Hv Ship

Print the banner below verbatim before any other action — skip if dispatched as a subagent. See references/banner-preamble.md.

════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
  🚀  hv-ship  ·  bundle work into a PR or merge
  triggers: "ship it", "open the PR"  ·  pairs: hv-review
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Step 0 — Mode Dispatch

Read $ARGUMENTS (the slash-command's free-text args). Route on the first flag present:

In Normal Ship Mode, the final step (Step 8.6) inline-runs Docs Mode's after-work flow when docs.afterWork: true AND the post-cycle trigger fires — no separate skill dispatch.

--undo is terminal — it never falls through to Docs Mode auto-trigger (rolling back a cycle and then syncing docs would be incoherent).

hv-ship — Finish a Feature Branch

Configuration

Read .hv/config.json:

• work.mergeStrategy — "pr" or "direct" (falls back to asking if the key is unset)
• ship.review — true (default) runs /hv-review before integrating; false skips the review
• ship.secondOpinion — false (default) skips the fresh-eyes gate; true runs a no-prior-context adversarial review after /hv-review passes
• ship.qa — false (default) skips product QA; true runs /hv-qa run after /hv-review (and secondOpinion) and before merge/PR. Routed per qa.gate ("advisory" reports only; "blocking" halts on FAIL).
• autonomy.level — "off" (default), "auto", or "loop". Controls whether Step 8.5 (Learn) and Step 10 (Loop continuation) nudge or invoke directly.
• docs.path — relative path to the docs folder used by Docs Mode (default "docs")
• docs.autoCreate — whether Docs Mode's after-work flow auto-writes without per-batch approval (default false)
• docs.afterWork — whether /hv-work Step 13.6 and /hv-ship Step 8.6 trigger Docs Mode's after-work flow (default false)

When to Use

• Feature branch has 1+ commits, work is done, you want to integrate
• After /hv-work finished with mergeStrategy: "pr" and you want to open the PR now
• Any branch you want reviewed + merged/pushed in one pass

When NOT to Use

• Work is still in progress → finish implementing via /hv-work
• Nothing committed yet → clean up, then come back
• You want to resume a paused branch → /hv-next

Step 1 — Preflight

.hv/bin/hv-preflight

See docs/reference/preflight.md for exit-code handling.

Confirm a feature branch is checked out:

.hv/bin/hv-guard-feature-branch

Exit 1 (with the helper's stderr message naming the base branch) means the user is on main/master/trunk (or the configured base) — pass the message through and stop. Exit 0 means a feature branch is checked out; continue.

Initialize task list. Follow the canonical pattern in references/task-list-init.md — load TaskCreate(…) via ToolSearch select:TaskCreate,TaskUpdate if needed, then create one task per phase below.

Phases:

1. Preflight & branch check — feature branch confirmed, not on main (Step 1)
2. Extract commits & items — branch range read, item IDs resolved (Step 2)
3. Review — /hv-review runs when ship.review: true (Step 3)
4. Second-opinion gate — fresh-eyes adversarial review when ship.secondOpinion: true (Step 3.5)
5. QA gate — product /hv-qa run when ship.qa: true (Step 3.75)
6. CONCERNS routing — verdict-gated branch selection (Step 4)
7. Merge or PR — integration via hv-merge or hv-pr (Steps 5–8)
8. Report & nudges — summary + post-cycle nudges (Steps 9–10)

Step 2 — Scope the Work

Resolve the active entry's repo (umbrella mode; empty in single-repo projects):

REPO=$(.hv/bin/hv-status-repo-for <branch>)

Single-repo:

.hv/bin/hv-review-scope <branch>

Umbrella mode (when $REPO is non-empty):

.hv/bin/hv-review-scope --repo "$REPO" <branch>

Emits JSON with commits, touched files, referenced IDs, and matched TODO entries. Keep the JSON in memory — Step 4 needs it.

If commitCount is 0, tell the user the branch has no commits beyond the base and stop.

Step 3 — Review (opt-in)

Read ship.review from .hv/config.json. Default true.

If enabled, invoke hv-review via the Skill tool for this branch. The review brief carries the silent-failure-hunter rubric (references/silent-failure-hunter.md) as the silent-failure rubric item (the dedicated SILENT-FAIL check in /hv-review's Stage 2 brief) — SILENT-FAIL flags surface as CONCERNS in the same verdict block as intent / convention / quality concerns; no separate dispatch. Route on the returned verdict per references/review-verdict-routing.md — short summary:

• PASS → continue to Step 4.
• CONCERNS → surface each concern, then branch on autonomy.level:
  • "off" or "auto" — ask via AskUserQuestion with three options (Address via /hv-work Recommended / Ship anyway / Stop). See the reference for the canonical option labels, descriptions, and plain-text fallback.
  • "loop" — silently auto-pick "Address via /hv-work (Recommended)": invoke hv-work via the Skill tool with the concerns as the brief, then re-invoke /hv-ship once the fixes are committed. Per the authoring convention "routine routing/tagging auto-picks Recommended in loop mode" (see references/authoring-conventions.md rule #5). A review FAIL still stops the loop unconditionally as a guard failure.
• FAIL → stop. Surface the findings. Let the user fix and rerun /hv-ship.

Capture the choice. When the verdict is CONCERNS and the user picks via AskUserQuestion, remember the answer in this cycle's working state as REVIEW_CHOICE (one of address, ship-anyway, stop). Step 3.5 reads REVIEW_CHOICE to skip the second-opinion gate when the user already accepted CONCERNS; Step 9 reads it to decide whether to append the "concerns the user proceeded through" line. Loop mode auto-picks address per the verdict-routing reference.

If ship.review is false, skip this step.

Step 3.5 — Second-Opinion Gate (opt-in)

Read ship.secondOpinion from .hv/config.json. Default false. If false, skip this step entirely.

When true, dispatch a fresh subagent with no prior conversation context and give it only the diff plus the stated goal. The /hv-review reviewer (Step 3) shares context with the work it produced — the same conventions, the same KNOWLEDGE bullets, the same plan. A reviewer with that context naturalizes blind spots. A reviewer without it must reason from the diff alone, catching what the contextualized reviewer normalized.

Skip the gate when any of these apply (no work to second-opinion):

• Step 3 was skipped (ship.review: false) AND the user hasn't explicitly asked for a second opinion this session — the trade-off is the user already opted out of pre-merge review.
• Step 3 returned FAIL — already stopped above.
• Step 3 returned CONCERNS and REVIEW_CHOICE == ship-anyway — they already accepted residual risk; a second adversarial pass would re-litigate the decision.

Otherwise, run the gate:

.hv/bin/hv-second-opinion-brief [--repo "$REPO"] <branch>

(Pass --repo "$REPO" in umbrella mode using the value from Step 2.)

The helper emits a markdown brief that includes only the goal (resolved item titles + their TODO entry text), the commit list, and per-file diff content — no KNOWLEDGE, no DECISIONS, no plan, no conventions. That minimal context is the entire point.

Dispatch the brief to a fresh subagent:

• Agent tool, subagent_type: "general-purpose" (default — fresh context, no inherited project memory)
• model: "sonnet" — the MVP is same-model-fresh-context per F04's note that cross-model (Codex/Gemini) is the gold standard but not the cheap MVP
• Prompt: the brief's stdout verbatim
• description: "Second-opinion review of <branch>"

The agent returns a markdown report. Parse the last non-empty line for the all-caps verdict (PASS / CONCERNS / FAIL).

Route the verdict per references/review-verdict-routing.md — same contract as Step 3:

• PASS → continue to Step 4 silently.
• CONCERNS → surface each concern with the label "Second-opinion concerns" (per the carrier-label convention in references/review-verdict-routing.md), then route per the reference's Consumer routing table.
• FAIL → stop. Surface the findings. The user fixes via /hv-work or /hv-debug and reruns /hv-ship. Loop mode treats a second-opinion FAIL as a guard failure (loop stops), same as a /hv-review FAIL.

The gate runs after Step 3 because there's no point burning a second-opinion roundtrip on a diff that already failed the contextualized review. It runs before Step 4 because surfaced concerns may change the PR body's framing.

Step 3.75 — QA Gate (opt-in)

Read ship.qa from .hv/config.json. Default false. If false, skip this step entirely.

/hv-review (Step 3) and the second-opinion gate (Step 3.5) answer "does the diff make sense" — both reason from commits and diff. They do not run the product. /hv-qa answers the orthogonal question — "does the product actually work" — by executing the per-target strategy in .hv/qa/<target>.md (Playwright, smoke, lighthouse, axe, ZAP, contract tests, whatever the target's strategy declares). The two gates are deliberately separate; this step layers QA in after diff-level review without merging them.

Skip the gate when any of these apply (no work to QA, or already short-circuited):

• Step 3 returned FAIL — already stopped above.
• Step 3 returned CONCERNS and REVIEW_CHOICE == ship-anyway — the user already accepted residual risk; QA findings on the same diff are unlikely to change that decision. Loop mode picks address instead, which never reaches this step.
• .hv/qa/ is empty for the active target (single-repo: no .hv/qa/*.md; umbrella: no .hv/qa/<REPO>.md) — surface a one-line note "ship.qa: true but no QA strategy for <scope>. Run /hv-qa first-run to bootstrap, or set ship.qa: false to skip." and continue to Step 4 without running QA.

Otherwise, invoke /hv-qa run via the Skill tool, scoped to the resolved repo in umbrella mode:

• Single-repo: Skill(skill="hv-skills:hv-qa", args="run").
• Umbrella: Skill(skill="hv-skills:hv-qa", args="run --repo $REPO").

/hv-qa emits one of three verdicts on its final line, all caps — PASS, CONCERNS, or FAIL. Route per references/review-verdict-routing.md, gated by qa.gate:

Surface QA concerns with the carrier label "QA concerns:" per references/review-verdict-routing.md (Carrier-label override) — keeps them visually distinct from /hv-review concerns and second-opinion concerns in a single ship pass.

The gate runs after Step 3.5 because there's no point spinning up infra-bound QA runs on a diff that the contextualized or fresh-eyes reviewers already failed. It runs before Step 4 because QA findings may change the PR body's framing (test-plan adjustments, follow-up tasks). When INFRA-FAIL returns from /hv-qa (dev server / creds / binary missing), treat it as advisory — surface the missing requirements as a note and continue. QA can't run, but ship shouldn't break because the dev server happened to be down.

Step 4 — Build the PR Body

.hv/bin/hv-ship-body <branch>

Prints ## Summary and ## Items resolved. Capture the output, then append a ## Test plan section — 2-5 checkboxes, one per meaningful area (not per file), built from the scope JSON's touched files. Example:

## Test plan

- [ ] Start/stop the timer and confirm badge updates
- [ ] Switch between projects with Cmd+Tab

If a scope area is unclear, pick the most visible behavior change. Don't pad with generic checks.

Run the self-audit before Step 5. The PR body lands on GitHub/GitLab and stays in the PR history; the ## Summary text is the first thing a reviewer reads. Apply the rule sheet and self-audit pass in references/humanizing-prose.md to the assembled body silently — show the post-audit draft, not the pre-audit one.

Step 5 — Pick Strategy

Check work.mergeStrategy in .hv/config.json.

• If set to "direct" or "pr" and the user hasn't explicitly overridden in this session, use it silently and skip to Step 6a or 6b accordingly.
• If unset, or the user said something that suggests the other option, ask via AskUserQuestion using the Strategy picker shape in references/merge-strategy-gate.md (Header "Strategy", Question "How should I integrate <branch>?", two options with the matching strategy marked (Recommended)).

Plain-text fallback: "Ship <branch> as a PR or direct merge?" — see references/ask-user-question-fallback.md for canonical fallback mechanics.

Step 6a — Open a PR

Manual gate — filing a public artifact. Opening a PR creates externally-visible state. This step is always manual — never auto-invoked, regardless of autonomy.level. The orchestrator may compose the title and body and run the AskUserQuestion prompt in Step 5 (Pick Strategy), but the user presses the button there before this step runs. See references/manual-gates.md.

printf '%s' "$BODY" | .hv/bin/hv-pr <branch> "<short title>"

Title rules and helper behavior — see references/merge-strategy-gate.md (Open a PR). Share the PR URL with the user.

Step 6b — Direct Merge

printf 'merge: <summary>\n\n- item 1\n- item 2\n' | .hv/bin/hv-merge <branch>

Helper behavior — see references/merge-strategy-gate.md (Direct merge). Share the hash with the user.

Step 6c — Close Upstream Issues (Direct-Push Path)

This step runs only on the direct-merge path (after hv-merge returns a commit hash). Skip entirely on the PR path — hv-ship-body already emits Closes #N lines into the PR body, and GitHub/GitLab auto-close the issues on PR merge.

1. Identify candidates.

From the scope JSON's referencedIds (already in memory from Step 2), call:

.hv/bin/hv-issues-imported --open-only

--open-only drops entries whose upstream issue is already closed so the gate doesn't surface no-ops. Parse the JSON array; filter to entries whose item_id is in the shipped item list (the resolved IDs from Step 2). If the filtered list is empty, skip the rest of this step silently.

2. Manual gate.

Manual gate — closing public upstream issues. Closing the issues posts a tracking comment and changes their state on the remote — externally-visible. This step is always manual — never auto-invoked, regardless of autonomy.level. The merge already happened; this step decides whether to close the upstream issues too. See references/manual-gates.md.

3. Ask the user.

Invoke AskUserQuestion (single-select, ≤4 options):

• Header: "Close"
• Question: "Close N upstream issue(s) tied to the shipped items? (<comma-separated list of #N>)"
• Options: "Yes, close all", "Pick subset", "No, leave open"

This gate is always manual — never auto-picked in loop mode. Stop the loop here and wait for the user's answer.

4. On "Yes, close all": dispatch parallel hv-issues-close calls (one per candidate, all in a single batch of tool calls):

.hv/bin/hv-issues-close --issue <N> --commit <merge-sha> --item <ID> [--repo <name>]

Pass --repo only in umbrella mode ($REPO non-empty from Step 2).

5. On "Pick subset": invoke a second AskUserQuestion (multiSelect, ≤4 candidates per call; chunk if N>4):

• Header: "Pick issues"
• Question: "Which issue(s) should be closed?"
• Options: one entry per candidate formatted as "#N (item <ID>)"

Then dispatch parallel hv-issues-close calls for each selected entry as in step 4.

6. On "No, leave open": print:

Skipping upstream issue close — N issue(s) left open. Run `gh issue close <N>` / `glab issue close <N>` manually if desired.

Step 7 — Update Status

Single-repo:

.hv/bin/hv-status-remove <branch>

Umbrella mode (reuse $REPO from Step 2; re-derive if out of scope):

.hv/bin/hv-status-remove --repo "$REPO" <branch>

Without --repo, the helper preserves umbrella-tagged entries (only legacy repo: null rows are removed) — so umbrella waves MUST pass --repo here or the active entry leaks into the next /hv-next.

Silently clears the entry if one existed. Harmless if not.

Step 8 — Mark Unfinished Items Complete

Most IDs are already completed by /hv-work. This catches manual commits that referenced IDs without closing them.

For each ID in the scope JSON's referencedIds:

.hv/bin/hv-complete <ID> <merge-or-last-commit-hash>

hv-complete is idempotent — already-completed IDs silent no-op, only typos (IDs absent from BACKLOG.md entirely) produce an error. No grep needed.

Step 8.5 — Learn (Nudge or Auto-Invoke)

Integration is a natural capture moment — the user just finished a cohesive unit of work and is about to move on, so session-specific insights are maximally fresh.

Run the post-cycle choreography in references/post-cycle-trigger-gate.md with these parameters:

• Nudge ("off"): append one line to the Step 9 report — "Capture learnings before context fades? Run /hv-learn — this cycle has the fresh session context."
• Target ("auto"/"loop"): dispatch hv-learn via Skill immediately — no prompt, no confirmation, no "want me to" question.
• Brief: the resolved IDs and touched files.

Step 8.6 — Docs After-Work (inline)

Run the post-cycle choreography in references/post-cycle-trigger-gate.md — inline variant — with these parameters:

• Config flag: docs.afterWork (default false). Users opt in via /hv-config or by running /hv-ship --docs manually once.
• On trigger: inline-run Docs Mode's after-work flow — Steps D-A1 through D-A6 in this file. Do not dispatch a separate skill; the docs flow is part of /hv-ship. No autonomy.level branch here — Step D-A5's approval gate is the user checkpoint.
• Context: the resolved item IDs and touched files from the cycle's scope JSON.

If <docs.path>/ doesn't exist or is empty, the after-work flow self-skips (printing a one-line "not yet initialized" notice) — no extra check needed here.

Step 9 — Report to User

One compact block.

PR flow:

PR opened: https://github.com/.../pull/42
Title: fix: timer badge and quick-switch overlay
Resolved: [B01] [F03]

Direct-merge flow:

Merged `hv/demo` into main — commit a1b2c3d
Resolved: [B01] [F03]

If REVIEW_CHOICE == ship-anyway, append the concerns one-liner at the end of the report.

Step 9.5 — Release Nudge

After every successful ship, surface unreleased-commit accumulation so the user can decide whether to cut a release before moving on.

.hv/bin/hv-release-pending

Parse the JSON. If shouldNudge is false, skip silently. If lastTag is empty (no release ever cut), skip silently — the first release is the user's call.

When the nudge fires, append the helper's message field as one line in the Step 9 report block (after Resolved: [...]). The helper renders the phrasing; the skill just prints it.

This step runs after BOTH PR and direct-merge flows; the trigger is "ship completed", not the integration mechanism.

Skip silently if /hv-review FAILed (Step 3) and the ship was halted — there's nothing to release that hasn't already been released.

Step 10 — Loop Continuation

Only when autonomy.level == "loop". After the report, dispatch hv-next via Skill immediately — no prompt, no confirmation. /hv-next reads autonomy and auto-dispatches /hv-work. Loop stops naturally when /hv-next reports an empty backlog, a guard fails, or the user interrupts.

Undo Mode (--undo)

Entered via /hv-ship --undo. The inverse of /hv-work's commit + completion steps: reset the most recent merge: … commit on the base branch and restore the resolved items as TODO entries under their original type sections. The safe default is dry-run — every invocation previews what would change before touching anything. PR-mode cycles are refused with a manual-recovery pointer (the merge happened upstream, not locally). Post-merge commits on the base branch are refused by default; --allow-post-merge is opt-in. The confirmation gate is manual and never auto-picked in loop mode — git reset --hard is destructive past git reflog's window.

The /hv-ship banner already printed at Step 0; Undo Mode runs from the same skill invocation.

Initialize task list. Follow the canonical pattern in references/task-list-init.md — load TaskCreate(…) via ToolSearch select:TaskCreate,TaskUpdate if needed, then create one task per phase below.

Phases:

1. Detect cycle — most recent merge: commit on base branch identified (Step U1 dry-run)
2. Surface preview — dry-run output rendered verbatim to user (Step U2)
3. Confirm — manual AskUserQuestion gate (Step U3)
4. Apply rollback — engine runs with --force, base resets, items restored (Step U4)
5. Report — summary line printed; no post-cycle nudges (Step U5)

Step U1 — Detect Cycle (Dry-Run Preview)

Run the engine with no --force flag; it defaults to dry-run and prints what would change:

.hv/bin/hv-undo

Exit codes:

• 0 — dry-run printed successfully. Surface stdout verbatim to the user, then continue to Step U2.
• 1 — precondition error (no cycle on base, subject doesn't match ^merge: , post-merge commits without --allow-post-merge, invalid arg, PR-mode cycle, not on base branch). Surface stderr verbatim and stop — do not proceed to Step U2.
• 2 — dirty tree. Print "Working tree is dirty — commit, stash, or discard before /hv-ship --undo can run." and stop.

If the user wants to target a specific cycle other than the most recent, they invoke .hv/bin/hv-undo --cycle <hash> directly; the slash-command default is always the most recent.

If the base branch has commits past the cycle merge, hv-undo refuses by default. Resolve manually (git reset to before those commits) or re-run with --allow-post-merge to discard them. Surface the helper's stderr verbatim — no extra prompting.

Step U2 — Surface the Plan

Render the helper's stdout to the user verbatim. The preview shows the merge commit being reset, the items being restored to BACKLOG.md, and any caveats (e.g. post-merge commits flagged for discard when --allow-post-merge is in play).

Step U3 — Confirmation Gate

Use a single AskUserQuestion call. Show the dry-run output above the question so the user can review the plan before committing.

• Header: "Apply"
• Question: "Apply this rollback plan?"
• Options (single-select):
  1. "Apply (Recommended)" — runs .hv/bin/hv-undo --force. Resets the base branch and restores the TODO entries.
  2. "Cancel" — print "No changes." and stop; nothing is written.

Plain-text fallback (when AskUserQuestion is not available): ask once — "Apply rollback? (yes/no)" — yes → Apply; anything else → Cancel.

Per the hv-init authoring convention "manual gates that are destructive or file public artifacts are never auto-invoked regardless of autonomy", Undo Mode's confirmation gate always surfaces to the user — loop mode does not accelerate it. git reset --hard is destructive and unrecoverable past git reflog's window; the user must confirm.

Step U4 — Apply (when not Cancel)

.hv/bin/hv-undo --force

(Or .hv/bin/hv-undo --force --allow-post-merge when the user opted into discarding post-merge commits in Step U1 — but Step U1 errored out and re-routed for that case; the simpler --force is the common path.)

Pass the helper's stdout to the user verbatim. Then continue to Step U5.

Step U5 — Report

Print the engine's final summary line as-is. Do not invoke /hv-learn, /hv-ship --docs, /hv-refactor, or /hv-next — Undo Mode is terminal. The user re-runs /hv-next themselves to see the restored backlog.

When to Use Undo Mode

Use /hv-ship --undo when:

• The cycle landed but the implementation turned out wrong on closer inspection.
• A reviewer flagged a regression and the simplest fix is "roll back, redesign, re-cycle".
• The cycle resolved an item that should not have been resolved (premise was wrong; item should be re-opened for redesign).
• A /hv-go cycle landed something the user didn't actually want — /hv-ship --undo is the fast inverse.

/hv-ship --undo is not for:

• Undoing a cycle whose merge was a PR — use gh pr close <num> for open PRs, git revert for merged PRs.
• Undoing more than one cycle at a time — invoke twice.
• Editing what landed — that's /hv-go or a new /hv-capture + /hv-work.

Undo Mode Rules

• Default is dry-run; --force is the only way to apply changes.
• The base-branch + clean-tree preconditions are enforced by the helper; never bypass them.
• Post-merge commits on the base branch refuse by default; --allow-post-merge is opt-in.
• Manual confirmation gate; loop mode does not auto-pick.
• Terminal mode — no post-cycle nudges. The user re-orients with /hv-next.

Docs Mode (--docs)

Docs Mode banner already printed at Step 0; this section runs from the same /hv-ship invocation.

Modes

If invoked in a not-yet-implemented mode, print one line citing the slice and exit cleanly.

Docs Mode and /hv-qa share the three-mode skeleton (scaffold / after-work / audit) and intentionally diverge on artifact root, gate strength, and authoring tier — see references/three-mode-skill-shape.md.

Architecture rule — one docs/ tree per project. A single hv-skills project has exactly one docs/ tree, located either at the umbrella root or inside one chosen sub-repo (recorded via docs.repo config when needed). Forbids: multiple docs/ trees inside a single hv-skills project, per-sub-repo docs/ in addition to an umbrella docs/, Docs Mode writing to more than one target. Permits: a single docs/ at the umbrella root (cross-cutting docs); a single docs/ inside one chosen sub-repo (when that sub-repo owns the project's public surface); cross-cutting documentation living in the chosen tree.

docs/ is the public surface. It's consumer-facing — contributor and contract content lives in the skill that owns it (hv-*/SKILL.md), not in a parallel reference file. Cross-refs from docs/ and README.md point at docs/ pages or specific SKILL.md files, never at a centralized internals doc.

Step D1 — Preflight & First-Run Detection

.hv/bin/hv-preflight

See docs/reference/preflight.md for exit-code handling.

Read docs.path from .hv/config.json (default "docs"). Check whether <docs.path>/ exists and is non-empty:

[ -d "<docs.path>" ] && [ -n "$(ls -A "<docs.path>" 2>/dev/null)" ]

• Empty or missing → continue with first-run mode (Steps D2–D6).
• Non-empty → not a first-run scenario. Branch on docs.afterWork:
  • Already true → After-work mode is already enabled. Route to the After-work sub-flow (Step D-A1 onward) as manual mode — the user re-invoked /hv-ship --docs precisely to check whether docs are still aligned with recent changes, which is what after-work does. Print one line first so the user sees the routing: "After-work mode is on. Checking docs against changes since the last docs: commit." Then proceed to Step D-A1. Manual invocation bypasses the post-cycle trigger gate (references/post-cycle-trigger-gate.md) — the user running /hv-ship --docs by hand is itself the trigger, so the gate's condition never applies on this path. There's also no upstream cycle brief, so Step D-A6 omits its Resolves: line.
  • false (default) → ask via AskUserQuestion:
    • Header: "After-work"
    • Question: "<docs.path>/ is initialized but docs.afterWork is off. Enable after-work mode? /hv-work and /hv-ship will then auto-invoke /hv-ship --docs to propose doc updates after each cycle."
    • Options (single-select):
      1. "Enable (Recommended)" — write docs.afterWork: true to .hv/config.json, print "After-work mode enabled. /hv-work and /hv-ship will now invoke /hv-ship --docs post-cycle.", exit.
      2. "Leave off" — exit without changes.
    • Plain-text fallback: ask once. Default to "Leave off" if ambiguous (opt-in semantics — never silently flip a config flag the user didn't ask for).

The config write uses the shared helper:

.hv/bin/hv-config-set docs.afterWork true

Initialize task list. Follow the canonical pattern in references/task-list-init.md — load TaskCreate(…) via ToolSearch select:TaskCreate,TaskUpdate if needed, then create one task per phase below.

Phases:

1. Mode select — first-run / after-work / restructure resolved from docs.path state + config (Step D1)
2. Inspect docs/ — current pages and structure read (Step D2)
3. Discover topics — touched files + recent commits scanned for doc-worthy changes (Step D3)
4. Propose plan — doc updates drafted and shown to user (Step D4)
5. Write/update — pages created or edited (Step D5)
6. Cross-link — internal links and indices updated (Step D6)
7. Report — summary printed, autonomy nudges fired

Step D2 — Read Project Signals

In a single parallel batch (one tool-call response, multiple reads), gather:

• README.md (or README.rst) at repo root — if present
• Manifest files at repo root: package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, go.mod, composer.json, setup.py, *.gemspec, Gemfile — read whichever exist
• Top-level bin/ listing (one level only) — entry points hint at CLI surface
• Top-level src/ listing (one level only) — high-level module shape; don't read contents
• Recent git history: git log --oneline -20
• Root-level .md files other than README (CHANGELOG, CONTRIBUTING, LICENSE) — note presence; don't duplicate

Don't dump the contents to the user — form a picture and use what's relevant in Step D3.

Step D3 — Form Hypothesis (silent)

Internally classify the project type. Pick one (or note "mixed" if genuinely ambiguous):

• CLI tool — bin/* entry points, manifest declares CLI commands, README focuses on command --flag examples
• Library — exports public functions/classes, README has API examples, no CLI
• Web app / service — server entry point, route definitions, deployment-shaped manifest
• Plugin / extension — manifest declares it as a plugin (e.g., claude-plugin/plugin.json), pairs with a host system
• Framework — provides primitives others build on; README has "getting started" + "core concepts" structure
• Data project — pipelines, notebooks, dataset-shaped repo

Identify the user-facing surface for the chosen type — what consumers actually interact with. For a CLI tool, the commands and flags. For a library, the public API. For a web app, the routes / UI. For a plugin, the host-system integration points.

Don't dump this analysis to the user. It shapes the proposal in Step D4.

Step D4 — Propose Tailored Tree

Output a clear proposal as plain markdown — file tree under <docs.path>/, one-line purpose per file. Example shape (the actual tree depends on the project type and surface from Step D3 — tailor it):

<docs.path>/
├── README.md            # landing page + table of contents
├── getting-started.md   # 5-minute first-run walkthrough
├── usage/
│   ├── basics.md        # core workflow
│   └── <command>.md     # one page per major user surface
├── configuration.md     # if config exists
└── examples.md          # only if patterns are non-obvious

Then ask via AskUserQuestion:

• Header: "Scaffold"
• Question: "Approve this docs structure?"
• Options (single-select):
  1. "Approve as proposed (Recommended)"
  2. "Edit" — free text. User describes changes; revise the proposal and re-ask Step D4.
  3. "Minimal — README.md + getting-started.md only"
  4. "Cancel" — don't scaffold; exit.

Plain-text fallback: ask once in prose; default to Recommended on ambiguity, naming it explicitly. See references/ask-user-question-fallback.md.

On Cancel — print "Scaffold cancelled. Run /hv-ship --docs again whenever you're ready." and exit.

Page-naming convention

The tailored tree should follow the spine + usage + reference layout documented in references/docs-conventions.md (page-naming section). When the tailored proposal doesn't fit (e.g., a CLI tool with no usage phases, or a library with API references but no walkthroughs), describe the deviation in one line in your proposal — "This project ships only reference material; no usage/ pages proposed." — so the user sees the conscious choice.

Step D5 — Scaffold on Approval

For each proposed file, write it with:

• Title heading (# Page Title)
• One-line purpose comment (HTML comment or italics — match the convention you see in the existing project's .md files)
• Honest empty section stubs (## What you'll learn, ## Steps, etc., depending on page type) — no LLM-hallucinated content

Write <docs.path>/README.md as a real index — TOC linking every other proposed page. This is the only page that ships with non-stub content (the TOC itself).

Seed .docsignore at repo root if it doesn't already exist — use the template in references/docs-conventions.md (.docsignore seed section). Make all writes idempotent — never overwrite an existing file.

After scaffolding succeeds, set docs.afterWork: true in .hv/config.json automatically — the user just opted into the docs flow by approving the scaffold, so the after-work gate flips on with the same approval. No separate question needed. Use .hv/bin/hv-config-set docs.afterWork true (same pattern as Step D1's manual-toggle branch). Skip silently if docs.afterWork is already true.

Step D6 — Closing Summary

Print a short summary block:

Scaffolded <docs.path>/ — N pages.

Files:
  - <docs.path>/README.md  (index / TOC)
  - <docs.path>/getting-started.md
  - <docs.path>/usage/basics.md
  - ...

Next:
  Run /hv-work on a feature, then /hv-ship --docs will fill in pages from the changes.
  Or write <docs.path>/getting-started.md yourself first to set the voice.

Docs After-Work Sub-Flow

This flow is invoked by /hv-work Step 13.6 dispatching /hv-ship --docs, and /hv-ship Step 8.6 running Docs Mode inline — those steps gate on docs.afterWork (default false); when on, they hand off the resolved item IDs + touched files. Manual invocation (/hv-ship --docs) also runs this flow when <docs.path>/ exists and the flag is on; on that path the trigger gate is bypassed — see Step D1.

Step D-A1 — Trigger Gate

For post-cycle dispatches (called from /hv-work Step 13.6 via Skill dispatching hv-ship --docs, or /hv-ship Step 8.6 running inline), apply the post-cycle trigger condition defined in references/post-cycle-trigger-gate.md.

Manual entry bypasses the gate — see Step D1. When Step D1 routed here, skip the trigger condition and proceed straight to Step D-A2.

If <docs.path>/ doesn't exist or is empty, don't run this flow — print one line: "/hv-ship --docs not yet initialized — run /hv-ship --docs to scaffold." and exit. Don't auto-scaffold mid-cycle.

Step D-A2 — Gather Context

In a single parallel batch (one tool-call response, multiple reads), gather:

• git log --oneline <last-docs-marker>..HEAD — boundary is the last docs: commit's SHA. Fall back to last 20 commits if no docs: commit exists yet.
• git diff <last-docs-marker>..HEAD -- <changed-paths> — filtered through .docsignore (Layer-1 filter; the orchestrator reads .docsignore and skips matching paths from the diff).
• Current <docs.path>/ tree (one-level listing) and each existing page's H1+H2 outline (grep -E '^#{1,2} ' <page>).

Step D-A3 — Classify Changes

For each non-ignored diff file, decide: user-facing surface change (doc-relevant) vs internal-only refactor/test/build (not doc-relevant).

Doc-relevant heuristics:

• Changes to bin/* entry points
• Public API exports
• Route handlers
• CLI flag definitions
• Config-key surface
• Plugin-manifest entries
• README-shaped behavior

Internal-only heuristics:

• Tests
• Build scripts
• Internal helpers not re-exported
• Refactors with no visible behavior change
• CI config, lint config
• Dependency bumps

LLM judgment is the primary signal; the heuristics are hints, not hard gates.

If no files classify as doc-relevant after this pass, print one line ("No user-facing changes since last docs: commit. Skipping.") and exit cleanly.

Step D-A4 — Map to Pages + Draft Edits

Per doc-relevant change, pick a target page from <docs.path>/:

• An existing page that covers the surface (e.g., usage/<command>.md for a CLI flag change).
• Or *needs new page* — propose a path under <docs.path>/ with one-line rationale; never auto-create a page in propose mode.

Draft a concrete before/after fragment per page using a simple unified-diff-shaped block:

<docs.path>/usage/foo.md
- old line or section
+ new line or section

Drafts should reference real file/section anchors (e.g., the H2 heading the edit lands under). No hallucinated content; if no concrete edit can be drafted, mark the entry "needs prose — author yourself" and skip it from the apply set.

Run the self-audit before Step D-A5 displays the drafts. Doc-page edits ship to <docs.path>/ and are the project's public surface. Apply the rule sheet and self-audit pass in references/humanizing-prose.md to every + line in the draft fragments silently — show the post-audit drafts, not the pre-audit ones. The audit applies to added prose only; - lines are existing content and stay untouched.

Step D-A5 — Approval Gate

Show all drafts in one batch (plain markdown — same as the first-run proposal in Step D4). Then ask via AskUserQuestion:

• Header: "Docs"
• Question: "Apply these doc updates?"
• Options (single-select):
  1. "Apply all (Recommended)"
  2. "Apply selectively" — free text. Use

…(truncated)