robmclarty Pitch
When to use
- "pitch this", "frame this problem", "let's scope this"
- "write a pitch for", "propose"
- Any request to define a problem and solution direction before committing to a full specification
- Synthesizing sketch results into a coherent initiative
Create a pitch document at .specs/<feature-name>/pitch.md.
Recommended effort: medium. Synthesis from user input into a well-defined template.
Pre-flight
Run python3 ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/validate-prereqs.py pitch <feature-name> and use the specsDir value from the JSON output. Abort if the output reports missing prerequisites.
Feature naming
The pitch creates a new feature folder under .specs/. Ask the user for a short kebab-case name that describes the initiative: hall-pass-extraction, kudos-mcp, student-search-api. This folder will hold all subsequent artifacts (spec, compliance, plan, tasks.json) for this initiative.
What to ask the user
If the user runs /pitch without enough context, ask:
- What problem are you solving? Who has this problem?
- How much time and effort is this worth? (A week? Six weeks? Is there a hard deadline?)
- What sketches, if any, informed this pitch?
- What's explicitly out of scope?
Generation
After gathering all user input, spawn the pitcher agent. Pass it: the feature name, specs directory path, and all user-provided context (problem description, appetite, solution shape, no-gos, rabbit holes). The agent will read prerequisite files and generate the pitch document.
Quality gate
After the agent produces the pitch, verify:
- Is the problem described from the user's/stakeholder's perspective, not the system's?
- Does the appetite set a clear constraint on effort?
- Are no-gos specific enough to say "no" to concrete requests?
- Could someone who wasn't in the room evaluate whether this pitch is worth pursuing?
- Does the shape give enough direction without over-specifying?
- Are rabbit holes identified with pragmatic alternatives?