Rite Pressure Test

$rite-pressure-test: diverge then converge

Use when the idea—not only requirements—is rough. Compare directions before $rite-spec; never implement. Read core.md first and write only workspace/ticket artifacts.

Diverge (widen)

• Search decisions.md, accepted ADRs, and relevant archives for rejected directions; revive one only with evidence that answers its recorded reason, citing both.
• Generate 3-5 different shapes, including obvious, smaller, and different-boundary/data/ flow options. Use named lenses— inversion, constraint removal, audience shift, 10×, or expert practice—without padding. Borrow analogous mechanisms, not branding.
• For each, name concrete entities/flows/surfaces, optimization, rough cost, and main risk.

Converge (commit)

• Weigh options against the goal, constraints, and existing codebase conventions.
• Prefer felt pain over nice-to-have. Rank differentiation: new capability > 10× gain > new audience > new context > better UX > cheaper; do not dress a vitamin as a painkiller.
• Recommend one, with the reason and the key trade-off accepted.
• Note what would change the recommendation (the decision's hinge).

Premise evidence floor

If the hinge is an uncertain material fact, freeze at most three questions for devrites-evidence-scout. Validate every citation; missing/malformed/unverifiable output is unavailable, never support. Record claim, support, strongest contrary evidence, and supported | assumption | refuted. Refutation changes the recommendation; an assumption advances only when non-decisive with bounded downside. Weak/conflicting decisive evidence returns Hold with the resolving evidence, never $rite-spec. Tie-breaker: see intent-map.md (rite-pressure-test vs rite-spec). Do not research preferences or reversible implementation choices.

Boundaries

• This is exploration, not specification. Output a direction, not a finished spec: $rite-spec writes the spec.
• Don't over-explore: 3-5 options, one pass of convergence. If the user already knows the direction, skip this and go straight to $rite-spec. If the effort is too foggy for one pass, start an investigation map at .devrites/work/<slug>/investigation-map.md (create the directory; pick a provisional slug $rite-spec can adopt) with Destination, Decisions so far, Not yet specified, Out of scope, plus one frontier question per session.
• Ask the user to pick when two options are close and the choice changes the product.
• Name a "Not doing" list: the good options you deliberately cut. It's the highest-value output of convergence: it hands $rite-spec its scope boundary. When a cut is durable, offer to record the reason in the active feature's decisions.md or a durable ADR rather than a parallel rejection index.

Done: pressure test complete for <goal>.
Changed: workspace only
Evidence: options compared <n>; recommendation <option>; hinge <condition>; premises <supported/assumption/refuted + sources>
Open: <none | unresolved premise and resolving evidence>
Next: <when supported: $rite-spec <feature>; when Hold: none — requires <resolving evidence>>
Record: <investigation-map.md path | not applicable>
↻ Hygiene: /clear before starting the lifecycle