@tgoodington/intuition 11.7.2 → 11.8.0

package/agents/intuition-web-researcher.md

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+---
+name: intuition-web-researcher
+description: >
+  Web-only research agent for Intuition workflows. Use when a skill needs to verify
+  technical decisions against the current landscape — library currency, deprecation
+  status, alternatives, current best practices. Returns concise findings tagged
+  confirmed / refine / replace.
+model: haiku
+tools: WebSearch, WebFetch
+permissionMode: dontAsk
+maxTurns: 20
+---
+
+You are a fast, focused web researcher verifying technical decisions against the current landscape.
+
+When given a list of load-bearing technical decisions:
+
+1. For each decision, search the web for current status: is the choice active or deprecated, is the version recent, are there newer alternatives, are there known issues or shifts in best practice.
+2. Use WebFetch to read primary sources — project docs, release notes, changelogs — when search results are ambiguous or thin.
+3. Skip decisions that don't involve external technology (internal patterns, codebase-specific structure). Respond "no verification needed" for those and move on.
+4. Return findings tagged with one of:
+   - **confirmed** — choice is current and appropriate; no change needed
+   - **refine** — choice is sound but a detail should change (newer minor version, recommended pattern shift, configuration change)
+   - **replace** — a meaningfully better option exists for this use case; name it and explain the tradeoff
+5. Cite sources (URLs or doc titles) for any non-confirmed finding so the calling skill can judge weight.
+6. Stay under 400 words total. Be evidence-based, not speculative. If a decision can't be cleanly verified from public sources, say so explicitly rather than guessing.
+
+Prioritize signal over coverage. Your job is to surface meaningful corrections, not to exhaustively review every choice.

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@tgoodington/intuition",
-  "version": "11.7.2",
+  "version": "11.8.0",
   "description": "Domain-adaptive workflow system for Claude Code. Includes the Enuncia pipeline (discovery, compose, design, execute, verify) and the classic pipeline (prompt, outline, assemble, detail, build, test, implement).",
   "keywords": [
     "claude-code",

package/scripts/uninstall-skills.js

@@ -81,7 +81,8 @@ try {
     'intuition-researcher.md',
     'intuition-code-writer.md',
     'intuition-reviewer.md',
-    'intuition-synthesizer.md'
+    'intuition-synthesizer.md',
+    'intuition-web-researcher.md'
   ];
 
   agentsToRemove.forEach(agentFile => {

package/skills/intuition-enuncia-design/SKILL.md

@@ -178,6 +178,21 @@ For each group, determine:
 - **Interfaces**: How does this group's output connect to other groups? What data flows between them?
 - **Patterns**: What design patterns apply? What conventions from the codebase (or the project's chosen stack) should be followed?
 
+### 3b.5. Verify Against Current Landscape
+
+After making initial design decisions, spawn `intuition-web-researcher` to verify load-bearing technical choices against the current landscape — library currency, deprecation status, alternatives, current best practices.
+
+**Always run this step.** Even for groups that feel obvious, the agent can respond "no verification needed" for choices that don't touch external technology — that's the trivial-case escape hatch built into the agent.
+
+**Input:** the list of design decisions from 3b that involve external technology (libraries, frameworks, APIs, SaaS choices, well-known patterns). Skip purely internal architectural decisions — codebase research in 3a already covered those.
+
+**Apply findings to the design silently:**
+- **confirmed** → no change
+- **refine** → update the design in place (newer version, adjusted pattern, configuration change). Do not surface to the user.
+- **replace** → update the design to use the better option. Do not surface to the user, EXCEPT: if the replaced option was explicitly named in the discovery brief, include one line when presenting the group in 3e — e.g., "Note: the brief named X; verification surfaced Y as a better fit because [one-line reason]."
+
+The user sees the refined recommendation in 3e, not the research process or the intermediate draft. This step mirrors the way a careful engineer works: form an initial plan, vet it against the current state of the world, refine, then present.
+
 ### 3c. Decision Routing
 
 Check the discovery brief's Decision Posture and route decisions accordingly: