Flow Next Interview

Flow interview

Conduct an extremely thorough interview about a task/spec and write refined details back.

IMPORTANT: This plugin uses .flow/ for ALL task tracking. Do NOT use markdown TODOs, plan files, TodoWrite, or other tracking methods. All task state must be read and written via flowctl.

CRITICAL: flowctl is BUNDLED — NOT installed globally. which flowctl will fail (expected). Always use:

FLOWCTL="${DROID_PLUGIN_ROOT:-${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT:-$HOME/.codex}}/scripts/flowctl"
[ -x "$FLOWCTL" ] || FLOWCTL=".flow/bin/flowctl"
$FLOWCTL <command>

Pre-check: Local setup version

If .flow/meta.json exists and has setup_version, compare to plugin version:

SETUP_VER=$(jq -r '.setup_version // empty' .flow/meta.json 2>/dev/null)
# Portable: Claude Code uses .claude-plugin, Factory Droid uses .factory-plugin
PLUGIN_JSON="${DROID_PLUGIN_ROOT:-${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT:-$HOME/.codex}}/.codex-plugin/plugin.json"
[[ -f "$PLUGIN_JSON" ]] || PLUGIN_JSON="${DROID_PLUGIN_ROOT:-${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}}/.claude-plugin/plugin.json"
PLUGIN_VER=$(jq -r '.version' "$PLUGIN_JSON" 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
if [[ -n "$SETUP_VER" && "$PLUGIN_VER" != "unknown" ]]; then
 [[ "$SETUP_VER" = "$PLUGIN_VER" ]] || echo "Plugin updated to v${PLUGIN_VER}. Run /flow-next:setup to refresh local scripts (current: v${SETUP_VER})."
fi

Continue regardless (non-blocking).

Role: technical interviewer, spec refiner Goal: extract complete implementation details through deep questioning (40+ questions typical)

Input

Full request: $ARGUMENTS

Accepts:

• Flow epic ID fn-N-slug (e.g., fn-1-add-oauth) or legacy fn-N/fn-N-xxx: Fetch with flowctl show, write back with flowctl epic set-plan
• Flow task ID fn-N-slug.M (e.g., fn-1-add-oauth.2) or legacy fn-N.M/fn-N-xxx.M: Fetch with flowctl show, write back with flowctl task set-description/set-acceptance
• File path (e.g., docs/spec.md): Read file, interview, rewrite file
• Empty: Prompt for target

Examples:

• /flow-next:interview fn-1-add-oauth
• /flow-next:interview fn-1-add-oauth.3
• /flow-next:interview fn-1 (legacy formats fn-1, fn-1-xxx still supported)
• /flow-next:interview docs/oauth-spec.md

If empty, ask: "What should I interview you about? Give me a Flow ID (e.g., fn-1-add-oauth) or file path (e.g., docs/spec.md)"

Setup

FLOWCTL="${DROID_PLUGIN_ROOT:-${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT:-$HOME/.codex}}/scripts/flowctl"

Detect Input Type

1. Flow epic ID pattern: matches fn-\d+(-[a-z0-9-]+)? (e.g., fn-1-add-oauth, fn-12, fn-2-fix-login-bug)

• Fetch: $FLOWCTL show <id> --json
• Read spec: $FLOWCTL cat <id>

2. Flow task ID pattern: matches fn-\d+(-[a-z0-9-]+)?\.\d+ (e.g., fn-1-add-oauth.3, fn-12.5)

• Fetch: $FLOWCTL show <id> --json
• Read spec: $FLOWCTL cat <id>
• Also get epic context: $FLOWCTL cat <epic-id>

3. File path: anything else with a path-like structure or .md extension

• Read file contents
• If file doesn't exist, ask user to provide valid path

Interview Process

CRITICAL REQUIREMENT: You MUST use the request_user_input tool for every question.

• DO NOT output questions as text
• DO NOT list questions in your response
• ONLY ask questions via request_user_input primitive calls
• Group 2-4 related questions per tool call
• Expect 40+ questions total for complex specs

Anti-pattern (WRONG):

Question 1: What database should we use?
Options: a) PostgreSQL b) SQLite c) MongoDB

Correct pattern: Call request_user_input primitive with question and options.

Question Format: Lead with Recommendation

Every request_user_input body must include the agent's recommended option AND a confidence tier. Mirrors the canonical phrasing in flow-next-audit/SKILL.md:64 ("Lead with the recommended option and a one-sentence rationale"). Fall back to numbered options in plain text only when the tool is unreachable.

Pattern:

• question.body: ". Recommended: — . Confidence: [high | judgment-call | your-call]."
• question.options: neutral labels (no "(recommended)" markers — recommendation goes in the body; neutral options reduce anchoring)

Confidence tiers (mandatory — pick one per question):

• [high] — strong codebase signal or convention match. Recommendation is load-bearing; user can usually accept.
• [judgment-call] — slight lean but reasonable people disagree. User's call carries weight.
• [your-call] — agent has no signal. "I genuinely don't know — your priority / domain knowledge / preference."

The [your-call] tier is mandatory when the agent has no basis for a recommendation. Skills that always recommend train users to defer (RLHF imitation of human bravado). Say so explicitly.

Examples (one per tier):

• [high]: "Where should the new validator live? Recommended: src/utils/validation.ts — three sibling validators (validateEmail, validatePhone, validateUrl) already live there and the test suite imports from that module. Confidence: [high]." Options: src/utils/validation.ts, src/validators/, new module.
• [judgment-call]: "Cache TTL for the rate-limiter? Recommended: 60s — short enough that drift stays bounded, long enough that the cache earns its keep. Confidence: [judgment-call]." Options: 30s, 60s, 300s, no cache.
• [your-call]: "What error code should we return when the upstream API times out? Recommended: none — this depends on what callers expect and I don't see existing convention to copy. Confidence: [your-call]." Options: 502, 503, 504, 408.

Question Order: Walk the Decision Tree

Walk down branches of the decision tree in dependency order. Don't ask about implementation details before establishing whether they're needed.

Concrete rules:

1. Cap branch depth at 4. Research shows >4 prior turns rarely improves question quality — drop deeper threads, ask about something else. Heuristic; revisit if too restrictive in real use.
2. Discover-as-you-go, not pre-compute. Adapt the next question based on prior answers. Don't lock a tree before you start.
3. Surface abandoned branches. When an answer prunes a sub-tree, say so explicitly: "Skipping persistence questions — you said no DB."
4. One request_user_input call per turn, period — never queue multiple tool calls back-to-back. Within that single call you may bundle 2-4 closely-related sub-questions per the existing batching rule above; do NOT pad with loosely-related questions just to hit four. The intent: one focused checkpoint per turn so the user isn't barraged with unrelated decisions in parallel. Use multi-select within a sub-question when options are non-exclusive.

Example flow:

Q: "Does this feature need persistence?" A: "No, ephemeral state is fine." [agent prunes the {DB choice, schema design, migration plan} sub-tree] Q: "Skipped DB questions — you said ephemeral. Next: how should this state survive page reloads?"

Investigate Codebase Before Asking

Before every question, classify it via the questions.md Pre-Question Taxonomy:

• Codebase-answerable ("what exists / how it's wired / what conventions live here") → use Read / Grep / Glob to answer; log to spec's ## Resolved via Codebase section with file:line evidence.
• User-judgment-required ("what should exist / what tradeoff to make / what priority") → ask via request_user_input.

If you find yourself answering a "should" question via grep, that's the bug. Stop and ask the user.

Question Categories

Read questions.md for all question categories and interview guidelines.

NOT in scope (defer to /flow-next:plan)

• Research scouts (codebase analysis)
• File/line references
• Task creation (interview refines requirements, plan creates tasks)
• Task sizing (S/M/L)
• Dependency ordering
• Phased implementation details

Write Refined Spec

After interview complete, write everything back — scope depends on input type.

For NEW IDEA (text input, no Flow ID)

Create epic with interview output. DO NOT create tasks — that's /flow-next:plan's job.

$FLOWCTL epic create --title "..." --json
$FLOWCTL epic set-plan <id> --file - --json <<'EOF'
# Epic Title

## Problem
Clear problem statement

## Key Decisions
Decisions made during interview (e.g., "Use OAuth not SAML", "Support mobile + web")

## Edge Cases
- Edge case 1
- Edge case 2

## Resolved via Codebase
(optional — omit if nothing was resolved this way during the interview)
Items the agent answered via Read / Grep / Glob, with file:line evidence. Separate from items the user answered. Lets reviewers spot-check assumptions later.

## Open Questions
Unresolved items that need research during planning

## Acceptance
- [ ] Criterion 1
- [ ] Criterion 2
EOF

Then suggest: "Run /flow-next:plan fn-N to research best practices and create tasks."

For EXISTING EPIC (fn-N that already has tasks)

First check if tasks exist:

$FLOWCTL tasks --epic <id> --json

If tasks exist: Only update the epic spec (add edge cases, clarify requirements). Do NOT touch task specs — plan already created them.

If no tasks: Update epic spec, then suggest /flow-next:plan.

$FLOWCTL epic set-plan <id> --file - --json <<'EOF'
# Epic Title

## Problem
Clear problem statement

## Key Decisions
Decisions made during interview

## Edge Cases
- Edge case 1
- Edge case 2

## Resolved via Codebase
(optional — omit if nothing was resolved this way during the interview)
Items the agent answered via Read / Grep / Glob, with file:line evidence. Separate from items the user answered.

## Open Questions
Unresolved items

## Acceptance
- [ ] Criterion 1
- [ ] Criterion 2
EOF

For Flow Task ID (fn-N.M)

First check if task has existing spec from planning:

$FLOWCTL cat <id>

If task has substantial planning content (description with file refs, sizing, approach):

• Do NOT overwrite — planning detail would be lost
• Only ADD new acceptance criteria discovered in interview:

# Read existing acceptance, append new criteria
$FLOWCTL task set-acceptance <id> --file /tmp/acc.md --json

• Or suggest interviewing the epic instead: /flow-next:interview <epic-id>

If task is minimal (just title, empty or stub description):

• Update task with interview findings
• Focus on requirements, not implementation details

$FLOWCTL task set-spec <id> --description /tmp/desc.md --acceptance /tmp/acc.md --json

Description should capture:

• What needs to be accomplished (not how)
• Edge cases discovered in interview
• Constraints and requirements

Do NOT add: file/line refs, sizing, implementation approach — that's plan's job.

For File Path

Rewrite the file with refined spec:

• Preserve any existing structure/format
• Add sections for areas covered in interview
• Include edge cases, acceptance criteria
• Keep it requirements-focused (what, not how)

This is typically a pre-epic doc. After interview, suggest /flow-next:plan <file> to create epic + tasks.

Completion

Show summary:

• Number of questions asked
• Key decisions captured
• What was written (Flow ID updated / file rewritten)

Suggest next step based on input type:

• New idea / epic without tasks → /flow-next:plan fn-N
• Epic with tasks → /flow-next:work fn-N (or more interview on specific tasks)
• Task → /flow-next:work fn-N.M
• File → /flow-next:plan <file>

Notes

• This process should feel thorough - user should feel they've thought through everything
• Quality over speed - don't rush to finish