Workflow Start

Workflow Start

Primary entry point for spec-superflow. Jobs: inspect change context, check for updates, confirm DP-0, determine state, route to correct skill, block invalid transitions.

Use This Skill When

Only invoke when spec-superflow context is present: .spec-superflow.yaml exists, artifacts like proposal.md/specs//design.md/tasks.md/execution-contract.md are present, or user explicitly invokes spec-superflow by name. When in doubt, check for .spec-superflow.yaml first.

Do NOT invoke for: general coding tasks outside spec-superflow changes, casual questions, unrelated work.

States

exploring → specifying → bridging → approved-for-build → executing → closing, with debugging side-path from executing, and abandoned as terminal. After closing, Full/legacy Hotfix changes complete the physical archive with ssf finish (owned by release-archivist); lightweight paths end at closing itself. If a transition is ambiguous, run ssf runtime asset read docs/state-machine.md.

Terminal-State Short Circuit

Before update checks or recovery overlays, inspect the persisted state. If it is closing, stop immediately: closing is a successful terminal state and the next skill is none. Report the terminal state and its persisted evidence. Do not run handoff list, checkpoint list, the execution-control recovery scan, or release-archivist; do not resume, hand off, or route any more work.

Note: closing is the logical terminal of the state machine; the physical archive (merge + worktree cleanup) for Full/legacy Hotfix is performed by ssf finish in release-archivist. Lightweight paths have no physical archive step.

Initialization

1. Update check: Run ssf runtime check-update. Exit 0 → continue. Exit 1 → non-blocking upgrade reminder. Exit 2 → skip.
2. Inspect change folder: Check for proposal.md, specs/, design.md, tasks.md, execution-contract.md. Answer: Is the change fuzzy? Artifacts missing/unstable? Contract exist? User approved contract? Execution in progress or blocked? In verification/wrap-up?

Overlay Recovery Scan

3. Overlay recovery scan: Run ssf handoff list <change-dir> --json and ssf checkpoint list <change-dir> --json. A result-ready handoff requires explicit review and ssf handoff resolve before resuming the affected work. An active handoff is non-blocking side work. Show a non-stale checkpoint as recovery context; show a stale checkpoint only as historical evidence.

Execution-Control Recovery Scan

4. Execution-control recovery scan: For Full or legacy Hotfix in approved-for-build, executing, or debugging, run ssf execution show <change-dir> --json. Treat only current: true plus waves[].eligible: true as permission to start a wave. Do not require this scan for Quick, Tweak, or a valid direct Hotfix receipt.

Direct Short-Path Intake

For a clearly bounded Quick or incident Hotfix request, recommend and accept in the same turn. Do not collect the eight intake facts as a questionnaire: infer them from the request and repository, show the observed facts, recommendation, and qualification reason, then ask the user to choose tdd, new-test, or bounded verification before running:

ssf state init <change-dir>
ssf workflow recommend <change-dir> --task-count <n> --file-count <n> --config-doc-only no --schema-api-change no --new-module no --behavioral-constraint-change <yes|no> --cross-module-change <yes|no> --uncertainty low --request-kind <standard|incident>
ssf workflow accept <change-dir> --source direct-request --verification <tdd|new-test|bounded>

Quick is ≤3 tasks/files of low-risk code. Hotfix is an incident with a reproducible symptom and ≤2 tasks/files. Display Observed, Recommended, Why, and any risk reasons; acceptance is the user's direct request to proceed and their explicit verification choice. Do not create planning artifacts, a contract, an execution plan, wave receipts, or DP approvals. Transition through the receipt-aware guard, execute bounded work, and require test_result: pass before closing. A fourth code file, behavioral-constraint change (PRD/spec/design/API/data/permission), cross-module work, a new module, high uncertainty, or failed verification does not auto-escalate: show Quick and Full, then wait for the user's choice. A user selecting Quick must acknowledge the recommendation and choose tdd, new-test, or bounded verification in the receipt. Tweak is only ≤4 config/doc-only tasks/files with no risk signals; it cannot be selected as an override. A legacy Hotfix without a valid direct receipt remains on the Full contract/DP-3/plan/review path.

DP-0: User Confirmation Gate

After Direct Short-Path Intake does not apply, run DP-0 when: change folder doesn't exist, planning artifacts are missing/empty, dp_0_confirmed is not true, or a legacy change still has an auto/empty workflow. Resolve the artifact language first, then complete the workflow path intake. Do not set dp_0_confirmed=true while path facts or the user's path choice are still missing.

Artifact Language Resolution

Before the first planning artifact is generated, resolve one concrete artifact language in this priority order:

1. explicit user language
2. the conversation's primary language
3. an explicit non-auto execution.defaultLanguage
4. the primary language of existing planning artifacts in the current change
5. the primary language of the project templates

Treat execution.defaultLanguage: auto as a request to continue resolving, not as a language. Append artifact_language=<concrete-language> to dp_0_decisions, preserving its existing scope and constraint summary. Never persist auto as the resolved artifact language. If DP-0 was already confirmed but this field is absent, resolve and append it before routing to spec-writer. All later planning skills reuse this field so one change does not switch languages without an explicit user request.

Workflow Path Intake (Mode Detection, Full/Legacy)

Workflow path selection is a DP-0 intake decision. It selects the planning path (full, hotfix, tweak, or quick); it is separate from DP-4, which later selects the execution mode (Inline, Batch Inline, or SDD). It does not add a state or cause a phase transition.

1. Obtain the change name and one-sentence intent before any state-dependent command. Validate the change name as one non-empty relative path segment (not . or .., with no / or \\), resolve the change dir as <project-root>/changes/<change-name>, and reject any normalized path that escapes the project's changes/ directory.
2. If the state file is absent or dp_0_confirmed is false/null, run ssf state init <change-dir> before show; initialization must leave DP-0 unconfirmed.
3. Read state.workflow. An explicit full workflow wins and skips automatic recommendation. For an explicit hotfix/tweak/quick, report the active path; if scope, risk, or verification now exceeds its boundary, refresh the recommendation with observed facts and route it to Full instead of continuing.
4. For auto/null/unset, run ssf workflow show <change-dir> --json before collecting or changing any facts. A missing receipt is represented as needs-input with all eight fixed facts in missing_facts.
5. If the response is needs-input, ask only for missing_facts; do not ask for any fact not listed by the receipt. Do not invent facts from missing artifacts and do not default the path to full.
6. Run ssf workflow recommend <change-dir> ... once with one complete fact snapshot.
7. Show the user Observed, Available, Recommended, and Why. A recommendation is advice only: never persist it as the workflow selection.
8. A recommended low-risk Quick or incident Hotfix is accepted only with ssf workflow accept <change-dir> --source direct-request --verification <tdd|new-test|bounded>. For Full, legacy Hotfix, or Tweak, obtain the user's explicit choice and run ssf workflow select <change-dir> --mode <full|hotfix|tweak> --confirm --reason "<user choice>". For a risk-signalled Quick choice, run workflow select --mode quick --confirm --acknowledge-recommendation --verification <tdd|new-test|bounded>.
9. Add --acknowledge-recommendation only after the user chooses a non-recommended selectable path. Report the persisted receipt and DP-0 audit summary.
10. To escalate a selected Quick, direct Hotfix, or Tweak, refresh workflow recommend with observed risk facts, then select full with --confirm (and --acknowledge-recommendation only if required). Do not overwrite an explicit mode without this persisted recommendation.
11. Keep ssf runtime infer <change-dir> only for legacy artifact inference and validation compatibility; it cannot replace user selection at intake.

Confirm DP-0

Only after an explicit workflow path is available, ask for the remaining DP-0 decisions: change name and one-sentence intent, known constraints, related optimizations (include or stay focused?), and communication preference (ask per decision or draft for review). Confirm one combined summary containing those decisions, the resolved artifact_language, and the persisted workflow path plus recommendation-alignment summary. Preserve existing scope, constraints, and language entries; never replace them with the path summary alone.

After that combined confirmation:

ssf state set <change-dir> dp_0_decisions "<combined summary preserving scope, artifact_language, and workflow_path>"
ssf state set <change-dir> dp_0_result confirmed
ssf state set <change-dir> dp_0_confirmed true
ssf state set <change-dir> dp_0_timestamp $(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)

At this point the change sits in exploring; all later state advancement is owned by downstream skills — do not run state transition here.

Config-aware routing: check artifacts.order, artifacts.skip, and execution.defaultLanguage from project config.

Routing Rules

Route to need-explorer

Change is fuzzy, scope unclear, comparing options, no stable change name.

Route to spec-writer (Full only)

Guard: ssf runtime guard check <dir> exploring specifying --json → fail = BLOCK. User knows what they want, artifacts missing/incomplete.

Route to contract-builder

Only for Full or legacy Hotfix. Guard: ... check <dir> specifying bridging --json → fail = BLOCK. Artifacts exist, implementation requested, contract missing/stale. Include DP-3: 契约批准.

Route to build-executor

For Full or legacy Hotfix: contract exists and approved, contract matches artifacts. Include DP-4: 执行模式选择: propose waves, run ssf execution recommend <change-dir> [--wave ...], then run ssf execution plan <change-dir> --mode <selected> --confirm ... and execution show. For Quick, Tweak, or direct Hotfix: use the receipt-aware guard and bounded verification; do not require DP-4, a contract, plan, or review receipt.

Route to bug-investigator

Execution hit blockage: test failure, unexpected behavior, build error, task cannot proceed. After debugging, route back to build-executor.

Route to code-reviewer (Full/legacy Hotfix only)

The current planned wave is implemented and ready for spec-compliance + code-quality verification. A reviewer must write an ssf execution review <change-dir> --wave <id> --base <sha> --head <sha> --report <path> --verdict <pass|fail> receipt before any dependent wave or closing transition. Quick, Tweak, and direct Hotfix use their verification summary instead.

Route to release-archivist

Only while the current state is executing: implementation is complete and verification is ready. For Full/legacy Hotfix, run the guard and complete verification, audit, delta merge, and DP-7. For Quick, Tweak, and direct Hotfix, run the receipt-aware guard, persist test_result: pass, and produce the verification summary without audit or DP-7.

Route to spec-merger

Only while the current state is executing, before the final executing → closing transition: delta specs need merging with ADDED/MODIFIED/REMOVED/RENAMED specs. Never route a change already in closing to spec-merger.

Route to abandoned

User explicitly requests, bug-investigator escalates after 3+ failures AND user chooses, scope change makes change no longer worthwhile AND user confirms. Block from closing or abandoned.

Optional Prototype Handoff

When the user's brief explicitly contains UI, screen, interaction, layout, UX, or product-experience uncertainty, ask once whether a prototype would reduce uncertainty. Do not create a prototype handoff or enter a prototype worktree until the user confirms. After confirmation:

ssf handoff create <change-dir> \
  --type prototype --objective "<confirmed objective>" \
  --expected-output "<expected evidence>" --acceptance "<completion criterion>"
ssf isolate <change-dir> prototype-<handoff-id>

Never suggest or enter this route automatically for backend, CLI, configuration, or internal-refactor work. Never pass --force to ssf isolate for prototype work.

Fast-Path Routing

• Legacy Hotfix: Route to contract-builder (minimal), skip need-explorer + spec-writer, guard check exploring bridging --workflow hotfix, then bridging -> approved-for-build, after DP-3 → build-executor (recommend, show, and confirm an execution mode), after → release-archivist (lightweight). It may skip planning artifacts but still requires a minimal contract, DP-3, and a current execution plan. A direct Hotfix instead follows Direct Short-Path Intake.
• Tweak: Route to build-executor (direct edit), skip need-explorer + spec-writer + contract-builder, guard check exploring approved-for-build --workflow tweak, after → release-archivist (lightweight)
• Quick / direct Hotfix / lightweight: Route to build-executor (direct edit on trunk), skip isolate + contract + plan + wave receipts; guard check exploring approved-for-build (receipt-aware), then edit, persist test_result: pass (ssf state set <change-dir> test_result "pass: <verification summary>" — required by the guard's direct-test-result check before executing closing; lightweight also records completion evidence via ssf workflow evidence), then executing closing.

Post-transition: 💡 ssf inject <change-dir> to update phase-guard artifacts.

Staleness Detection

Use content inspection, not timestamps.

Stale contract: proposal scope expanded beyond contract scope fence, or contract references capabilities no longer in proposal → route back to contract-builder.

Stale planning artifacts: capability in proposal has no spec file, or spec exists for capability not in proposal → drift detected.

Stale tasks: requirement in specs has no corresponding task → stale tasks.

Guardrails

• Full/legacy Hotfix: no implementation before planning artifacts or contract exist
• No implementation for Full or legacy Hotfix without a current ssf execution plan; no state transition based on an unverified DP-4 string
• No "continue" without state inspection
• Full/legacy Hotfix: no implementation past stale contract
• No implementation past bug without investigation
• Full/legacy Hotfix: no closure without all planned wave review receipts recorded as pass or with unsynced delta specs
• closing is a successful terminal state: next skill is none and recovery overlays do not run
• No transitions from abandoned (terminal)
• No transition to abandoned from closing or abandoned
• No auto-abandon without user confirmation
• No merging delta specs from abandoned change

Output Standard

Always state: (1) current detected state, (2) why (cite file/content/condition), (3) which skill should run next. If blocking, explain missing artifact/approval.

Decision point references when routing:

• contract-builder → DP-3, build-executor → DP-4, bug-investigator (escalation) → DP-5, release-archivist (verification failure) → DP-6, release-archivist → DP-7

Exception Handling

• Parse failures: Fall back to content-level detection if .spec-superflow.yaml is malformed
• Missing files: Route to the skill that generates the missing files
• User interruption: Re-inspect change directory content (not cached state) on resume

Standard User-Facing Handoff

End every user-facing phase report with this concise handoff. Only a successfully persisted closing state and abandoned are terminal.

Normal report

• Current stage: <detected workflow stage>.
• Completed / blocker: <completed work>.
• Next stage: <next workflow stage or skill>.
• Entry condition: <what must be true to enter it>.

Blocked report

• Current stage: <detected workflow stage>.
• Completed / blocker: <blocking fact or missing evidence>.
• Next stage: <stage that resumes after the blocker>.
• Entry condition: <the approval, artifact, validation, or fix required>.

Approval-wait report

• Current stage: <detected workflow stage>.
• Completed / blocker: <work ready for the named decision>.
• Next stage: <stage that follows approval>.
• Entry condition: <explicit user approval or recorded decision>.

Successful terminal report

• Current stage: successfully persisted closing or abandoned.
• Completed / blocker: <persisted terminal outcome>.
• Next stage: none.
• Entry condition: no further transition exists.