@every-env/compound-plugin 2.37.1 → 2.39.0

package/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -7,6 +7,50 @@ and this project adheres to [Semantic Versioning](https://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0
 
 Release numbering now follows the repository `v*` tag line. Starting at `v2.34.0`, the root CLI package and this changelog stay on that shared version stream. Older entries below retain the previous `0.x` CLI numbering.
 
+# [2.39.0](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/compare/v2.38.0...v2.39.0) (2026-03-16)
+
+
+### Bug Fixes
+
+* drop 'CLI' suffix from Codex and Gemini platform names ([ec8d685](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/commit/ec8d68580f3da65852e72c127cccc6e66326369b))
+* make brainstorm handoff auto-chain and cross-platform ([637653d](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/commit/637653d2edf89c022b9e312ea02c0ac1a305d741))
+* restore 'wait for the user's reply' fallback language ([fca3a40](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/commit/fca3a4019c55c76b9f1ad326cc3d284f5007b8f4))
+
+
+### Features
+
+* add leverage check to brainstorm skill ([0100245](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/commit/01002450cd077b800a917625c5eb6d12da061d0b))
+* instruct brainstorm skill to use platform blocking question tools ([d2c4cee](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/commit/d2c4cee6f9774a5fb2c8ca325c389dadb4a72b1c))
+* refactor brainstorm skill into requirements-first workflow ([4d80a59](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/commit/4d80a59e51b4b2e99ff8c2443e2a1b039d7475c9))
+
+# [2.38.0](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/compare/v2.37.1...v2.38.0) (2026-03-16)
+
+
+### Bug Fixes
+
+* **skill:** align compound-refresh question tool guidance ([c2582fa](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/commit/c2582fab675fe1571f32730634e66411aadc1820))
+* **skills:** allow direct commit on main as non-default option ([0c333b0](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/commit/0c333b08c9369d359613d030aba0fe16e929a665))
+* **skills:** autonomous mode adapts to available permissions ([684814d](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/commit/684814d9514a72c59da4d8f309f73ff0f7661d58))
+* **skills:** enforce branch creation when committing on main ([6969014](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/commit/696901453212aa43cff2400a75cfc6629e79939e))
+* **skills:** enforce full report output in autonomous mode ([2ae6fc4](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/commit/2ae6fc44580093ff6162fcb48145901a54138e9f))
+* **skills:** improve ce:compound-refresh interaction and auto-archive behavior ([0dff943](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/commit/0dff9431ceec8a24e576712c48198e8241c24752))
+* **skills:** include tool constraint in subagent task prompts ([db8c84a](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/commit/db8c84acb4f72c4ce3e1612365ff912fdfe3cea1))
+* **skills:** prevent auto-archive when problem domain is still active ([4201361](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/commit/42013612bde6e13152ade806ba7f861ce5d38e03))
+* **skills:** remove prescriptive branch naming in compound-refresh ([e3e7748](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/commit/e3e7748c564a24e74d86fdf847dd499284404cc8))
+* **skills:** require specific branch names based on what was refreshed ([b7e4391](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/commit/b7e43910fb1a2173e857c4c6b7fa6af9f9ca1be7))
+* **skills:** specify markdown format for autonomous report output ([c271bd4](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/commit/c271bd4729793de8f3ec2e47dd5fe3e8de65c305))
+* **skills:** steer compound-refresh subagents toward file tools over shell commands ([187571c](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/commit/187571ce97ca8c840734b4677cceb0a4c37c84bb))
+* **skills:** strengthen autonomous mode to prevent blocking on user input ([d3aff58](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/commit/d3aff58d9e48c44266f09cf765d85b41bf95a110))
+* **skills:** use actual branch name in commit options instead of 'this branch' ([a47f7d6](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/commit/a47f7d67a25ff23ce8c2bb85e92fdce85bed3982))
+
+
+### Features
+
+* **skills:** add autonomous mode to ce:compound-refresh ([699f484](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/commit/699f484033f3c895c35fea49e147dd1742bc3d43))
+* **skills:** add ce:compound-refresh skill for learning and pattern maintenance ([bd3088a](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/commit/bd3088a851a3dec999d13f2f78951dfed5d9ac8c))
+* **skills:** add Phase 5 commit workflow to ce:compound-refresh ([d4c12c3](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/commit/d4c12c39fd04526c05cf484a512f9f73e91f5c3d))
+* **skills:** add smart triage, drift classification, and replacement subagents to ce:compound-refresh ([95ad09d](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/commit/95ad09d3e7d96367324c6ec7a10767e51d5788e8))
+
 ## [2.37.1](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/compare/v2.37.0...v2.37.1) (2026-03-16)
 
 

package/README.md

@@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ Brainstorm → Plan → Work → Review → Compound → Repeat
 | `/ce:review` | Multi-agent code review before merging |
 | `/ce:compound` | Document learnings to make future work easier |
 
-The `brainstorming` skill supports `/ce:brainstorm` with collaborative dialogue to clarify requirements and compare approaches before committing to a plan.
+The `/ce:brainstorm` skill supports collaborative dialogue to clarify requirements and compare approaches before committing to a plan.
 
 Each cycle compounds: brainstorms sharpen plans, plans inform future plans, reviews catch more issues, patterns get documented.
 

package/docs/solutions/skill-design/compound-refresh-skill-improvements.md

@@ -0,0 +1,141 @@
+---
+title: "ce:compound-refresh skill redesign for autonomous maintenance without live user context"
+category: skill-design
+date: 2026-03-13
+module: plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-compound-refresh
+component: SKILL.md
+tags:
+  - skill-design
+  - compound-refresh
+  - maintenance-workflow
+  - drift-classification
+  - subagent-architecture
+  - platform-agnostic
+severity: medium
+description: "Redesign ce:compound-refresh to handle autonomous drift triage, in-skill replacement via subagents, and smart scoping without relying on live problem-solving context that ce:compound expects."
+related:
+  - docs/solutions/plugin-versioning-requirements.md
+  - https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/pull/260
+  - https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/issues/204
+  - https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin/issues/221
+---
+
+## Problem
+
+The initial `ce:compound-refresh` skill had several design issues discovered during real-world testing:
+
+1. Interactive questions never triggered the proper tool (AskUserQuestion) because the instruction used a weak "when available" qualifier
+2. Auto-archive criteria contradicted a "always ask before archiving" rule in a later phase
+3. Broad scope (9+ docs) asked the user to choose an area blindly without providing analysis
+4. The Replace flow tried to hand off to `ce:compound`, which expects fresh problem-solving context the user doesn't have months later
+5. Subagents used shell commands for file existence checks, triggering permission prompts
+6. No way to run the skill unattended (e.g., on a schedule) — every run required user interaction
+
+## Root Cause
+
+Five independent design issues, each with a distinct root cause:
+
+1. **Hardcoded tool name with escape hatch.** Saying "Use AskUserQuestion when available" gave the model permission to skip the tool and just output text. Also non-portable to Codex and other platforms.
+2. **Contradictory rules across phases.** Phase 2 defined auto-archive criteria. Phase 3 said "always ask before archiving" with no exception. The model followed Phase 3.
+3. **Question before evidence.** The skill prompted scope selection before gathering any information about which areas were most stale or interconnected.
+4. **Unsatisfied precondition in cross-skill handoff.** `ce:compound` expects a recently solved problem with fresh context. A maintenance refresh has investigation evidence instead — equivalent data, different shape.
+5. **No tool preference guidance for subagents.** Without explicit instruction, subagents defaulted to bash for file operations.
+6. **Interactive-only design.** Every phase assumed a user was present. No way to run autonomously for scheduled maintenance or hands-off sweeps.
+
+## Solution
+
+### 1. Platform-agnostic interactive questions
+
+Reference "the platform's interactive question tool" as the concept, with concrete examples:
+
+```markdown
+Ask questions **one at a time** — use the platform's interactive question tool
+(e.g. `AskUserQuestion` in Claude Code, `request_user_input` in Codex) and
+**stop to wait for the answer** before continuing.
+```
+
+The "stop to wait" language removes the escape hatch. The examples help each platform's model select the right tool.
+
+### 2. Auto-archive exemption for unambiguous cases
+
+Phase 3 now defers to Phase 2's auto-archive criteria:
+
+```markdown
+You are about to Archive a document **and** the evidence is not unambiguous
+(see auto-archive criteria in Phase 2). When auto-archive criteria are met,
+proceed without asking.
+```
+
+### 3. Smart triage for broad scope
+
+When 9+ candidate docs are found, triage before asking:
+
+1. **Inventory** — read frontmatter, group by module/component/category
+2. **Impact clustering** — dense clusters of interconnected learnings + pattern docs are higher-impact than isolated docs
+3. **Spot-check drift** — check whether primary referenced files still exist
+4. **Recommend** — present the highest-impact cluster with rationale
+
+Key insight: "code changed recently" is NOT a reliable staleness signal. Missing references in a high-impact cluster is the strongest signal.
+
+### 4. Replacement subagents instead of ce:compound handoff
+
+By the time a Replace is identified, Phase 1 investigation has already gathered the evidence that `ce:compound` would research:
+- The old learning's claims
+- What the current code actually does
+- Where and why the drift occurred
+
+A replacement subagent writes the successor directly using `ce:compound`'s document format (frontmatter, problem, root cause, solution, prevention). Run sequentially — one at a time — because each may read significant code.
+
+When evidence is insufficient (e.g., entire subsystem replaced, new architecture too complex to understand from investigation alone), mark as stale and recommend `ce:compound` after the user's next encounter with that area.
+
+### 5. Dedicated file tools over shell commands
+
+Added to subagent strategy:
+
+```markdown
+Subagents should use dedicated file search and read tools for investigation —
+not shell commands. This avoids unnecessary permission prompts and is more
+reliable across platforms.
+```
+
+### 6. Autonomous mode for scheduled/unattended runs
+
+Added `mode:autonomous` argument support so the skill can run without user interaction (e.g., on a schedule, in CI, or when the user just wants a hands-off sweep).
+
+Key design decisions:
+- **Explicit opt-in only.** `mode:autonomous` must be in the arguments. Auto-detection based on tool availability was rejected because a user in an interactive agent without a question tool (e.g., Cursor, Windsurf) is still interactive — they just use plain-text replies.
+- **Conservative confidence.** Borderline cases that would get a user question in interactive mode get marked stale in autonomous mode. Err toward stale-marking over incorrect action.
+- **Detailed report as deliverable.** Since no user was present, the output report includes full rationale for each action so a human can review after the fact.
+- **Process everything.** No scope narrowing questions — if no scope hint provided, process all docs. For broad scope, process clusters in impact order without asking.
+
+## Prevention
+
+### Skill review checklist additions
+
+These five patterns should be checked during any skill review:
+
+1. **No hardcoded tool names** — All tool references use capability-first language with platform examples and a plain-text fallback
+2. **No contradictory rules across phases** — Trace each action type through all phases; verify absolute language ("always," "never") is not contradicted elsewhere
+3. **No blind user questions** — Every question presented to the user is informed by evidence the agent gathered first
+4. **No unsatisfied cross-skill preconditions** — Every skill handoff verifies the target skill's preconditions are met by the calling context
+5. **No shell commands for file operations in subagents** — Subagent instructions explicitly prefer dedicated tools over shell commands
+6. **Autonomous mode for long-running skills** — Any skill that could run unattended should support an explicit opt-in mode with conservative confidence and detailed reporting
+
+### Key anti-patterns
+
+| Anti-pattern | Better pattern |
+|---|---|
+| "Use the AskUserQuestion tool when available" | "Use the platform's interactive question tool (e.g. AskUserQuestion in Claude Code, request_user_input in Codex)" |
+| Defining auto-archive conditions, then "always ask before archiving" | Single-source-of-truth: define the rule once, reference it elsewhere |
+| "Which area should we review?" before any investigation | Triage first, recommend with evidence, let user confirm or redirect |
+| "Create a successor learning through ce:compound" during a refresh | Replacement subagent writes directly using gathered evidence |
+| No tool guidance for subagents | "Use dedicated file search and read tools, not shell commands" |
+| Auto-detecting "no question tool = headless" | Explicit `mode:autonomous` argument — interactive agents without question tools are still interactive |
+
+## Cross-References
+
+- **PR #260**: The PR containing all these improvements
+- **Issue #204**: Platform-agnostic tool references (AskUserQuestion dependency)
+- **Issue #221**: Motivating issue for maintenance at scale
+- **PR #242**: ce:audit (detection counterpart, closed)
+- **PR #150**: Established subagent context-isolation pattern

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@every-env/compound-plugin",
-  "version": "2.37.1",
+  "version": "2.39.0",
   "type": "module",
   "private": false,
   "bin": {

package/plugins/compound-engineering/CLAUDE.md

@@ -76,10 +76,10 @@ When adding or modifying skills, verify compliance with skill-creator spec:
 - [ ] Use imperative/infinitive form (verb-first instructions)
 - [ ] Avoid second person ("you should") - use objective language ("To accomplish X, do Y")
 
-### AskUserQuestion Usage
+### Cross-Platform User Interaction
 
-- [ ] If the skill uses `AskUserQuestion`, it must include an "Interaction Method" preamble explaining the numbered-list fallback for non-Claude environments
-- [ ] Prefer avoiding `AskUserQuestion` entirely (see `brainstorming/SKILL.md` pattern) for skills intended to run cross-platform
+- [ ] When a skill needs to ask the user a question, instruct use of the platform's blocking question tool and name the known equivalents (`AskUserQuestion` in Claude Code, `request_user_input` in Codex, `ask_user` in Gemini)
+- [ ] Include a fallback for environments without a question tool (e.g., present numbered options and wait for the user's reply before proceeding)
 
 ### Quick Validation Command
 

package/plugins/compound-engineering/README.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ AI-powered development tools that get smarter with every use. Make each unit of
 | Component | Count |
 |-----------|-------|
 | Agents | 28 |
-| Commands | 22 |
+| Commands | 23 |
 | Skills | 20 |
 | MCP Servers | 1 |
 
@@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ Core workflow commands use `ce:` prefix to unambiguously identify them as compou
 | `/ce:review` | Run comprehensive code reviews |
 | `/ce:work` | Execute work items systematically |
 | `/ce:compound` | Document solved problems to compound team knowledge |
+| `/ce:compound-refresh` | Refresh stale or drifting learnings and decide whether to keep, update, replace, or archive them |
 
 > **Deprecated aliases:** `/workflows:plan`, `/workflows:work`, `/workflows:review`, `/workflows:brainstorm`, `/workflows:compound` still work but show a deprecation warning. Use `ce:*` equivalents.
 
@@ -130,7 +131,6 @@ Core workflow commands use `ce:` prefix to unambiguously identify them as compou
 
 | Skill | Description |
 |-------|-------------|
-| `brainstorming` | Explore requirements and approaches through collaborative dialogue |
 | `document-review` | Improve documents through structured self-review |
 | `every-style-editor` | Review copy for Every's style guide compliance |
 | `file-todos` | File-based todo tracking system |

package/plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-brainstorm/SKILL.md

@@ -1,16 +1,38 @@
 ---
 name: ce:brainstorm
-description: Explore requirements and approaches through collaborative dialogue before planning implementation
+description: 'Explore requirements and approaches through collaborative dialogue before writing a right-sized requirements document and planning implementation. Use for feature ideas, problem framing, when the user says ''let''s brainstorm'', or when they want to think through options before deciding what to build. Also use when a user describes a vague or ambitious feature request, asks ''what should we build'', ''help me think through X'', presents a problem with multiple valid solutions, or seems unsure about scope or direction — even if they don''t explicitly ask to brainstorm.'
 argument-hint: "[feature idea or problem to explore]"
 ---
 
 # Brainstorm a Feature or Improvement
 
-**Note: The current year is 2026.** Use this when dating brainstorm documents.
+**Note: The current year is 2026.** Use this when dating requirements documents.
 
 Brainstorming helps answer **WHAT** to build through collaborative dialogue. It precedes `/ce:plan`, which answers **HOW** to build it.
 
-**Process knowledge:** Load the `brainstorming` skill for detailed question techniques, approach exploration patterns, and YAGNI principles.
+The durable output of this workflow is a **requirements document**. In other workflows this might be called a lightweight PRD or feature brief. In compound engineering, keep the workflow name `brainstorm`, but make the written artifact strong enough that planning does not need to invent product behavior, scope boundaries, or success criteria.
+
+This skill does not implement code. It explores, clarifies, and documents decisions for later planning or execution.
+
+## Core Principles
+
+1. **Assess scope first** - Match the amount of ceremony to the size and ambiguity of the work.
+2. **Be a thinking partner** - Suggest alternatives, challenge assumptions, and explore what-ifs instead of only extracting requirements.
+3. **Resolve product decisions here** - User-facing behavior, scope boundaries, and success criteria belong in this workflow. Detailed implementation belongs in planning.
+4. **Keep implementation out of the requirements doc by default** - Do not include libraries, schemas, endpoints, file layouts, or code-level design unless the brainstorm itself is inherently about a technical or architectural change.
+5. **Right-size the artifact** - Simple work gets a compact requirements document or brief alignment. Larger work gets a fuller document. Do not add ceremony that does not help planning.
+6. **Apply YAGNI to carrying cost, not coding effort** - Prefer the simplest approach that delivers meaningful value. Avoid speculative complexity and hypothetical future-proofing, but low-cost polish or delight is worth including when its ongoing cost is small and easy to maintain.
+
+## Interaction Rules
+
+1. **Ask one question at a time** - Do not batch several unrelated questions into one message.
+2. **Prefer single-select multiple choice** - Use single-select when choosing one direction, one priority, or one next step.
+3. **Use multi-select rarely and intentionally** - Use it only for compatible sets such as goals, constraints, non-goals, or success criteria that can all coexist. If prioritization matters, follow up by asking which selected item is primary.
+4. **Use the platform's question tool when available** - When asking the user a question, prefer the platform's blocking question tool if one exists (`AskUserQuestion` in Claude Code, `request_user_input` in Codex, `ask_user` in Gemini). Otherwise, present numbered options in chat and wait for the user's reply before proceeding.
+
+## Output Guidance
+
+- **Keep outputs concise** - Prefer short sections, brief bullets, and only enough detail to support the next decision.
 
 ## Feature Description
 
@@ -22,9 +44,16 @@ Do not proceed until you have a feature description from the user.
 
 ## Execution Flow
 
-### Phase 0: Assess Requirements Clarity
+### Phase 0: Resume, Assess, and Route
+
+#### 0.1 Resume Existing Work When Appropriate
 
-Evaluate whether brainstorming is needed based on the feature description.
+If the user references an existing brainstorm topic or document, or there is an obvious recent matching `*-requirements.md` file in `docs/brainstorms/`:
+- Read the document
+- Confirm with the user before resuming: "Found an existing requirements doc for [topic]. Should I continue from this, or start fresh?"
+- If resuming, summarize the current state briefly, continue from its existing decisions and outstanding questions, and update the existing document instead of creating a duplicate
+
+#### 0.2 Assess Whether Brainstorming Is Needed
 
 **Clear requirements indicators:**
 - Specific acceptance criteria provided
@@ -33,71 +62,228 @@ Evaluate whether brainstorming is needed based on the feature description.
 - Constrained, well-defined scope
 
 **If requirements are already clear:**
-Use **AskUserQuestion tool** to suggest: "Your requirements seem detailed enough to proceed directly to planning. Should I run `/ce:plan` instead, or would you like to explore the idea further?"
+Keep the interaction brief. Confirm understanding and present concise next-step options rather than forcing a long brainstorm. Only write a short requirements document when a durable handoff to planning or later review would be valuable. Skip Phase 1.1 and 1.2 entirely — go straight to Phase 1.3 or Phase 3.
+
+#### 0.3 Assess Scope
+
+Use the feature description plus a light repo scan to classify the work:
+- **Lightweight** - small, well-bounded, low ambiguity
+- **Standard** - normal feature or bounded refactor with some decisions to make
+- **Deep** - cross-cutting, strategic, or highly ambiguous
+
+If the scope is unclear, ask one targeted question to disambiguate and then proceed.
 
 ### Phase 1: Understand the Idea
 
-#### 1.1 Repository Research (Lightweight)
+#### 1.1 Existing Context Scan
+
+Scan the repo before substantive brainstorming. Match depth to scope:
+
+**Lightweight** — Search for the topic, check if something similar already exists, and move on.
+
+**Standard and Deep** — Two passes:
 
-Run a quick repo scan to understand existing patterns:
+*Constraint Check* — Check project instruction files (`AGENTS.md`, `CLAUDE.md`) for workflow, product, or scope constraints that affect the brainstorm. If these add nothing, move on.
 
-- Task compound-engineering:research:repo-research-analyst("Understand existing patterns related to: <feature_description>")
+*Topic Scan* — Search for relevant terms. Read the most relevant existing artifact if one exists (brainstorm, plan, spec, skill, feature doc). Skim adjacent examples covering similar behavior.
 
-Focus on: similar features, established patterns, CLAUDE.md guidance.
+If nothing obvious appears after a short scan, say so and continue. Do not drift into technical planning — avoid inspecting tests, migrations, deployment, or low-level architecture unless the brainstorm is itself about a technical decision.
 
-#### 1.2 Collaborative Dialogue
+#### 1.2 Product Pressure Test
 
-Use the **AskUserQuestion tool** to ask questions **one at a time**.
+Before generating approaches, challenge the request to catch misframing. Match depth to scope:
 
-**Guidelines (see `brainstorming` skill for detailed techniques):**
+**Lightweight:**
+- Is this solving the real user problem?
+- Are we duplicating something that already covers this?
+- Is there a clearly better framing with near-zero extra cost?
+
+**Standard:**
+- Is this the right problem, or a proxy for a more important one?
+- What user or business outcome actually matters here?
+- What happens if we do nothing?
+- Is there a nearby framing that creates more user value without more carrying cost? If so, what complexity does it add?
+- Given the current project state, user goal, and constraints, what is the single highest-leverage move right now: the request as framed, a reframing, one adjacent addition, a simplification, or doing nothing?
+- Favor moves that compound value, reduce future carrying cost, or make the product meaningfully more useful or compelling
+- Use the result to sharpen the conversation, not to bulldoze the user's intent
+
+**Deep** — Standard questions plus:
+- What durable capability should this create in 6-12 months?
+- Does this move the product toward that, or is it only a local patch?
+
+#### 1.3 Collaborative Dialogue
+
+Use the platform's blocking question tool when available (see Interaction Rules). Otherwise, present numbered options in chat and wait for the user's reply before proceeding.
+
+**Guidelines:**
+- Ask questions **one at a time**
 - Prefer multiple choice when natural options exist
-- Start broad (purpose, users) then narrow (constraints, edge cases)
-- Validate assumptions explicitly
-- Ask about success criteria
+- Prefer **single-select** when choosing one direction, one priority, or one next step
+- Use **multi-select** only for compatible sets that can all coexist; if prioritization matters, ask which selected item is primary
+- Start broad (problem, users, value) then narrow (constraints, exclusions, edge cases)
+- Clarify the problem frame, validate assumptions, and ask about success criteria
+- Make requirements concrete enough that planning will not need to invent behavior
+- Surface dependencies or prerequisites only when they materially affect scope
+- Resolve product decisions here; leave technical implementation choices for planning
+- Bring ideas, alternatives, and challenges instead of only interviewing
 
-**Exit condition:** Continue until the idea is clear OR user says "proceed"
+**Exit condition:** Continue until the idea is clear OR the user explicitly wants to proceed.
 
 ### Phase 2: Explore Approaches
 
-Propose **2-3 concrete approaches** based on research and conversation.
+If multiple plausible directions remain, propose **2-3 concrete approaches** based on research and conversation. Otherwise state the recommended direction directly.
+
+When useful, include one deliberately higher-upside alternative:
+- Identify what adjacent addition or reframing would most increase usefulness, compounding value, or durability without disproportionate carrying cost. Present it as a challenger option alongside the baseline, not as the default. Omit it when the work is already obviously over-scoped or the baseline request is clearly the right move.
 
 For each approach, provide:
 - Brief description (2-3 sentences)
 - Pros and cons
+- Key risks or unknowns
 - When it's best suited
 
-Lead with your recommendation and explain why. Apply YAGNI—prefer simpler solutions.
+Lead with your recommendation and explain why. Prefer simpler solutions when added complexity creates real carrying cost, but do not reject low-cost, high-value polish just because it is not strictly necessary.
+
+If one approach is clearly best and alternatives are not meaningful, skip the menu and state the recommendation directly.
+
+If relevant, call out whether the choice is:
+- Reuse an existing pattern
+- Extend an existing capability
+- Build something net new
+
+### Phase 3: Capture the Requirements
+
+Write or update a requirements document only when the conversation produced durable decisions worth preserving.
+
+This document should behave like a lightweight PRD without PRD ceremony. Include what planning needs to execute well, and skip sections that add no value for the scope.
+
+The requirements document is for product definition and scope control. Do **not** include implementation details such as libraries, schemas, endpoints, file layouts, or code structure unless the brainstorm is inherently technical and those details are themselves the subject of the decision.
+
+**Required content for non-trivial work:**
+- Problem frame
+- Concrete requirements or intended behavior with stable IDs
+- Scope boundaries
+- Success criteria
+
+**Include when materially useful:**
+- Key decisions and rationale
+- Dependencies or assumptions
+- Outstanding questions
+- Alternatives considered
+- High-level technical direction only when the work is inherently technical and the direction is part of the product/architecture decision
+
+**Document structure:** Use this template and omit clearly inapplicable optional sections:
 
-Use **AskUserQuestion tool** to ask which approach the user prefers.
+```markdown
+---
+date: YYYY-MM-DD
+topic: <kebab-case-topic>
+---
+
+# <Topic Title>
+
+## Problem Frame
+[Who is affected, what is changing, and why it matters]
+
+## Requirements
+- R1. [Concrete user-facing behavior or requirement]
+- R2. [Concrete user-facing behavior or requirement]
+
+## Success Criteria
+- [How we will know this solved the right problem]
+
+## Scope Boundaries
+- [Deliberate non-goal or exclusion]
+
+## Key Decisions
+- [Decision]: [Rationale]
+
+## Dependencies / Assumptions
+- [Only include if material]
+
+## Outstanding Questions
+
+### Resolve Before Planning
+- [Affects R1][User decision] [Question that must be answered before planning can proceed]
+
+### Deferred to Planning
+- [Affects R2][Technical] [Question that should be answered during planning or codebase exploration]
+- [Affects R2][Needs research] [Question that likely requires research during planning]
+
+## Next Steps
+[If `Resolve Before Planning` is empty: `→ /ce:plan` for structured implementation planning]
+[If `Resolve Before Planning` is not empty: `→ Resume /ce:brainstorm` to resolve blocking questions before planning]
+```
+
+For **Standard** and **Deep** brainstorms, a requirements document is usually warranted.
 
-### Phase 3: Capture the Design
+For **Lightweight** brainstorms, keep the document compact. Skip document creation when the user only needs brief alignment and no durable decisions need to be preserved.
 
-Write a brainstorm document to `docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-brainstorm.md`.
+For very small requirements docs with only 1-3 simple requirements, plain bullet requirements are acceptable. For **Standard** and **Deep** requirements docs, use stable IDs like `R1`, `R2`, `R3` so planning and later review can refer to them unambiguously.
 
-**Document structure:** See the `brainstorming` skill for the template format. Key sections: What We're Building, Why This Approach, Key Decisions, Open Questions.
+When the work is simple, combine sections rather than padding them. A short requirements document is better than a bloated one.
+
+Before finalizing, check:
+- What would `ce:plan` still have to invent if this brainstorm ended now?
+- Do any requirements depend on something claimed to be out of scope?
+- Are any unresolved items actually product decisions rather than planning questions?
+- Did implementation details leak in when they shouldn't have?
+- Is there a low-cost change that would make this materially more useful?
+
+If planning would need to invent product behavior, scope boundaries, or success criteria, the brainstorm is not complete yet.
 
 Ensure `docs/brainstorms/` directory exists before writing.
 
-**IMPORTANT:** Before proceeding to Phase 4, check if there are any Open Questions listed in the brainstorm document. If there are open questions, YOU MUST ask the user about each one using AskUserQuestion before offering to proceed to planning. Move resolved questions to a "Resolved Questions" section.
+If a document contains outstanding questions:
+- Use `Resolve Before Planning` only for questions that truly block planning
+- If `Resolve Before Planning` is non-empty, keep working those questions during the brainstorm by default
+- If the user explicitly wants to proceed anyway, convert each remaining item into an explicit decision, assumption, or `Deferred to Planning` question before proceeding
+- Do not force resolution of technical questions during brainstorming just to remove uncertainty
+- Put technical questions, or questions that require validation or research, under `Deferred to Planning` when they are better answered there
+- Use tags like `[Needs research]` when the planner should likely investigate the question rather than answer it from repo context alone
+- Carry deferred questions forward explicitly rather than treating them as a failure to finish the requirements doc
 
 ### Phase 4: Handoff
 
-Use **AskUserQuestion tool** to present next steps:
+#### 4.1 Present Next-Step Options
+
+Present next steps using the platform's blocking question tool when available (see Interaction Rules). Otherwise present numbered options in chat and end the turn.
+
+If `Resolve Before Planning` contains any items:
+- Ask the blocking questions now, one at a time, by default
+- If the user explicitly wants to proceed anyway, first convert each remaining item into an explicit decision, assumption, or `Deferred to Planning` question
+- If the user chooses to pause instead, present the handoff as paused or blocked rather than complete
+- Do not offer `Proceed to planning` or `Proceed directly to work` while `Resolve Before Planning` remains non-empty
+
+**Question when no blocking questions remain:** "Brainstorm complete. What would you like to do next?"
+
+**Question when blocking questions remain and user wants to pause:** "Brainstorm paused. Planning is blocked until the remaining questions are resolved. What would you like to do next?"
+
+Present only the options that apply:
+- **Proceed to planning (Recommended)** - Run `/ce:plan` for structured implementation planning
+- **Proceed directly to work** - Only offer this when scope is lightweight, success criteria are clear, scope boundaries are clear, and no meaningful technical or research questions remain
+- **Review and refine** - Offer this only when a requirements document exists and can be improved through structured review
+- **Ask more questions** - Continue clarifying scope, preferences, or edge cases
+- **Share to Proof** - Offer this only when a requirements document exists
+- **Done for now** - Return later
+
+If the direct-to-work gate is not satisfied, omit that option entirely.
 
-**Question:** "Brainstorm captured. What would you like to do next?"
+#### 4.2 Handle the Selected Option
 
-**Options:**
-1. **Review and refine** - Improve the document through structured self-review
-2. **Proceed to planning** - Run `/ce:plan` (will auto-detect this brainstorm)
-3. **Share to Proof** - Upload to Proof for collaborative review and sharing
-4. **Ask more questions** - I have more questions to clarify before moving on
-5. **Done for now** - Return later
+**If user selects "Proceed to planning (Recommended)":**
+
+Immediately run `/ce:plan` in the current session. Pass the requirements document path when one exists; otherwise pass a concise summary of the finalized brainstorm decisions. Do not print the closing summary first.
+
+**If user selects "Proceed directly to work":**
+
+Immediately run `/ce:work` in the current session using the finalized brainstorm output as context. If a compact requirements document exists, pass its path. Do not print the closing summary first.
 
 **If user selects "Share to Proof":**
 
 ```bash
-CONTENT=$(cat docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-brainstorm.md)
-TITLE="Brainstorm: <topic title>"
+CONTENT=$(cat docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-requirements.md)
+TITLE="Requirements: <topic title>"
 RESPONSE=$(curl -s -X POST https://www.proofeditor.ai/share/markdown \
   -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
   -d "$(jq -n --arg title "$TITLE" --arg markdown "$CONTENT" --arg by "ai:compound" '{title: $title, markdown: $markdown, by: $by}')")
@@ -108,38 +294,42 @@ Display the URL prominently: `View & collaborate in Proof: <PROOF_URL>`
 
 If the curl fails, skip silently. Then return to the Phase 4 options.
 
-**If user selects "Ask more questions":** YOU (Claude) return to Phase 1.2 (Collaborative Dialogue) and continue asking the USER questions one at a time to further refine the design. The user wants YOU to probe deeper - ask about edge cases, constraints, preferences, or areas not yet explored. Continue until the user is satisfied, then return to Phase 4.
+**If user selects "Ask more questions":** Return to Phase 1.3 (Collaborative Dialogue) and continue asking the user questions one at a time to further refine the design. Probe deeper into edge cases, constraints, preferences, or areas not yet explored. Continue until the user is satisfied, then return to Phase 4. Do not show the closing summary yet.
 
 **If user selects "Review and refine":**
 
-Load the `document-review` skill and apply it to the brainstorm document.
+Load the `document-review` skill and apply it to the requirements document.
 
-When document-review returns "Review complete", present next steps:
+When document-review returns "Review complete", return to the normal Phase 4 options and present only the options that still apply. Do not show the closing summary yet.
 
-1. **Move to planning** - Continue to `/ce:plan` with this document
-2. **Done for now** - Brainstorming complete. To start planning later: `/ce:plan [document-path]`
+#### 4.3 Closing Summary
 
-## Output Summary
+Use the closing summary only when this run of the workflow is ending or handing off, not when returning to the Phase 4 options.
 
-When complete, display:
+When complete and ready for planning, display:
 
-```
+```text
 Brainstorm complete!
 
-Document: docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-brainstorm.md
+Requirements doc: docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-requirements.md  # if one was created
 
 Key decisions:
 - [Decision 1]
 - [Decision 2]
 
-Next: Run `/ce:plan` when ready to implement.
+Recommended next step: `/ce:plan`
 ```
 
-## Important Guidelines
+If the user pauses with `Resolve Before Planning` still populated, display:
 
-- **Stay focused on WHAT, not HOW** - Implementation details belong in the plan
-- **Ask one question at a time** - Don't overwhelm
-- **Apply YAGNI** - Prefer simpler approaches
-- **Keep outputs concise** - 200-300 words per section max
+```text
+Brainstorm paused.
 
-NEVER CODE! Just explore and document decisions.
+Requirements doc: docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-requirements.md  # if one was created
+
+Planning is blocked by:
+- [Blocking question 1]
+- [Blocking question 2]
+
+Resume with `/ce:brainstorm` when ready to resolve these before planning.
+```