@opsee/cli 0.11.9

package/bin/opsee.js

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env node
+
+// Launches the TypeScript entry point through tsx, the same way mcp/bin/opsee-mcp.js does:
+// there is no compiled dist, the package ships its sources.
+import { spawn } from "node:child_process";
+import { dirname, resolve } from "node:path";
+import { fileURLToPath } from "node:url";
+import { createRequire } from "node:module";
+
+const __dirname = dirname(fileURLToPath(import.meta.url));
+const require = createRequire(import.meta.url);
+
+// Resolve tsx from wherever the package manager put it (handles workspace hoisting).
+const tsxPkg = dirname(require.resolve("tsx/package.json"));
+const tsx = resolve(tsxPkg, "dist", "cli.mjs");
+const entry = resolve(__dirname, "..", "src", "index.ts");
+
+const child = spawn(process.execPath, [tsx, entry, ...process.argv.slice(2)], {
+  stdio: "inherit",
+  env: process.env,
+});
+// Long-running commands (`foreman debug serve`) stop what they started on SIGINT, so the wrapper
+// must outlive the signal and report the child's exit code rather than die on it. A terminal's
+// Ctrl-C reaches the child directly as well; the handler there tolerates the duplicate.
+for (const signal of ["SIGINT", "SIGTERM"]) {
+  process.on(signal, () => child.kill(signal));
+}
+child.on("exit", (code, signal) => process.exit(code ?? (signal ? 1 : 0)));

package/package.json

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+{
+  "name": "@opsee/cli",
+  "version": "0.11.9",
+  "description": "Opsee CLI — the opsee binary: login, whoami, and the home of the Foreman",
+  "type": "module",
+  "bin": {
+    "opsee": "./bin/opsee.js"
+  },
+  "scripts": {
+    "build": "tsc --noEmit",
+    "lint": "tsc --noEmit",
+    "test": "vitest run",
+    "test:integration": "vitest run --config vitest.integration.config.ts",
+    "start": "npx tsx src/index.ts"
+  },
+  "dependencies": {
+    "@bufbuild/protobuf": "^2.14.0",
+    "@connectrpc/connect": "^2.1.2",
+    "@connectrpc/connect-node": "^2.1.2",
+    "@opsee/mcp-server": "0.11.9",
+    "tsx": "^4.23.12"
+  },
+  "devDependencies": {
+    "@playwright/mcp": "0.0.80",
+    "@types/node": "^22.20.1",
+    "typescript": "^5.9.3",
+    "vitest": "^4.1.10"
+  },
+  "engines": {
+    "node": ">=22.13.0"
+  },
+  "files": [
+    "src",
+    "!**/__tests__",
+    "!**/__fixtures__",
+    "bin",
+    "skills",
+    "templates"
+  ]
+}

package/skills/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+# Planning skills
+
+Opsee-owned forks of Matt Pocock's `wayfinder`, `to-spec`, and `to-issues` skills (https://github.com/mattpocock/skills, MIT; attribution kept in each `SKILL.md`), changed only where Opsee requires it: they read the per-repo tracker doc `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`, publish through the `opsee_*` MCP tools into an Initiative, and write the Foreman work contract (Goal, Acceptance Criteria, Verification, Boundaries) into every Task description, with blocking as TaskDependency edges and `ready-for-agent` as the dispatch label. Opsee owns these copies because the work contract is the product's opinion (ADR-0011); `opsee init` copies each folder into the repo's `.claude/skills/` and `.agents/skills/` alongside the tracker doc, and the Codex `agents/openai.yaml` beside each `SKILL.md` is what Codex reads. Edit them here, never in a consuming repo. The tracker doc they read is rendered from `../templates/issue-tracker.md`; `src/__tests__/skills.test.ts` checks the skills and the template stay in step (section names, the Wayfinding operations the wayfinder fork quotes).

package/skills/to-issues/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+---
+name: to-issues
+description: Break a plan, spec, or PRD into independently-grabbable Tasks inside an Opsee Initiative using tracer-bullet vertical slices, each carrying the Foreman work contract. Use when user wants to convert a plan into issues, create implementation tickets, or break down work into issues.
+---
+
+# To Issues
+
+> Forked from the `to-issues` skill by Matt Pocock (https://github.com/mattpocock/skills, MIT). This copy is owned by Opsee: the process is upstream's, the tracker is Opsee and every issue carries the Foreman work contract.
+
+Break a plan into independently-grabbable issues using vertical slices (tracer bullets).
+
+The issue tracker is Opsee, described in `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md` at the repo root; `opsee init` writes that file. Publishing goes through the `opsee_*` MCP tools. If the doc is missing, stop and ask the user to run `opsee init`; if the tools are missing, stop and ask the user to attach the Opsee MCP server (`/mcp`). Do neither yourself, and publish nothing until both are present. In the doc, "issue" means an Opsee **Task**, and every issue lives inside an **Initiative**.
+
+Read the doc's "Work contract" and `/to-issues` sections before step 5.
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. Gather context
+
+Work from whatever is already in the conversation context. If the user passes a reference as an argument — an Initiative by name, a Task identifier like `OPS-172`, or a spec path — fetch it from Opsee (the tracker doc's Conventions table says how) and read its full body and comments.
+
+### 2. Explore the codebase (optional)
+
+If you have not already explored the codebase, do so to understand the current state of the code. Issue titles and descriptions should use the project's domain glossary vocabulary, and respect ADRs in the area you're touching.
+
+### 3. Draft vertical slices
+
+Break the plan into **tracer bullet** issues. Each issue is a thin vertical slice that cuts through ALL integration layers end-to-end, NOT a horizontal slice of one layer.
+
+Slices may be 'HITL' or 'AFK'. HITL slices require human interaction, such as an architectural decision or a design review. AFK slices can be implemented and merged without human interaction by an unattended Worker. Prefer AFK over HITL where possible. For a HITL slice, say in its Goal why a human is needed.
+
+<vertical-slice-rules>
+- Each slice delivers a narrow but COMPLETE path through every layer (schema, API, UI, tests)
+- A completed slice is demoable or verifiable on its own
+- Prefer many thin slices over few thick ones
+</vertical-slice-rules>
+
+### 4. Quiz the user
+
+Present the proposed breakdown as a numbered list. For each slice, show:
+
+- **Title**: short descriptive name
+- **Type**: HITL / AFK
+- **Blocked by**: which other slices (if any) must complete first
+- **User stories covered**: which user stories this addresses (if the source material has them)
+
+Ask the user:
+
+- Does the granularity feel right? (too coarse / too fine)
+- Are the dependency relationships correct?
+- Should any slices be merged or split further?
+- Are the correct slices marked as HITL and AFK?
+
+Iterate until the user approves the breakdown.
+
+### 5. Publish the issues to Opsee
+
+Slices become **Tasks inside the Initiative** that holds the plan; a spec published by `/to-spec` already is one, and a bare plan gets one first (`status: "draft"`, the plan as its core idea, as the tracker doc's `/to-spec` hook describes). Each Task's description is the issue body template below. Publish the whole approved breakdown in one call, following the tracker doc's `/to-issues` hook for the exact arguments:
+
+- An Initiative with **no Tasks yet**: `opsee_decompose_initiative`, every slice as an entry with a temporary `ref` and the blocking edges between `ref`s. This also moves a `draft` Initiative to `active`.
+- An Initiative that **already has Tasks** (re-planning, or a `/wayfinder` map that has become executable): `opsee_reconcile_initiative`, kept Tasks tagged with `existingTaskId` and new ones without. Run it with `dryRun: true` first, show the human the changeset, and only after their approval run it for real. Keep a map's closed wayfinder tickets so the record of the route survives; Tasks that carry execution state are never deleted by reconcile, and the human decides their fate.
+
+**Blocked by** is a `BLOCKS` TaskDependency edge from blocker to blocked, never a line in the body; an absent edge is the absence of a blocker.
+
+Then label the **AFK** slices `ready-for-agent`: that label is the dispatch signal, and it says the Task's work contract is complete and an unattended Worker may pick it up once its blockers are Done. **HITL** slices get no `ready-for-agent`; leave them for an attended turn. Publish with the label unless instructed otherwise.
+
+<issue-template>
+## Goal
+
+One paragraph: what this vertical slice delivers, end to end, in domain vocabulary. Describe the end-to-end behavior, not layer-by-layer implementation. For a HITL slice, say why a human is needed.
+
+Avoid specific file paths or code snippets — they go stale fast. Exception: if a prototype produced a snippet that encodes a decision more precisely than prose can (state machine, reducer, schema, type shape), inline it here and note briefly that it came from a prototype. Trim to the decision-rich parts — not a working demo, just the important bits.
+
+## Acceptance Criteria
+
+- [ ] Criterion a Worker must satisfy before claiming done
+- [ ] Criterion 2
+- [ ] Criterion 3
+
+## Verification
+
+How to prove the work from the outside: commands to run and, for anything with a UI, the user journey to exercise in a browser. Followed by the Verifier, who never sees the implementer's transcript.
+
+## Boundaries
+
+Optional: files or areas a Worker must not touch. Omit the section if none.
+
+</issue-template>
+
+The headings are the Foreman's work contract (`cli/CONTEXT.md`): a `ready-for-agent` Task that lacks them is not dispatched but sent to a Triage turn, so write them in full. Acceptance Criteria go in the description as `- [ ]` checkboxes, not through `opsee_add_acceptance_criterion`. A Task that descends from another Task gets `parentTaskId`; there is no Parent section in the body.
+
+Do NOT close or modify the Initiative or any parent Task.

package/skills/to-issues/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "To Issues (Opsee)"
+  short_description: "Split a plan into tracer-bullet Tasks in an Opsee Initiative"
+policy:
+  allow_implicit_invocation: false

package/skills/to-spec/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+---
+name: to-spec
+description: Turn the current conversation into a spec and publish it to Opsee as a draft Initiative — no interview, just synthesis of what you've already discussed.
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+> Forked from the `to-spec` skill by Matt Pocock (https://github.com/mattpocock/skills, MIT). This copy is owned by Opsee: the process is upstream's, the tracker is Opsee.
+
+This skill takes the current conversation context and codebase understanding and produces a spec. Do NOT interview the user — just synthesize what you already know.
+
+The issue tracker is Opsee, described in `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md` at the repo root; `opsee init` writes that file. Publishing goes through the `opsee_*` MCP tools. If the doc is missing, stop and ask the user to run `opsee init`; if the tools are missing, stop and ask the user to attach the Opsee MCP server (`/mcp`). Do neither yourself, and publish nothing until both are present. In the doc, "issue" means an Opsee **Task**, and every issue lives inside an **Initiative**.
+
+Read the doc's `/to-spec` hook before step 3.
+
+## Process
+
+1. Explore the repo to understand the current state of the codebase, if you haven't already. Use the project's domain glossary vocabulary throughout the spec, and respect any ADRs in the area you're touching.
+
+2. Sketch out the seams at which you're going to test the feature. Existing seams should be preferred to new ones. Use the highest seam possible. If new seams are needed, propose them at the highest point you can. The fewer seams across the codebase, the better - the ideal number is one.
+
+Check with the user that these seams match their expectations.
+
+3. Write the spec using the template below, then publish it to Opsee as an **Initiative**, not a Task: `opsee_create_initiative` with the spec title, a one- or two-line `summary`, `status: "draft"`, and the full spec body as the `coreIdea` in markdown. If the spec was written from a repo file, name the file path in the summary so the two stay linked. Do **not** apply a triage label: labels are Task-level in Opsee, and the spec's readiness is recorded by `/to-issues` when it files the Tasks and labels them `ready-for-agent`. Report the Initiative by title and id.
+
+<spec-template>
+
+## Problem Statement
+
+The problem that the user is facing, from the user's perspective.
+
+## Solution
+
+The solution to the problem, from the user's perspective.
+
+## User Stories
+
+A LONG, numbered list of user stories. Each user story should be in the format of:
+
+1. As an <actor>, I want a <feature>, so that <benefit>
+
+<user-story-example>
+1. As a mobile bank customer, I want to see balance on my accounts, so that I can make better informed decisions about my spending
+</user-story-example>
+
+This list of user stories should be extremely extensive and cover all aspects of the feature.
+
+## Implementation Decisions
+
+A list of implementation decisions that were made. This can include:
+
+- The modules that will be built/modified
+- The interfaces of those modules that will be modified
+- Technical clarifications from the developer
+- Architectural decisions
+- Schema changes
+- API contracts
+- Specific interactions
+
+Do NOT include specific file paths or code snippets. They may end up being outdated very quickly.
+
+Exception: if a prototype produced a snippet that encodes a decision more precisely than prose can (state machine, reducer, schema, type shape), inline it within the relevant decision and note briefly that it came from a prototype. Trim to the decision-rich parts — not a working demo, just the important bits.
+
+## Testing Decisions
+
+A list of testing decisions that were made. Include:
+
+- A description of what makes a good test (only test external behavior, not implementation details)
+- Which modules will be tested
+- Prior art for the tests (i.e. similar types of tests in the codebase)
+
+## Out of Scope
+
+A description of the things that are out of scope for this spec.
+
+## Further Notes
+
+Any further notes about the feature.
+
+</spec-template>

package/skills/to-spec/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "To Spec (Opsee)"
+  short_description: "Turn a conversation into a spec published as a draft Opsee Initiative"
+policy:
+  allow_implicit_invocation: false

package/skills/wayfinder/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
+---
+name: wayfinder
+description: Plan a huge chunk of work — more than one agent session can hold — as a shared map of decision tickets in Opsee, and resolve them one at a time until the way to the destination is clear.
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+> Forked from the `wayfinder` skill by Matt Pocock (https://github.com/mattpocock/skills, MIT). This copy is owned by Opsee: the process is upstream's, the tracker is Opsee.
+
+A loose idea has arrived — too big for one agent session, and wrapped in fog: the way from here to the **destination** isn't visible yet. Wayfinding is about finding that way, not charging at the destination. This skill charts the way as a **shared map** on the repo's issue tracker, then works its **decision tickets** — questions whose resolution is a decision, not slices of a build to execute — one at a time until the route is clear.
+
+The destination varies per effort, and naming it is the first act of charting — it shapes every ticket. It might be a spec to hand off and iterate on, a decision to lock before planning starts, or a change made in place like a data-structure migration. The map is domain-agnostic — engineering work, course content, whatever fits the shape.
+
+## The tracker
+
+The issue tracker is Opsee, described in `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md` at the repo root; `opsee init` writes that file. Publishing goes through the `opsee_*` MCP tools. If the doc is missing, stop and ask the user to run `opsee init`; if the tools are missing, stop and ask the user to attach the Opsee MCP server (`/mcp`). Do neither yourself, and publish nothing until both are present. In the doc, "issue" means an Opsee **Task**, and every issue lives inside an **Initiative**.
+
+Read the doc before charting or working a map.
+
+## Plan, don't do
+
+Wayfinder is **planning** by default: each ticket resolves a decision, and the map is done when the way is clear — nothing left to decide before someone goes and does the thing. The pull to just do the work is usually the signal you've reached the edge of the map and it's time to hand off. An effort can override this in its **Notes** — carrying execution into the map itself — but absent that, produce decisions, not deliverables.
+
+## Refer by name
+
+Every map and ticket is an issue, so it has a **name** — its title. In everything the human reads — narration, the map's Decisions-so-far — refer to it by that name, never by a bare id, number, or slug. A wall of `#42, #43, #44` is illegible; names read at a glance. The identifier doesn't vanish — a name wraps its `OPS-nnn` — but it rides _inside_ the name, never stands in for it. Numeric ids are for tool calls only.
+
+## The Map
+
+The map is a single issue on this repo's issue tracker, labelled `wayfinder:map` — the canonical artifact. Its tickets are child issues of the map.
+
+The map is an **index**, not a store. It lists the decisions made and points at the tickets that hold their detail; a decision lives in exactly one place — its ticket — so the map never restates it, only gists it and links.
+
+**Where the map, its child tickets, blocking, and frontier queries physically live is tracker-specific.** Consult the **"Wayfinding operations"** section of `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md` for how _this_ repo expresses them: the Initiative that holds the effort, the map Task, the `wayfinder:*` labels, child tickets, blocking edges, the frontier query, claim, resolve, and out of scope. This skill says _what_ each of those means; that section says _which calls_ do it.
+
+### The map body
+
+The whole map at low resolution, loaded once per session. Open tickets are **not** listed — they are open child issues, found by query.
+
+```markdown
+## Destination
+
+<what reaching the end of this map looks like — the spec, decision, or change this effort is finding its way to. One or two lines; every session orients to it before choosing a ticket.>
+
+## Notes
+
+<domain; skills every session should consult; standing preferences for this effort>
+
+## Decisions so far
+
+<!-- the index — one line per closed ticket: enough to judge relevance, then zoom the link for the detail the ticket holds -->
+
+- <closed ticket title> (OPS-nnn) — <one-line gist of the answer>
+
+## Not yet specified
+
+<!-- see "Fog of war": in-scope fog you can't ticket yet; graduates as the frontier advances -->
+
+## Out of scope
+
+<!-- see "Out of scope": work ruled beyond the destination; closed, never graduates -->
+```
+
+### Tickets
+
+Each ticket is a **child issue** of the map; the tracker's issue id is its identity. Its body is the question, sized to one 100K token agent session:
+
+```markdown
+## Question
+
+<the decision or investigation this ticket resolves>
+```
+
+Each ticket carries a `wayfinder:<type>` label — one of `research`, `prototype`, `grilling`, `task` (see [Ticket Types](#ticket-types)). A wayfinder ticket is never a Ready Issue: it resolves a decision in a planning session, so it never carries the `ready-for-agent` label and the Foreman never dispatches it.
+
+A session **claims** a ticket by assigning it to the dev driving the map, **first**, before any work, so concurrent sessions skip it. That assignee _is_ the claim: an open, unassigned ticket is unclaimed.
+
+Blocking uses the tracker's **native** dependency relationship — a `BLOCKS` TaskDependency edge from blocker to blocked, never a line in the body — essential because it renders the frontier _visually_ in the tracker's own UI, so the human sees what's takeable without opening the map. A ticket is **unblocked** when every ticket blocking it is closed; the **frontier** is the open, unblocked, unclaimed children — the edge of the known.
+
+The answer isn't part of the body — it's recorded on resolution (see [Work through the map](#work-through-the-map)). Assets created while resolving a ticket are linked from the issue, not pasted in.
+
+## Ticket Types
+
+Every ticket is either **HITL** — human in the loop, worked _with_ a human who speaks for themselves — or **AFK**, driven by the agent alone. A HITL ticket only resolves through that live exchange; the agent never stands in for the human's side of it (a grilling agent that answers its own questions has broken this).
+
+- **Research** (AFK): Reading documentation, third-party APIs, or local resources like knowledge bases to surface a fact a decision waits on. Resolved by a `/research` **subagent**. Use when knowledge outside the current working directory is required.
+- **Prototype** (HITL): Raise the fidelity of the discussion by making a cheap, rough, concrete artifact to react to — an outline, a rough take, a stub, or UI/logic code via the /prototype skill. Links the prototype as an asset. Use when "how should it look" or "how should it behave" is the key question.
+- **Grilling** (HITL): Conversation. The default case. Always invoke the /grilling and /domain-modeling skills.
+- **Task** (HITL or AFK): Manual work that must happen before a _decision_ can be made — nothing to decide, prototype, or research, but the discussion is blocked until it's done. Signing up for a service so its API can be judged, provisioning access, moving data so its shape can be seen. This is the one type that _does_ rather than decides — and it earns its place by unblocking a decision, not by delivering the destination. The agent drives it alone where it can (AFK); otherwise it hands the human a precise checklist (HITL). Resolved when the work is done; the answer records what was done and any resulting facts (credentials location, new URLs, row counts) later tickets depend on.
+
+## Fog of war
+
+The map is _deliberately_ incomplete: don't chart what you can't yet see. Beyond the live tickets lies the **fog of war** — the dim view of decisions and investigations you can tell are coming but can't yet pin down, because they hang on questions still open. Resolving a ticket clears the fog ahead of it, graduating whatever's now specifiable into fresh tickets — one at a time, until the way to the destination is clear and no tickets remain.
+
+The map's **Not yet specified** section is where that dim view is written down: the suspected question, the area to revisit later. It's the undiscovered frontier _toward_ the destination — everything here is in scope, just not sharp enough to ticket. Write as loosely or as fully as the view allows; it doubles as a signpost for collaborators reading where the effort is headed.
+
+**Fog or ticket?** The test is whether you can state the question precisely now — _not_ whether you can answer it now.
+
+- **Ticket when** the question is already sharp — even if it's blocked and you can't act on it yet.
+- **Not yet specified when** you can't yet phrase it that sharply. Don't pre-slice the fog into ticket-sized pieces: it's coarser than a ticket, and one patch may graduate into several tickets, or none, once the frontier reaches it.
+
+**Not yet specified** excludes what's already decided (Decisions so far), what's already a live ticket, and what's out of scope (the next section).
+
+## Out of scope
+
+Fog only ever gathers _toward_ the destination. The destination fixes the scope, so work beyond it is **out of scope** — it isn't fog, and it doesn't belong in **Not yet specified**. It gets its own **Out of scope** section on the map: work you've consciously ruled out of _this_ effort. Scope, not sharpness, lands it here.
+
+Out-of-scope work never graduates — the frontier stops at the destination — so it returns only if the destination is redrawn, and then as a fresh effort, not a resumption.
+
+Ruling something out of scope is a scoping act, not a step on the route. When a ticket that already exists turns out to sit past the destination — mis-scoped in while charting, or exposed by a resolution — **close it** (a closed ticket is unambiguously off the frontier) and leave one line in the **Out of scope** section: the gist plus why it's out of scope, linking the closed ticket. It stays out of **Decisions so far**, which records the route actually walked — a scope boundary isn't a step on it. The tracker doc's "Out of scope" operation says how.
+
+## Invocation
+
+Two modes. Either way, **never resolve more than one ticket per session** — with the exception of research tickets.
+
+### Chart the map
+
+User invokes with a loose idea.
+
+1. **Name the destination.** Run a `/grilling` and `/domain-modeling` session to pin down what this map is finding its way to — the spec, decision, or change. The destination fixes the scope, so it's settled first.
+2. **Map the frontier.** Grill again, **breadth-first** this time: fan out across the whole space rather than deep on any one thread, surfacing the open decisions and the first steps takeable now. **If this surfaces no fog** — the way to the destination is already clear, the whole journey small enough for one session — you don't need a map. Stop and ask the user how they'd like to proceed.
+3. **Create the map** (label `wayfinder:map`): Destination and Notes filled in, Decisions-so-far empty, the fog sketched into **Not yet specified**. Follow the tracker doc's "Map" and "Labels" operations: the Initiative that holds the whole effort comes first, then the map inside it.
+4. **Create the tickets you can specify now** as child issues of the map — then wire blocking edges in a **second pass** (issues need ids before they can reference each other). Wiring sorts them into the frontier and the blocked; everything you can't yet specify stays in the fog — the **Not yet specified** section.
+5. **Fire the research subagents.** For each `research` ticket you just created, spin up a `/research` subagent to resolve it in parallel, capturing its findings on a throwaway `research/<name>` branch with a context pointer from the ticket.
+6. Stop — charting is one session's work; it hand-resolves nothing.
+
+### Work through the map
+
+User invokes with a map (its title, `OPS-nnn`, or the Initiative). A ticket is **optional** — without one, you pick the next decision, not the user.
+
+1. Load the **map** — the low-res view, not every ticket body.
+2. Choose the ticket. If the user named one, use it. Otherwise take the first frontier ticket in order (the tracker doc's "Frontier query"). **Claim it**: assign it to yourself before any work (the tracker doc's "Claim").
+3. Resolve it — **zoom as needed**: fetch the full body of any related or closed ticket on demand; invoke the skills the `## Notes` block names. If in doubt, use `/grilling` and `/domain-modeling`.
+4. Record the resolution: post the answer as a **resolution comment**, **close** the issue, and **append a context pointer** to the map's Decisions-so-far (the tracker doc's "Resolve", which also records the decision in the Initiative's memory).
+5. Add newly-surfaced tickets (create-then-wire); graduate any fog the answer has made specifiable, clearing each graduated patch from **Not yet specified** so it lives only as its new ticket. If the answer reveals a ticket — this one or another — sits beyond the destination, **rule it out of scope** rather than resolving it on the route. If the decision invalidates other parts of the map, update or delete those tickets.
+
+The user may run unblocked tickets in parallel, so expect other sessions to be editing the tracker concurrently.
+
+When the map has no open tickets, the way is clear: hand off to `/to-issues` against the same Initiative, as the tracker doc's "Graduate to execution" describes, so the route's decisions stay in the memory the execution Tasks are read against.

package/skills/wayfinder/agents/openai.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+interface:
+  display_name: "Wayfinder (Opsee)"
+  short_description: "Map a large effort as decision tickets in an Opsee Initiative"
+policy:
+  allow_implicit_invocation: false