidence)
- None. Phase 7 is entirely internal integration. All source data is project-local.

## Metadata

**Confidence breakdown:**
- Style prompt auto-generation: HIGH -- All source data exists in the bible and format.md. The procedure is a deterministic extraction + assembly pipeline. The 5-tier priority formula is already proven in Phase 4.
- Vocal delivery metatag suggestions: HIGH -- The metatag vocabulary is fully documented in format.md. The bible captures the artist's vocal identity. The section roles are defined in the song templates. The mapping is straightforward.
- Linguistic verification integration: HIGH -- All verification procedures are complete and tested (Phases 5-6). Phase 7 only needs to invoke them and format the results. The dispatch logic (French vs English) is simple.
- Production brief format update: HIGH -- The current format is known. The update is additive (expand the verification section) with one removal (the placeholder note).
- Interaction flow (Step 02 review + Step 03 verification timing): MEDIUM -- The tension between user-approved lyrics and post-approval verification is a UX design question, not a technical one. The recommendation (flag + offer to fix) is reasonable but unvalidated.

**Research date:** 2026-04-11
**Valid until:** 2026-05-11 (30 days -- stable domain, all dependencies are project-internal and already implemented)
