# Flow Next Interview > Interview user in-depth about a spec, task, or spec file to extract complete implementation details. Use when user wants to flesh out a spec, refine requirements, or clarify a feature before building. Triggers on /flow-next:interview with Flow IDs (fn-1-add-oauth, fn-1-add-oauth.2, or legacy fn-1, fn-1.2, fn-1-xxx, fn-1-xxx.2) or file paths. - Skill: `gmickel/flow-next-interview` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 4 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add gmickel/flow-next-interview` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/gmickel/flow-next-interview/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Integrations & APIs - Author: gmickel (https://skillmd.com/u/gmickel) - Updated: 2026-09-10 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/gmickel/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`. ## Preamble **CRITICAL: flowctl is BUNDLED — NOT installed globally.** `which flowctl` will fail (expected). Define once; subsequent blocks use `$FLOWCTL`: ```bash FLOWCTL="${DROID_PLUGIN_ROOT:-${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}}/scripts/flowctl" [ -x "$FLOWCTL" ] || FLOWCTL=".flow/bin/flowctl" ``` ## Pre-check: Local setup version If `.flow/meta.json` exists and has `setup_version`, compare to plugin version: ```bash SETUP_VER=$(jq -r '.setup_version // empty' .flow/meta.json 2>/dev/null) PLUGIN_JSON="${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: $ARGUMENTS Accepts: - **Flow spec ID** `fn-N-slug` (e.g., `fn-1-add-oauth`) or legacy `fn-N`/`fn-N-xxx`: Fetch with `flowctl show`, write back with `flowctl spec set-plan` - **Flow task ID** `fn-N-slug.M` (e.g., `fn-1-add-oauth.2`) or legacy `fn-N.M`/`fn-N-xxx.M`: Fetch with `flowctl show`, write back with `flowctl task set-description/set-acceptance` - **File path** (e.g., `docs/spec.md`): Read file, interview, rewrite file - **Empty**: Prompt for target Examples: - `/flow-next:interview fn-1-add-oauth` - `/flow-next:interview fn-1-add-oauth.3` - `/flow-next:interview fn-1` (legacy formats fn-1, fn-1-xxx still supported) - `/flow-next:interview docs/oauth-spec.md` If empty, ask: "What should I interview you about? Give me a Flow ID (e.g., fn-1-add-oauth) or file path (e.g., docs/spec.md)" ## Setup ### Parse `--scope=business|technical|both` (fn-44.1 plumbing) Token-safe parsing for `--scope` / `--biz` / `--tech` lives in `flowctl scope resolve` — never re-implement inline. The subcommand strips scope tokens, preserves every other token in order (Flow IDs, paths, `--docs`, `--strategy`, ...), and emits the resolved scope. Default scope when no scope flag is passed: `technical` (1.0.2 backward-compat). ```bash # Run BEFORE the --docs / --strategy strip block. Conflict / invalid value # → non-zero exit; SKILL propagates. # # `--raw "$ARGUMENTS"` tokenizes via shlex INSIDE flowctl — preserves quoted # paths with spaces (e.g., `/flow-next:interview --biz "docs/my spec.md"`). # Unquoted `$ARGUMENTS` would word-split into broken tokens. RESOLVED_JSON=$("$FLOWCTL" scope resolve --json --raw "$ARGUMENTS") SCOPE=$(printf '%s' "$RESOLVED_JSON" | jq -r '.scope') # `remaining_args` is a JSON array of strings. Re-join with single spaces # for downstream consumption; downstream code MUST re-tokenize via the # same safe path (shlex) if it might re-encounter quoted paths. ARGUMENTS=$(printf '%s' "$RESOLVED_JSON" | jq -r '.remaining_args | join(" ")') ``` The section-write policy for the resolved scope is computed by `flowctl scope write-policy`, called BEFORE any markdown edit. It returns which sections the pass MAY write and which it MUST preserve byte-for-byte (per the fn-44 spec Edge Cases merge contract): ```bash # Build the current-sections JSON from the existing spec (T2 wires this). # `flowctl scope write-policy --current-sections-json -` then emits # {writable, preserved, decision_context, placeholder_write} as JSON. WRITE_POLICY=$(echo "$CURRENT_SECTIONS" | "$FLOWCTL" scope write-policy "$SCOPE" --current-sections-json -) ``` The question-bank path for the resolved scope is resolved by `flowctl scope bank`, called when loading the question taxonomy: ```bash # Resolves to questions-business.md, questions-technical.md, or (for `both`) # the technical bank path (both-mode reads both banks). BANK_PATH=$("$FLOWCTL" scope bank "$SCOPE") ``` The full pass-aware behavior (loading the resolved bank, per-section writes that honor the policy, technical-pass-reads-business-sections-first) lives in the "Scope-aware pass behavior" section below. The skill MUST call these subcommands rather than re-implementing parse/policy logic inline. ### Parse `--docs` / `--no-docs` / `--strategy` / `--no-strategy` flags Strip the four doc-aware override flags from `$ARGUMENTS` before input-type detection so they don't get confused for a Flow ID or path: ```bash RAW_ARGS="$ARGUMENTS" DOC_AWARE_FORCE="" # "" = autodetect, "on" = forced on, "off" = forced off (controls glossary + decisions) STRATEGY_AWARE_FORCE="" # "" = autodetect, "on" = forced on, "off" = forced off (controls strategy independently) # Glossary + decisions: --docs / --no-docs (mutually exclusive; --no-docs wins) if [[ "$RAW_ARGS" == *"--no-docs"* ]]; then DOC_AWARE_FORCE="off" RAW_ARGS="${RAW_ARGS//--no-docs/}" elif [[ "$RAW_ARGS" == *"--docs"* ]]; then DOC_AWARE_FORCE="on" RAW_ARGS="${RAW_ARGS//--docs/}" fi # Strategy: explicit --strategy / --no-strategy always wins. Otherwise --docs / --no-docs cascades. # Order: explicit pair first (mutually exclusive; --no-strategy wins on conflict), then docs cascade. if [[ "$RAW_ARGS" == *"--no-strategy"* ]]; then STRATEGY_AWARE_FORCE="off" RAW_ARGS="${RAW_ARGS//--no-strategy/}" elif [[ "$RAW_ARGS" == *"--strategy"* ]]; then STRATEGY_AWARE_FORCE="on" RAW_ARGS="${RAW_ARGS//--strategy/}" elif [[ "$DOC_AWARE_FORCE" == "off" ]]; then # --no-docs alone cascades to strategy: matrix row 3 says all three off. STRATEGY_AWARE_FORCE="off" elif [[ "$DOC_AWARE_FORCE" == "on" ]]; then # --docs alone cascades to strategy: matrix row 2 says all three on. STRATEGY_AWARE_FORCE="on" fi RAW_ARGS=$(printf "%s" "$RAW_ARGS" | tr -s ' ' | sed 's/^ //;s/ $//') # RAW_ARGS now contains the Flow ID / file path / empty. ``` Each pair is mutually exclusive (the `if/elif` checks the negation first so it wins on conflict). The `--docs` / `--strategy` tokens get left in the residual `RAW_ARGS` after stripping, which surfaces downstream as an unrecognized argument — loud failure beats silent acceptance of conflicting state. **Flag matrix** — doc-aware flags (rows describe glossary / decisions / strategy gates): | Flags | Glossary | Decisions | Strategy | |-------|----------|-----------|----------| | (default) | autodetect | autodetect | autodetect | | `--docs` | on | on | on | | `--no-docs` | off | off | off | | `--no-docs --strategy` | off | off | on | | `--docs --no-strategy` | on | on | off | `--docs` / `--no-docs` cascade to strategy when no explicit `--strategy` / `--no-strategy` is passed (matrix rows 2 + 3). Explicit `--strategy` / `--no-strategy` always wins (matrix rows 4 + 5) and is the only way to drive a different value into strategy than into glossary + decisions. The matrix is the contract. **Scope x doc/strategy** — the `--scope` axis is orthogonal to the doc-aware matrix above. Each row of this table is a valid combination: | Scope | Doc-aware default | Pass behavior | |-------|------------------|---------------| | `--scope=technical` (default, also `--tech`) | autodetect cascade above runs | tech-owned sections (Architecture / API Contracts / Edge Cases / verifiable AC); preserves biz sections byte-for-byte; reads biz sections when populated, silent when absent | | `--scope=business` (also `--biz`) | autodetect cascade still runs; doc-awareness does NOT auto-activate from biz pass alone (`R26` adds project-docs investigation independently) | biz-owned sections (Goal & Context / Boundaries / outcome AC / `### Motivation`); preserves tech sections byte-for-byte; writes placeholder `*Pending technical-scope interview pass.*` ONLY under EMPTY tech sections | | `--scope=both` | autodetect cascade runs | runs biz pass first, then tech pass; same merge contract applies in each phase | R26 project-docs investigation is gated on `SCOPE=business` (and the biz-pass phase of `both`) — runs BEFORE drafting the first biz question, regardless of doc-aware autodetect state. ### Doc-aware autodetect Decide whether doc-aware mode (behaviors a-e below) activates. `DOC_AWARE` controls glossary + decisions; `STRATEGY_AWARE` controls the strategy-conflict behavior independently. Each has three paths (forced-on / forced-off / autodetect) per the flag matrix above. ```bash # DOC_AWARE: glossary + decisions DOC_AWARE=0 if [[ "$DOC_AWARE_FORCE" == "on" ]]; then DOC_AWARE=1 elif [[ "$DOC_AWARE_FORCE" == "off" ]]; then DOC_AWARE=0 else TERMS=$("$FLOWCTL" glossary list --json 2>/dev/null | jq -r '.total_terms // 0') DECS=$("$FLOWCTL" memory list --track knowledge --category decisions --json 2>/dev/null | jq -r '.entries | length // 0') if [[ "${TERMS:-0}" -gt 0 || "${DECS:-0}" -gt 0 ]]; then DOC_AWARE=1 fi fi # STRATEGY_AWARE: strategy (independent of DOC_AWARE — autodetects on its own signal) STRATEGY_AWARE=0 if [[ "$STRATEGY_AWARE_FORCE" == "on" ]]; then STRATEGY_AWARE=1 elif [[ "$STRATEGY_AWARE_FORCE" == "off" ]]; then STRATEGY_AWARE=0 else STRAT_FILLED=$("$FLOWCTL" strategy status --json 2>/dev/null | jq -r '.sections_filled // 0') if [[ "${STRAT_FILLED:-0}" -ge 1 ]]; then STRATEGY_AWARE=1 fi fi ``` The default-autodetect rule is: doc-aware mode activates when **any** of three conditions has signal — `glossary.total_terms > 0` (a) OR a decision entry exists (b) OR `strategy.sections_filled >= 1` (c). The two flag pairs (`--docs` / `--no-docs` and `--strategy` / `--no-strategy`) override (a)+(b) and (c) independently per the matrix above. **Why `total_terms > 0` and `sections_filled >= 1` rather than `[[ -f ]]`:** `flowctl glossary remove` leaves a `# Glossary` H1 husk after the last term is removed; `flowctl strategy` leaves a frontmatter-plus-H1 husk under the same R18 invariant. Both files are project state, intentionally retained. A presence-only check would false-positive on an empty husk and surface phantom doc-aware questions when no canonical vocabulary / strategic intent is actually defined. `glossary list --json` and `strategy status --json` walk the file and count populated entries; both report zero for a husk. When `DOC_AWARE=1`, behaviors (a)-(d) below layer onto the standard interview workflow. When `STRATEGY_AWARE=1`, behavior (e) layers on. When both are 0, the interview proceeds exactly as today. ## Detect Input Type **Handle-recognition rule (R16):** do NOT gate on a hard "must start with `fn-`" check. Before treating a single-token arg as a file path or freeform, route it through `$FLOWCTL show --json` — flowctl's widened resolver (fn-52.10) maps a tracker key (`wor-17` / `wor-17.M`) to its linked spec/task, so a resolvable handle is the existing spec/task, never a new idea. Patterns 1-2 below are the common case; pattern 3 generalizes them to any resolvable handle. 1. **Flow spec ID pattern**: matches `fn-\d+(-[a-z0-9-]+)?` (e.g., fn-1-add-oauth, fn-12, fn-2-fix-login-bug) - Fetch: `$FLOWCTL show --json` - Read spec: `$FLOWCTL cat ` 2. **Flow task ID pattern**: matches `fn-\d+(-[a-z0-9-]+)?\.\d+` (e.g., fn-1-add-oauth.3, fn-12.5) - Fetch: `$FLOWCTL show --json` - Read spec: `$FLOWCTL cat ` - Also get parent spec context: `$FLOWCTL cat ` 3. **Resolvable tracker handle**: any single-token arg (not an `.md` path) that `$FLOWCTL show --json` resolves — e.g. a Linear key `wor-17` (spec) or `wor-17.3` (task). Use the canonical id from the JSON; a `.`-containing handle is a task (fetch parent spec too), otherwise a spec. Treat exactly like patterns 1-2; never re-create. 4. **File path**: a path-like token / `.md` extension that does NOT resolve via `flowctl show` - Read file contents - If file doesn't exist, ask user to provide valid path ## Interview Process **CRITICAL REQUIREMENT**: You MUST use the `AskUserQuestion` tool for every question. - DO NOT output questions as text - DO NOT list questions in your response - ONLY ask questions via AskUserQuestion tool 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 AskUserQuestion tool with question and options. ### Question Format: Lead with Recommendation Every `AskUserQuestion` 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"). Call `ToolSearch` with `select:AskUserQuestion` first if its schema isn't loaded. 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 `AskUserQuestion` 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-shared.md](questions-shared.md) **Pre-Question Taxonomy** (hoisted out of the per-scope banks so both biz and tech reference the same classifier): - **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. - **Glossary-lookup-answerable** (`DOC_AWARE=1` only) — terms with a canonical entry in the nearest-ancestor `GLOSSARY.md` → silently resolve from the entry; log to spec's `## Glossary Conflicts` section only when the user's wording diverges from canonical AND the term is load-bearing (see behavior (a) below). - **User-judgment-required** ("what should exist / what tradeoff to make / what priority") → ask via `AskUserQuestion`. If you find yourself answering a "should" question via grep, that's the bug. Stop and ask the user. #### Code-versus-assertion contradiction (`DOC_AWARE=1` — behavior (c)) When grep / Read reveals the code disagrees with something the user asserted ("we already have X at path Y" but Y is gone, or "the auth flow uses OAuth" but the code uses API keys), do **not** silently log under `## Resolved via Codebase`. Surface the contradiction as an `AskUserQuestion`: - **header**: `Code mismatch?` - **body**: `Code shows at ; you said . Recommended: . Confidence: [].` - **options**: frozen — `match-code` (revise spec to align with what's there), `update-code` (treat the assertion as the goal; flag the divergence as a task), `clarify` (user explains; agent re-investigates with new context). Confidence tier: `[high]` when grep evidence is unambiguous (file does not exist, function signature is clearly different); `[judgment-call]` when interpretation is at play (similar names, partial overlap, recent rename). Never silently pick a side — the user owns the resolution. The bar for surfacing: a meaningful contradiction that affects spec correctness. If the user says "the validator returns boolean" and grep shows it returns `Result`, surface. If the user paraphrases a function's role and grep shows the role matches but the implementation differs in unrelated detail, log under `## Resolved via Codebase` and move on. ## Scope-aware pass behavior The interview runs in one of three scoped modes resolved by `flowctl scope resolve` (above). Each scope writes a different set of sections back to the spec and reads a different set as context. The full merge contract — which sections each pass writes, which it preserves byte-for-byte, and how `## Decision Context` H3 promotion works — is computed by `flowctl scope write-policy` (called BEFORE any markdown edit). The structural canon for sections is `plugins/flow-next/templates/spec.md` (per R17 — never re-embed the section list inline; cross-link the template). ### Compute the write policy Before writing anything back, build the current-sections-state JSON from the existing spec markdown (or an empty object for new specs) and call `scope write-policy`. The policy result tells you which sections are writable, which are preserved, and how to handle the `## Decision Context` substructure conditional. **One policy call per pass** — when `SCOPE == both`, compute the biz policy first, run the biz pass, then **recompute** the current-sections state from the post-biz-pass result and compute a fresh technical policy for phase 2. A single pre-edit policy call for `both` cannot correctly decide tech-pass `Decision Context` shape (the biz pass may have promoted FLAT → substructured) or tech-pass placeholder replacement (biz pass may have written `*Pending technical-scope interview pass.*` under empty tech sections that the tech pass must now overwrite). ```bash # Build CURRENT_SECTIONS by inspecting the existing spec markdown: # decision_context_has_h3: spec has `### Motivation` / `### Implementation Tradeoffs` under `## Decision Context` # biz_pass_ran: spec has populated `## Goal & Context` body OR a `### Motivation` H3 # tech_sections_have_content: per-tech-section {name: bool} for whether the body has content # beyond the placeholder `*Pending technical-scope interview pass.*` # # For a brand-new spec (no markdown yet), CURRENT_SECTIONS='{}' is fine. CURRENT_SECTIONS='{"decision_context_has_h3": , "biz_pass_ran": , "tech_sections_have_content": {"Architecture & Data Models": , "API Contracts": , "Edge Cases & Constraints": }}' # For SCOPE == business or SCOPE == technical: one call. WRITE_POLICY=$(printf '%s' "$CURRENT_SECTIONS" | "$FLOWCTL" scope write-policy "$SCOPE" --current-sections-json -) # For SCOPE == both: TWO calls — biz first, then recompute state + tech. # # BIZ_POLICY=$(printf '%s' "$CURRENT_SECTIONS" | "$FLOWCTL" scope write-policy business --current-sections-json -) # # ... run biz pass, write biz sections (in memory or to disk) ... # # Rebuild CURRENT_SECTIONS_AFTER_BIZ from the post-biz state — biz_pass_ran=true, # # decision_context_has_h3 likely true now (Motivation H3 written), placeholder lines # # under empty tech sections counted as "no content" for tech-pass overwrite logic: # CURRENT_SECTIONS_AFTER_BIZ='{"decision_context_has_h3": true, "biz_pass_ran": true, "tech_sections_have_content": {"Architecture & Data Models": , ...}}' # TECH_POLICY=$(printf '%s' "$CURRENT_SECTIONS_AFTER_BIZ" | "$FLOWCTL" scope write-policy technical --current-sections-json -) # # ... run tech pass under TECH_POLICY ... ``` The policy JSON shape: ```json { "scope": "business|technical|both", "writable": ["
"], "preserved": [""], "decision_context": { "shape": "flat|substructured", "writable_h3": ["

"], "preserved_h3": ["

"], "promote_flat_to_implementation_tradeoffs": }, "placeholder_write": [""] } ``` ### Load the right question bank Resolve the question-bank file path via `flowctl scope bank`: ```bash # Resolves to questions-business.md (biz), questions-technical.md (tech), or # questions-technical.md (both — the technical bank is loaded for the tech # phase; biz phase loads questions-business.md when it runs). BANK_PATH=$("$FLOWCTL" scope bank "$SCOPE") ``` When `$SCOPE` is `business` or `both`, load `questions-business.md` for the biz phase questions. When `$SCOPE` is `technical` or `both`, load `questions-technical.md` for the tech phase. Both banks reference `questions-shared.md` for the `Pre-Question Taxonomy` and `Interview Guidelines` blocks — read the shared file first so the classifier applies symmetrically across passes. ### Auxiliary-sections rule (applies to every pass) The auxiliary sections — `Strategy Alignment` / `Strategy Conflicts` / `Glossary Conflicts` / `Conversation Evidence` / `Resolved via Codebase` / `Resolved via Project Docs` — are preserved byte-for-byte across passes and scope changes: no pass deletes or rewrites an auxiliary section another pass wrote. Each pass only ADDS its own: the biz pass adds `Resolved via Project Docs`; the tech pass adds `Resolved via Codebase`. ### Business pass (`SCOPE == business`, or first phase of `both`) Run BEFORE the first AskUserQuestion call: 1. **Project-docs investigation (R26)** — see "Investigate Project Docs Before Asking (business pass)" below. Symmetric to the codebase-investigation rule for the tech pass. Items resolved by docs land in `## Resolved via Project Docs`. The user is NOT asked about things the project docs already define. 2. **Draft only user-judgment-required biz questions** — load `questions-business.md` for the question taxonomy. Walk problem framing, target user/persona, success metrics, MVP boundary, business constraints, what-not-to-build, prioritization rationale, business risks, UX expectations. Per-section write behavior (per the write-policy): - **Writable biz sections** (`Goal & Context`, `Boundaries`, outcome-AC, `### Motivation` under `## Decision Context`): write/refine from interview answers. - **Preserved tech sections** (`Architecture & Data Models`, `API Contracts`, `Edge Cases & Constraints`): MUST be preserved byte-for-byte. If a tech section is EMPTY (listed in `placeholder_write`), write the placeholder line `*Pending technical-scope interview pass.*` under its heading so the read-back makes the intentional emptiness visible. If a tech section has content, leave it untouched (refine-mode for a re-run on an already-tech-populated spec). - **`## Decision Context`** (per `decision_context` shape): - When `shape == "substructured"` and `promote_flat_to_implementation_tradeoffs == true` (FLAT body exists from a prior tech-only pass): promote the existing flat body byte-for-byte into a new `### Implementation Tradeoffs` H3 (preserve the prose verbatim — same content, just under a new H3), and write the new `### Motivation` H3 as a sibling. - When `shape == "substructured"` and `promote_flat_to_implementation_tradeoffs == false` (H3s already exist): preserve `### Implementation Tradeoffs` byte-for-byte; write/refine ONLY `### Motivation`. - **`## Acceptance Criteria`**: append outcome-AC R-IDs (R-IDs are append-only across passes per fn-29 rules — never renumber, never replace; take the next unused number). - **Auxiliary sections**: preserve byte-for-byte per the auxiliary-sections rule above; biz pass adds `Resolved via Project Docs` only. ### Technical pass (`SCOPE == technical`, default; or second phase of `both`) Run BEFORE the first AskUserQuestion call: 1. **Read biz sections when populated** — if `## Goal & Context`, `## Boundaries`, `### Motivation` (under `## Decision Context`), or outcome-AC R-IDs are populated, read them as constraint context. Cite them in the interview opener (e.g., "Reading from the existing business layer: target user is X, MVP boundary excludes Y. Tech questions below..."). When biz sections are absent (default solo-dev 1.0.2-shape spec), proceed silently with technical-only questions — no opener about missing biz context. 2. **Codebase investigation** — existing "Investigate Codebase Before Asking" rule applies unchanged. Items resolved via Read/Grep/Glob land in `## Resolved via Codebase`. Per-section write behavior (per the write-policy): - **Writable tech sections** (`Architecture & Data Models`, `API Contracts`, `Edge Cases & Constraints`, verifiable-AC): write/refine from interview answers. May overwrite `*Pending technical-scope interview pass.*` placeholder strings. - **Preserved biz sections** (`Goal & Context`, `Boundaries`): MUST be preserved byte-for-byte. - **`## Decision Context`** (per `decision_context` shape): - When `shape == "flat"` (no H3s exist, no biz pass has run — default zero-flag-tech case on a fresh/legacy spec): write/refine the flat body in place. Do NOT introduce `### Motivation` / `### Implementation Tradeoffs` H3 substructure. Preserves R22 1.0.2 backward compat. - When `shape == "substructured"` (`### Motivation` already exists from a prior biz pass, or the existing spec has the substructure): preserve `### Motivation` body byte-for-byte; write/refine ONLY `### Implementation Tradeoffs`. - **`## Acceptance Criteria`**: append verifiable-AC R-IDs (R-IDs are append-only — never renumber). - **Auxiliary sections**: preserve byte-for-byte per the auxiliary-sections rule above; tech pass adds `Resolved via Codebase` only. ### Both pass (`SCOPE == both`) Runs biz pass first, then tech pass in the same skill invocation. Each phase enforces its own merge contract: 1. **Phase 1: biz pass** — runs the full biz-pass workflow above. Writes biz sections; preserves any pre-existing tech sections byte-for-byte (with placeholder lines under empty tech sections). 2. **Phase 2: tech pass** — runs the full tech-pass workflow above using the just-written biz output as in-memory context. Reads biz sections, cites them in the opener, writes tech sections, preserves biz sections byte-for-byte. Auxiliary sections are preserved across both phases per the auxiliary-sections rule above. If the user interrupts between phase 1 and phase 2, the biz sections are written but the tech sections retain placeholder lines. Re-running `--scope=technical` later completes the spec. ### Investigate Project Docs Before Asking (business pass — R26) Symmetric to the "Investigate Codebase Before Asking" rule for the tech pass (above, under "Interview Process"). When `SCOPE == business` (or the biz phase of `both`), the agent MUST investigate project documentation BEFORE drafting any biz question. Read — in order, with the bounded reads called out so this doesn't balloon into a multi-hour scan: 1. `README.md` (repo root) — full read. 2. `CHANGELOG.md` (or project-equivalent release notes — `RELEASES.md`, `HISTORY.md`) — full read. 3. `STRATEGY.md` (repo root) — full read. 4. `GLOSSARY.md` (repo root) — full read. 5. `knowledge/decisions/` (or `.flow/memory/knowledge/decisions/` — `flowctl memory list --track knowledge --category decisions --json` enumerates entries) — read the table-of-contents + first paragraph of each of the most-recent 10 entries (NOT full bodies; the first paragraph carries the decision; deeper drill-down is on-demand). 6. `.flow/specs/` index (`flowctl specs --json` lists open specs) — scan titles + status; full-read only specs whose titles plausibly overlap the current spec's domain. 7. `docs/` directory (if present at repo root) — scan filenames; full-read only files whose names plausibly overlap. Classify biz questions via the **Pre-Question Taxonomy** before asking: - **Project-docs-answerable** ("what does the strategy say / what does CHANGELOG show we've already shipped / what does GLOSSARY define the canonical term as / what decision did we record for X") → resolve from the docs; log to spec's `## Resolved via Project Docs` section with `path:line` evidence (or `path` + section heading when line numbers are noisy). - **User-judgment-required** ("what should our success metric be / what's MVP scope / what should we explicitly NOT build") → ask via `AskUserQuestion`. If you find yourself asking the user a biz question that README/CHANGELOG/STRATEGY already answers, that's the bug. Stop and resolve from docs. Symmetric form of the existing "if you find yourself answering a 'should' question via grep, that's the bug" rule. The `## Resolved via Project Docs` section is auxiliary and biz-pass-only (parallel to `## Resolved via Codebase` for the tech pass). Preserved across scope changes per the auxiliary-sections rule above. ## Doc-aware behaviors Five behaviors layer onto the standard interview workflow when their respective gate is open: - Behaviors (a)-(d) are gated on `DOC_AWARE=1` (glossary + decisions signal). When `DOC_AWARE=0`, skip them. - Behavior (e) is gated on `STRATEGY_AWARE=1` (strategy signal). When `STRATEGY_AWARE=0`, skip it. The two gates are independent (see flag matrix above) — `DOC_AWARE` and `STRATEGY_AWARE` may differ within the same interview session. ### Behavior (a) — Phase-zero glossary scan Before drafting the first question batch, run a glossary scan against the user's request. ```bash "$FLOWCTL" glossary list --json ``` JSON shape: ```json { "groups": [ { "path": "GLOSSARY.md", "entries": [ { "term": "Worker", "definition": "...", "avoid": ["consumer"], "relates_to": ["Queue"] } ], "count": 1 } ], "file_count": 1, "total_terms": 1 } ``` For each defined term across `groups[].entries`, scan the user's request for occurrences. Term match is **case-insensitive whitespace-collapsed** — the same rule as `flowctl glossary read` (see `_glossary_term_matches` in `flowctl.py`). Do NOT reinvent matching logic; the canonical contract is "lowercase both sides, collapse runs of whitespace to single space, compare equal." Alias hits via `entries[].avoid`: if the user wrote `consumer` and the entry's `avoid` list contains `consumer`, that's a canonical-mismatch hit on `Worker`. For each hit, evaluate one filter before surfacing: - **Is the term load-bearing for this spec?** Casual passing mention does not trigger; mention that defines behavior or shapes acceptance does. The user wrote "the worker fetches the queue" mid-sentence about deployment — passing mention, no question. The user wrote "we need a new kind of worker that processes batches" — load-bearing, surface. When a hit passes the load-bearing filter AND the user's wording conflicts with canonical (alias used instead of canonical, or definition contradicts), surface as the **first interview question** via `AskUserQuestion`: - **header**: `Term mismatch?` - **body**: `You used ""; GLOSSARY.md defines "" as "". Recommended: . Confidence: [].` - **options**: frozen — `use-canonical` (the user meant the existing term; spec uses canonical wording), `redefine` (user is updating the term meaning; spec proceeds with new wording, agent will re-write `GLOSSARY.md` via `flowctl glossary add` after the interview), `this-is-different` (the words collide but the concepts differ; spec uses a fresh disambiguating term — capture in `## Glossary Conflicts`). Confidence tier: `[high]` when the canonical entry is recent and the user's wording cleanly maps to an `avoid` alias; `[judgment-call]` when meaning could plausibly have drifted; `[your-call]` when the term sits in user-domain territory the agent has no purchase on. **Throttle:** at most one Phase-zero glossary question per interview turn. If multiple terms hit, surface the most load-bearing one first; the rest fold into the natural conversation flow as they come up. Bombarding the user with vocabulary questions before the core spec questions is the failure mode this filter prevents. ### Behavior (b) — Fuzzy-term sharpening Across the conversation, watch for overloaded language — words the user keeps using whose meaning could plausibly shift between turns ("workflow", "session", "task" when a Flow `task` already has meaning, etc.). When you spot one: 1. Propose a canonical via `AskUserQuestion`: - **header**: `Sharpen ""?` - **body**: `You've used "" in turns. I'm reading it as "" but want to lock it in. Recommended: — . Confidence: [].` - **options**: 2-4 candidate canonical wordings + `none-of-these` (user provides their own). 2. On user-pick, build the resolved entry and write it to the nearest-ancestor `GLOSSARY.md` via `flowctl glossary add`: ```bash "$FLOWCTL" glossary add "" --definition-file - --json < EOF ``` Use `--definition-file -` (stdin) so multi-sentence definitions and quoted phrasing round-trip cleanly. `glossary add` is upsert — case-insensitive match replaces the existing entry in full; new terms append at the end of the file. If the user picked `redefine` in behavior (a), this is the same call site (one path, one upsert). 3. The next question can re-read the glossary. There is no in-memory cache to invalidate — re-read on every doc-aware turn that needs canonical lookup. The cost is one stat + one file read per turn; sub-millisecond at typical sizes. **When to skip behavior (b):** if a term is single-use, or if the user volunteered a clear definition the first time they used it, or if the conversation is short enough (≤6 turns) that consolidation buys nothing yet. The behavior triggers when overloading is real and persistent, not on every undefined word. ### Behavior (d) — Decision-record write (three-criteria gate) When the interview surfaces a choice the user is making — not just a fact about the system, a real **decision** — evaluate the three-criteria gate before drafting a memory entry. **The three-criteria gate** (all three must hold): 1. **Hard-to-reverse** — undoing this later costs more than redoing it now. Schema choices, public API shapes, integration boundaries qualify; cosmetic preferences and easily-toggled flags do not. 2. **Surprising-without-context** — a future maintainer reading the result without history would ask "why this and not the obvious thing?". Anything that follows the standard pattern of the surrounding code is not surprising. 3. **Real trade-off** — there was a genuine alternative that lost. If there was no real alternative, it isn't a decision; it's a fact. If any of the three fails, do NOT write a decision entry. Note the choice in the spec's prose body (e.g. `## Decision Context`) and move on. The bar exists because the decisions store decays fast when filled with non-decisions. When all three hold: 1. **Draft the entry** in agent memory (do not write yet). Shape: - **Title** (1 line, ≤80 chars): the decision in noun-phrase form (e.g. "Nearest-ancestor walk for glossary lookup"). - **Body** (1-3 sentences floor; longer when warranted): - 1 sentence on what was chosen. - 0-1 sentences on why. - Optional `## Considered Options` block listing rejected alternatives with one-line reasons each. - Optional `## Consequences` block listing what this commits the project to. - **Module** (optional): the file or subsystem the decision shapes. - **Tags** (optional): comma-separated, e.g. `glossary,resolution,walk`. 2. **Show the draft via `AskUserQuestion` before writing** — same pattern as `/flow-next:capture` Phase 4 read-back: - **header**: `Write decision?` - **body**: `Drafted decision entry: . Body: <one-line summary>. Recommended: approve — <one-sentence rationale why all three gate criteria hold>. Confidence: [<tier>].` - **options**: frozen — `approve` (write), `edit` (user revises title / body / module / tags via follow-up), `skip` (do not write; the choice stays in spec prose only). Show the full body inline in the question or in the message preceding it; the user must be able to read what they're approving. Never write silently — even when the gate cleanly passes, the user owns the final write. 3. **On `approve`**, call: ```bash "$FLOWCTL" memory add \ --track knowledge \ --category decisions \ --title "<title>" \ --module "<module>" \ --tags "<tags>" \ --body-file - <<EOF <body markdown> EOF ``` The `decisions` category is registered in flowctl's memory schema (Task 1 of the original decisions epic). Optional fields `--decision-status` (default `accepted`), `--superseded-by`, and `--alternatives-considered` are available; pass them when the conversation supplies them and skip otherwise. 4. **On `edit`**, ask one follow-up `AskUserQuestion` for which field changes (title / body / module / tags), capture the revision, re-show the draft, loop. Hard cap at 2 edit cycles before defaulting to `approve` / `skip`. 5. **On `skip`**, do nothing — the choice still appears in spec prose; only the memory entry is suppressed. **At most one decision write per interview turn.** Even if multiple gate-passing decisions surface, ask one at a time; subsequent asks adapt to the user's energy level for read-back. ### Behavior (e) — Code-versus-strategy contradiction (`STRATEGY_AWARE=1` only) Parallel structure to behavior (a) — Phase-zero glossary scan. Before drafting the first question batch in a `STRATEGY_AWARE=1` session, run a strategy scan …(truncated)