ariadna 1.3.1 → 2.0.0

data/data/ariadna/workflows/discuss-phase.md

@@ -1,408 +0,0 @@
-<purpose>
-Extract implementation decisions that downstream agents need. Analyze the phase to identify gray areas, let the user choose what to discuss, then deep-dive each selected area until satisfied.
-
-You are a thinking partner, not an interviewer. The user is the visionary — you are the builder. Your job is to capture decisions that will guide research and planning, not to figure out implementation yourself.
-</purpose>
-
-<downstream_awareness>
-**CONTEXT.md feeds into:**
-
-1. **ariadna-phase-researcher** — Reads CONTEXT.md to know WHAT to research
-   - "User wants card-based layout" → researcher investigates card component patterns
-   - "Infinite scroll decided" → researcher looks into virtualization libraries
-
-2. **ariadna-planner** — Reads CONTEXT.md to know WHAT decisions are locked
-   - "Pull-to-refresh on mobile" → planner includes that in task specs
-   - "Claude's Discretion: loading skeleton" → planner can decide approach
-
-**Your job:** Capture decisions clearly enough that downstream agents can act on them without asking the user again.
-
-**Not your job:** Figure out HOW to implement. That's what research and planning do with the decisions you capture.
-</downstream_awareness>
-
-<philosophy>
-**User = founder/visionary. Claude = builder.**
-
-The user knows:
-- How they imagine it working
-- What it should look/feel like
-- What's essential vs nice-to-have
-- Specific behaviors or references they have in mind
-
-The user doesn't know (and shouldn't be asked):
-- Codebase patterns (researcher reads the code)
-- Technical risks (researcher identifies these)
-- Implementation approach (planner figures this out)
-- Success metrics (inferred from the work)
-
-Ask about vision and implementation choices. Capture decisions for downstream agents.
-</philosophy>
-
-<scope_guardrail>
-**CRITICAL: No scope creep.**
-
-The phase boundary comes from ROADMAP.md and is FIXED. Discussion clarifies HOW to implement what's scoped, never WHETHER to add new capabilities.
-
-**Allowed (clarifying ambiguity):**
-- "How should posts be displayed?" (layout, density, info shown)
-- "What happens on empty state?" (within the feature)
-- "Pull to refresh or manual?" (behavior choice)
-
-**Not allowed (scope creep):**
-- "Should we also add comments?" (new capability)
-- "What about search/filtering?" (new capability)
-- "Maybe include bookmarking?" (new capability)
-
-**The heuristic:** Does this clarify how we implement what's already in the phase, or does it add a new capability that could be its own phase?
-
-**When user suggests scope creep:**
-```
-"[Feature X] would be a new capability — that's its own phase.
-Want me to note it for the roadmap backlog?
-
-For now, let's focus on [phase domain]."
-```
-
-Capture the idea in a "Deferred Ideas" section. Don't lose it, don't act on it.
-</scope_guardrail>
-
-<gray_area_identification>
-Gray areas are **implementation decisions the user cares about** — things that could go multiple ways and would change the result.
-
-**How to identify gray areas:**
-
-1. **Read the phase goal** from ROADMAP.md
-2. **Understand the domain** — What kind of thing is being built?
-   - Something users SEE → visual presentation, interactions, states matter
-   - Something users CALL → interface contracts, responses, errors matter
-   - Something users RUN → invocation, output, behavior modes matter
-   - Something users READ → structure, tone, depth, flow matter
-   - Something being ORGANIZED → criteria, grouping, handling exceptions matter
-3. **Generate phase-specific gray areas** — Not generic categories, but concrete decisions for THIS phase
-
-**Don't use generic category labels** (UI, UX, Behavior). Generate specific gray areas:
-
-```
-Phase: "User authentication"
-→ Session handling, Error responses, Multi-device policy, Recovery flow
-
-Phase: "Organize photo library"
-→ Grouping criteria, Duplicate handling, Naming convention, Folder structure
-
-Phase: "CLI for database backups"
-→ Output format, Flag design, Progress reporting, Error recovery
-
-Phase: "API documentation"
-→ Structure/navigation, Code examples depth, Versioning approach, Interactive elements
-```
-
-**The key question:** What decisions would change the outcome that the user should weigh in on?
-
-**Claude handles these (don't ask):**
-- Technical implementation details
-- Architecture patterns
-- Performance optimization
-- Scope (roadmap defines this)
-</gray_area_identification>
-
-<process>
-
-<step name="initialize" priority="first">
-Phase number from argument (required).
-
-```bash
-INIT=$(ariadna-tools init phase-op "${PHASE}")
-```
-
-Parse JSON for: `commit_docs`, `phase_found`, `phase_dir`, `phase_number`, `phase_name`, `phase_slug`, `padded_phase`, `has_research`, `has_context`, `has_plans`, `has_verification`, `plan_count`, `roadmap_exists`, `planning_exists`.
-
-**If `phase_found` is false:**
-```
-Phase [X] not found in roadmap.
-
-Use /ariadna:progress to see available phases.
-```
-Exit workflow.
-
-**If `phase_found` is true:** Continue to check_existing.
-</step>
-
-<step name="check_existing">
-Check if CONTEXT.md already exists using `has_context` from init.
-
-```bash
-ls ${phase_dir}/*-CONTEXT.md 2>/dev/null
-```
-
-**If exists:**
-Use AskUserQuestion:
-- header: "Existing context"
-- question: "Phase [X] already has context. What do you want to do?"
-- options:
-  - "Update it" — Review and revise existing context
-  - "View it" — Show me what's there
-  - "Skip" — Use existing context as-is
-
-If "Update": Load existing, continue to analyze_phase
-If "View": Display CONTEXT.md, then offer update/skip
-If "Skip": Exit workflow
-
-**If doesn't exist:** Continue to analyze_phase.
-</step>
-
-<step name="analyze_phase">
-Analyze the phase to identify gray areas worth discussing.
-
-**Read the phase description from ROADMAP.md and determine:**
-
-1. **Domain boundary** — What capability is this phase delivering? State it clearly.
-
-2. **Gray areas by category** — For each relevant category (UI, UX, Behavior, Empty States, Content), identify 1-2 specific ambiguities that would change implementation.
-
-3. **Skip assessment** — If no meaningful gray areas exist (pure infrastructure, clear-cut implementation), the phase may not need discussion.
-
-**Output your analysis internally, then present to user.**
-
-Example analysis for "Post Feed" phase:
-```
-Domain: Displaying posts from followed users
-Gray areas:
-- UI: Layout style (cards vs timeline vs grid)
-- UI: Information density (full posts vs previews)
-- Behavior: Loading pattern (infinite scroll vs pagination)
-- Empty State: What shows when no posts exist
-- Content: What metadata displays (time, author, reactions count)
-```
-</step>
-
-<step name="present_gray_areas">
-Present the domain boundary and gray areas to user.
-
-**First, state the boundary:**
-```
-Phase [X]: [Name]
-Domain: [What this phase delivers — from your analysis]
-
-We'll clarify HOW to implement this.
-(New capabilities belong in other phases.)
-```
-
-**Then use AskUserQuestion (multiSelect: true):**
-- header: "Discuss"
-- question: "Which areas do you want to discuss for [phase name]?"
-- options: Generate 3-4 phase-specific gray areas, each formatted as:
-  - "[Specific area]" (label) — concrete, not generic
-  - [1-2 questions this covers] (description)
-
-**Do NOT include a "skip" or "you decide" option.** User ran this command to discuss — give them real choices.
-
-**Examples by domain:**
-
-For "Post Feed" (visual feature):
-```
-☐ Layout style — Cards vs list vs timeline? Information density?
-☐ Loading behavior — Infinite scroll or pagination? Pull to refresh?
-☐ Content ordering — Chronological, algorithmic, or user choice?
-☐ Post metadata — What info per post? Timestamps, reactions, author?
-```
-
-For "Database backup CLI" (command-line tool):
-```
-☐ Output format — JSON, table, or plain text? Verbosity levels?
-☐ Flag design — Short flags, long flags, or both? Required vs optional?
-☐ Progress reporting — Silent, progress bar, or verbose logging?
-☐ Error recovery — Fail fast, retry, or prompt for action?
-```
-
-For "Organize photo library" (organization task):
-```
-☐ Grouping criteria — By date, location, faces, or events?
-☐ Duplicate handling — Keep best, keep all, or prompt each time?
-☐ Naming convention — Original names, dates, or descriptive?
-☐ Folder structure — Flat, nested by year, or by category?
-```
-
-Continue to discuss_areas with selected areas.
-</step>
-
-<step name="discuss_areas">
-For each selected area, conduct a focused discussion loop.
-
-**Philosophy: 4 questions, then check.**
-
-Ask 4 questions per area before offering to continue or move on. Each answer often reveals the next question.
-
-**For each area:**
-
-1. **Announce the area:**
-   ```
-   Let's talk about [Area].
-   ```
-
-2. **Ask 4 questions using AskUserQuestion:**
-   - header: "[Area]"
-   - question: Specific decision for this area
-   - options: 2-3 concrete choices (AskUserQuestion adds "Other" automatically)
-   - Include "You decide" as an option when reasonable — captures Claude discretion
-
-3. **After 4 questions, check:**
-   - header: "[Area]"
-   - question: "More questions about [area], or move to next?"
-   - options: "More questions" / "Next area"
-
-   If "More questions" → ask 4 more, then check again
-   If "Next area" → proceed to next selected area
-
-4. **After all areas complete:**
-   - header: "Done"
-   - question: "That covers [list areas]. Ready to create context?"
-   - options: "Create context" / "Revisit an area"
-
-**Question design:**
-- Options should be concrete, not abstract ("Cards" not "Option A")
-- Each answer should inform the next question
-- If user picks "Other", receive their input, reflect it back, confirm
-
-**Scope creep handling:**
-If user mentions something outside the phase domain:
-```
-"[Feature] sounds like a new capability — that belongs in its own phase.
-I'll note it as a deferred idea.
-
-Back to [current area]: [return to current question]"
-```
-
-Track deferred ideas internally.
-</step>
-
-<step name="write_context">
-Create CONTEXT.md capturing decisions made.
-
-**Find or create phase directory:**
-
-Use values from init: `phase_dir`, `phase_slug`, `padded_phase`.
-
-If `phase_dir` is null (phase exists in roadmap but no directory):
-```bash
-mkdir -p ".ariadna_planning/phases/${padded_phase}-${phase_slug}"
-```
-
-**File location:** `${phase_dir}/${padded_phase}-CONTEXT.md`
-
-**Structure the content by what was discussed:**
-
-```markdown
-# Phase [X]: [Name] - Context
-
-**Gathered:** [date]
-**Status:** Ready for planning
-
-<domain>
-## Phase Boundary
-
-[Clear statement of what this phase delivers — the scope anchor]
-
-</domain>
-
-<decisions>
-## Implementation Decisions
-
-### [Category 1 that was discussed]
-- [Decision or preference captured]
-- [Another decision if applicable]
-
-### [Category 2 that was discussed]
-- [Decision or preference captured]
-
-### Claude's Discretion
-[Areas where user said "you decide" — note that Claude has flexibility here]
-
-</decisions>
-
-<specifics>
-## Specific Ideas
-
-[Any particular references, examples, or "I want it like X" moments from discussion]
-
-[If none: "No specific requirements — open to standard approaches"]
-
-</specifics>
-
-<deferred>
-## Deferred Ideas
-
-[Ideas that came up but belong in other phases. Don't lose them.]
-
-[If none: "None — discussion stayed within phase scope"]
-
-</deferred>
-
----
-
-*Phase: XX-name*
-*Context gathered: [date]*
-```
-
-Write file.
-</step>
-
-<step name="confirm_creation">
-Present summary and next steps:
-
-```
-Created: .ariadna_planning/phases/${PADDED_PHASE}-${SLUG}/${PADDED_PHASE}-CONTEXT.md
-
-## Decisions Captured
-
-### [Category]
-- [Key decision]
-
-### [Category]
-- [Key decision]
-
-[If deferred ideas exist:]
-## Noted for Later
-- [Deferred idea] — future phase
-
----
-
-## ▶ Next Up
-
-**Phase ${PHASE}: [Name]** — [Goal from ROADMAP.md]
-
-`/ariadna:plan-phase ${PHASE}`
-
-<sub>`/clear` first → fresh context window</sub>
-
----
-
-**Also available:**
-- `/ariadna:plan-phase ${PHASE} --skip-research` — plan without research
-- Review/edit CONTEXT.md before continuing
-
----
-```
-</step>
-
-<step name="git_commit">
-Commit phase context (uses `commit_docs` from init internally):
-
-```bash
-ariadna-tools commit "docs(${padded_phase}): capture phase context" --files "${phase_dir}/${padded_phase}-CONTEXT.md"
-```
-
-Confirm: "Committed: docs(${padded_phase}): capture phase context"
-</step>
-
-</process>
-
-<success_criteria>
-- Phase validated against roadmap
-- Gray areas identified through intelligent analysis (not generic questions)
-- User selected which areas to discuss
-- Each selected area explored until user satisfied
-- Scope creep redirected to deferred ideas
-- CONTEXT.md captures actual decisions, not vague vision
-- Deferred ideas preserved for future phases
-- User knows next steps
-</success_criteria>