@tgoodington/intuition 8.1.3 → 9.2.1

package/docs/project_notes/trunk/team_assignment.json

@@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
+{
+  "specialist_assignments": [
+    {
+      "specialist": "devops-infrastructure",
+      "tasks": [
+        {"task_id": "T1", "depth": "Light"},
+        {"task_id": "T6", "depth": "Light"},
+        {"task_id": "T8", "depth": "Standard"}
+      ],
+      "rationale": "Closest match for code/tooling tasks (T1, T6) via scripting/CI/deployment domain overlap, and code/testing verification sweep (T8) via CI/CD monitoring expertise."
+    },
+    {
+      "specialist": "technical-writer",
+      "tasks": [
+        {"task_id": "T2", "depth": "Standard"},
+        {"task_id": "T4", "depth": "Light"},
+        {"task_id": "T5", "depth": "Standard"},
+        {"task_id": "T7", "depth": "Standard"}
+      ],
+      "rationale": "Matched T7 (content/documentation) by domain_tags. T2, T4, T5 assigned as closest match — SKILL.md files are structured markdown requiring systematic disambiguation, which aligns with technical writing precision."
+    },
+    {
+      "specialist": "database-architect",
+      "tasks": [
+        {"task_id": "T3", "depth": "Deep"}
+      ],
+      "rationale": "Closest match for T3 (v7→v8 migration handler) via explicit 'migrations' and 'schema' domain_tags. JSON state schema migration pattern aligns with core database-architect competency."
+    }
+  ],
+  "producer_assignments": [
+    {
+      "specialist": "technical-writer",
+      "producer": "document-writer",
+      "output_format": "markdown",
+      "tasks_output_files": [
+        "docs/project_notes/trunk/blueprints/T2-outline-skill.md",
+        "docs/project_notes/trunk/blueprints/T4-initialize-template.md",
+        "docs/project_notes/trunk/blueprints/T5-other-skills.md",
+        "docs/project_notes/trunk/blueprints/T7-documentation.md"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "specialist": "devops-infrastructure",
+      "producer": "code-writer",
+      "output_format": "code",
+      "tasks_output_files": [
+        "docs/project_notes/trunk/blueprints/T1-audit.md",
+        "docs/project_notes/trunk/blueprints/T6-scripts.md",
+        "docs/project_notes/trunk/blueprints/T8-verification.md"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "specialist": "database-architect",
+      "producer": "code-writer",
+      "output_format": "code",
+      "tasks_output_files": [
+        "docs/project_notes/trunk/blueprints/T3-handoff-migration.md"
+      ]
+    }
+  ],
+  "execution_order": [
+    {
+      "phase": 1,
+      "specialists": ["devops-infrastructure"],
+      "rationale": "T1 (audit) has no dependencies and must complete first to produce the reference checklist for all subsequent tasks."
+    },
+    {
+      "phase": 2,
+      "specialists": ["technical-writer", "database-architect"],
+      "rationale": "T2, T5, T7 (technical-writer) and T3 (database-architect) all depend on T1 and can run in parallel after the audit is complete."
+    },
+    {
+      "phase": 3,
+      "specialists": ["technical-writer", "devops-infrastructure"],
+      "rationale": "T4 (technical-writer, depends on T3) and T6 (devops-infrastructure, depends on T2) run in parallel after Phase 2 completes."
+    },
+    {
+      "phase": 4,
+      "specialists": ["devops-infrastructure"],
+      "rationale": "T8 verification sweep depends on all prior tasks being complete."
+    }
+  ],
+  "dependencies": [
+    {
+      "specialist": "technical-writer",
+      "reads_blueprint_from": "database-architect",
+      "reason": "T4 (initialize template) depends on T3 (handoff migration) to know the final v8.0 state schema field names before updating the template."
+    },
+    {
+      "specialist": "devops-infrastructure",
+      "reads_blueprint_from": "technical-writer",
+      "reason": "T6 (scripts) depends on T2 (rename outline skill folder) being complete before updating the install script skill list."
+    }
+  ],
+  "unmatched_tasks": [
+    {"task_id": "T1", "title": "Audit all phase-name references", "domain": "code/tooling", "reason": "No specialist has 'tooling' in domain_tags. Assigned to devops-infrastructure (closest: scripting/CI overlap)."},
+    {"task_id": "T2", "title": "Rename and update outline skill", "domain": "code/skill-definition", "reason": "No specialist has 'skill-definition' in domain_tags. Assigned to technical-writer (closest: structured markdown editing)."},
+    {"task_id": "T3", "title": "Update handoff with v7->v8 migration", "domain": "code/skill-definition", "reason": "No specialist has 'skill-definition' in domain_tags. Assigned to database-architect (closest: migrations/schema tags)."},
+    {"task_id": "T4", "title": "Update initialize skill template", "domain": "code/skill-definition", "reason": "No specialist has 'skill-definition' in domain_tags. Assigned to technical-writer (closest: Light task, structured markdown)."},
+    {"task_id": "T5", "title": "Update all other skills (9 files)", "domain": "code/skill-definition", "reason": "No specialist has 'skill-definition' in domain_tags. Assigned to technical-writer (closest: structured markdown editing)."},
+    {"task_id": "T6", "title": "Update scripts and package config", "domain": "code/tooling", "reason": "No specialist has 'tooling' in domain_tags. Assigned to devops-infrastructure (closest: deploy scripts/CI overlap)."},
+    {"task_id": "T8", "title": "Verification sweep", "domain": "code/testing", "reason": "No specialist has 'testing' in domain_tags. Assigned to devops-infrastructure (closest: CI/CD monitoring/verification)."}
+  ],
+  "prerequisite_check": {
+    "document-writer/markdown": "PASS — no required tools",
+    "code-writer/code": "PASS — no required tools"
+  }
+}

package/docs/project_notes/trunk/test_brief.md

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+# Test Brief
+
+## Build Summary
+- **Status**: Success
+- **Tasks completed**: 8/8 — T1 (audit), T2 (outline skill), T3 (handoff schema + V7 handler), T4 (initialize template), T5 (9 other skills), T6 (scripts), T7 (docs/MEMORY.md), T8 (verification)
+- **Files modified**: ~30 files + 8 reference files (scope expansion); see `docs/project_notes/trunk/build_report.md` for full list
+
+## Code Producers Used
+
+- **Specialist**: devops-infrastructure
+  - **Tasks**: T1, T6, T8
+  - **Output files**:
+    - `docs/project_notes/trunk/audit/plan-rename-hitlist.md` (T1)
+    - `scripts/install-skills.js` (T6)
+    - `scripts/uninstall-skills.js` (T6)
+    - `package.json` (T6)
+    - `docs/project_notes/trunk/verification/devops-infrastructure-verification.md` (T8)
+
+- **Specialist**: database-architect
+  - **Tasks**: T3
+  - **Output files**:
+    - `skills/intuition-handoff/SKILL.md` (T3 — schema v8.0, V7 migration handler, state field renames)
+
+## Acceptance Criteria
+
+### T1: Audit all phase-name references
+1. A complete hit list exists covering all files with phase-name "plan" references
+2. Each hit is categorized as phase-name (rename) or generic English (keep)
+3. Hit list is grouped by file for easy task-by-task tracking
+
+### T3: Update handoff skill with v7→v8 state migration
+1. Schema version is 8.0 in the handoff SKILL.md header and schema definition
+2. v7→v8 migration handler exists and renames `planning` → `outline` in state objects
+3. All transition messages route to `/intuition-outline` (not `/intuition-plan`)
+4. All file path references use `outline_brief.md`, `outline.md`
+5. State field references use `outline` throughout
+6. Existing v5→v6 and v6→v7 migration handlers are preserved unchanged
+
+### T6: Update scripts and package configuration
+1. `scripts/install-skills.js` references `intuition-outline` (not `intuition-plan`)
+2. `scripts/uninstall-skills.js` references `intuition-outline` (not `intuition-plan`)
+3. `package.json` contains no "plan" phase-name references
+4. Legacy cleanup in install script handles removal of old `intuition-plan` from `~/.claude/skills/`
+
+### T8: Verification sweep
+1. Grep for phase-name "plan" patterns returns zero hits across the entire codebase
+2. `skills/intuition-outline/SKILL.md` exists with correct frontmatter
+3. Install script skill list includes `intuition-outline` and not `intuition-plan`
+4. v7→v8 migration handler correctly renames `planning` → `outline` in a sample state object
+5. Verification report documents all checks performed and results
+
+## Decision Log References
+- Specialist decision logs:
+  - `docs/project_notes/trunk/scratch/devops-infrastructure-decisions.json`
+  - `docs/project_notes/trunk/scratch/database-architect-decisions.json`
+- Project decisions: `docs/project_notes/decisions.md`
+
+## Blueprint References
+- `docs/project_notes/trunk/blueprints/devops-infrastructure.md` (T1, T6, T8)
+- `docs/project_notes/trunk/blueprints/database-architect.md` (T3)
+
+## Specialist Test Recommendations
+
+No specialist test recommendations.
+
+(Build report contains: "No test deliverables found in blueprints.")
+
+## Known Issues
+
+| Issue | Resolution |
+|-------|-----------|
+| Reference files (`references/` subdirectories) had 39 stale references not in plan scope | Scope expanded during build; 68 edits applied across 8 reference files |
+| MEMORY.md auto-memory path (not project root) | Absolute path passed to T7 producer; file updated successfully |
+| T3/T5 overlap on handoff SKILL.md | T3 executed first; T5 verified and found zero remaining edits |
+| Legacy docs (13 files) still have stale references | Classified out-of-scope; not blocking. Documented in verification report. |

package/docs/project_notes/trunk/test_report.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+# Test Report
+
+**Plan:** Rename Plan Phase to Outline
+**Date:** 2026-03-05
+**Status:** Skipped
+
+## Reason
+
+User elected to skip testing. Rationale:
+
+- Build was a pure text rename refactor (~530 edits across ~30 files)
+- No behavioral changes — only phase-name string replacements
+- Task 8 verification sweep already passed 34/34 checks with zero stale in-scope references
+- Only executable code modified was `scripts/install-skills.js` and `scripts/uninstall-skills.js` (minor edits to skill lists)
+- No test framework exists in the project; no existing tests to extend
+- Additional automated testing would provide minimal value beyond what T8 already verified
+
+## Decision Compliance
+
+- Checked **12** decisions across **3** specialist decision logs
+- `[USER]` violations: None (0 USER-tier decisions exist)
+- `[SPEC]` conflicts noted: None
+
+## Files Modified (beyond test files)
+
+None — no implementation fixes applied.

package/docs/project_notes/trunk/verification/devops-infrastructure-verification.md

@@ -0,0 +1,172 @@
+# DevOps Infrastructure Verification Report
+
+**Date**: 2026-03-05
+**Task**: T8 — Verification Protocol (plan rename: intuition-plan -> intuition-outline)
+**Blueprint**: docs/project_notes/trunk/blueprints/devops-infrastructure.md
+
+---
+
+## Phase 1: Zero Stale References
+
+| # | Pattern | Hits Found | In-Scope Hits | Status |
+|---|---------|-----------|---------------|--------|
+| 1 | `intuition-plan` | 42 total | 0 | PASS |
+| 2 | `planning_brief` | 36 total | 0 | PASS |
+| 3 | `plan\.md` (artifact ref) | 68 total | 1 (initialize SKILL.md:114 — generic English "plan.md" in a list of example files not to create) | PASS |
+| 4 | `\.planning_research` | 8 total | 0 | PASS |
+| 5 | `"planning"` (JSON key/status) | 16 total | 0 | PASS |
+| 6 | `planning phase` | 2 total | 0 | PASS |
+| 7 | `→.*planning\|planning.*→` | 10 total | 0 | PASS |
+
+### Pattern 1 detail — `intuition-plan`
+- **install-skills.js:113,116** — Legacy cleanup block referencing old name to remove it. EXPECTED.
+- **uninstall-skills.js:65** — Legacy section listing old name for cleanup. EXPECTED.
+- **All other hits** (INSTALLATION.md, docs/intuition-architecture.md, docs/intuition-workflow.md, QUICK_TEST_CHECKLIST.md, docs/PROJECT_CONTEXT.md, docs/v7_design_spec.md, docs/v7_plan.md, SKILL_INTERACTION_GUIDE.md, WALDO_V3_DESIGN_SUMMARY.md, WALDO_V3_COMPLETE_DOCUMENTATION.md) — OUT OF SCOPE legacy docs.
+
+### Pattern 2 detail — `planning_brief`
+- **handoff SKILL.md:210** — V3 migration handler references old artifact names to move files. EXPECTED.
+- **All other hits** — OUT OF SCOPE legacy docs (QUICK_TEST_CHECKLIST.md, docs/intuition_design_skill_spec.md, docs/v7_design_spec.md, docs/PROJECT_CONTEXT.md, SKILL_INTERACTION_GUIDE.md, docs/v7_plan.md, WALDO_V3_COMPLETE_DOCUMENTATION.md).
+
+### Pattern 3 detail — `plan\.md`
+- **intuition-initialize SKILL.md:114** — Says "Do NOT create workflow output files (prompt_brief.md, plan.md, etc.)". This is generic English listing old artifact names as examples. The initialize skill does not produce or consume plan.md — it's a cautionary note. Classified as EXPECTED (English example list; not a producer/consumer reference).
+- **intuition-detail SKILL.md:83,144,161** — References to `research-plan.md` (a crash recovery scratch file, not the old plan.md artifact). EXPECTED.
+- **docs/v9/test/phase4/TEST_PLAN.md:32** — Historical test fixture referencing `mock_plan.md`. OUT OF SCOPE.
+- **All other hits** — OUT OF SCOPE legacy docs.
+
+### Pattern 4 detail — `\.planning_research`
+- **handoff SKILL.md:210** — V3 migration handler. EXPECTED.
+- **All other hits** — OUT OF SCOPE legacy docs (docs/v7_design_spec.md, docs/v7_plan.md).
+
+### Pattern 5 detail — `"planning"`
+- **package.json:8** — npm keyword for discoverability ("planning" as a generic concept). EXPECTED (not a phase-name reference).
+- **marketplace.json:21** — Plugin keyword. OUT OF SCOPE (legacy marketplace metadata, not in plan scope).
+- **handoff SKILL.md:194** — V7 migration handler text: `rename the "planning" key to "outline"` and `change any status == "planning" to "outline"`. EXPECTED (describes old name for migration logic).
+- **All other hits** — OUT OF SCOPE legacy docs (docs/intuition-architecture.md, docs/v7_design_spec.md, SKILL_INTERACTION_GUIDE.md, docs/intuition_design_skill_spec.md, docs/PROJECT_CONTEXT.md).
+
+### Pattern 6 detail — `planning phase`
+- **docs/intuition-architecture.md:150** — OUT OF SCOPE legacy doc.
+- **docs/v7_design_spec.md:583** — OUT OF SCOPE legacy doc.
+
+### Pattern 7 detail — workflow arrows with `planning`
+- **docs/intuition-architecture.md:127-128** — OUT OF SCOPE legacy doc.
+- **docs/PROJECT_CONTEXT.md:72,347** — OUT OF SCOPE legacy doc.
+- **docs/intuition_design_skill_spec.md:187** — OUT OF SCOPE legacy doc.
+- **QUICK_TEST_CHECKLIST.md:90,93** — OUT OF SCOPE legacy doc.
+- **docs/v7_design_spec.md:1043** — OUT OF SCOPE legacy doc.
+- **SKILL_INTERACTION_GUIDE.md** (multiple lines) — OUT OF SCOPE legacy doc.
+- **handoff SKILL.md:194** — V7 migration handler. EXPECTED.
+- **start SKILL.md:109** — Internal label `planning_in_progress` (routes correctly to `/intuition-outline`). EXPECTED (generic English, not a phase key).
+
+---
+
+## Phase 2: Structural Verification
+
+| Check | Expected | Actual | Status |
+|-------|----------|--------|--------|
+| S1: `skills/intuition-outline/SKILL.md` exists | exists | exists | PASS |
+| S2: Frontmatter `name: intuition-outline` | `intuition-outline` | `intuition-outline` | PASS |
+| S3: `skills/intuition-plan/` does NOT exist | absent | absent | PASS |
+| S4: install-skills.js has `'intuition-outline'` in skill list | present | present (line 48) | PASS |
+| S4b: install-skills.js does NOT have `'intuition-plan'` in skill list | absent from active list | absent (only in legacy cleanup block) | PASS |
+| S5: uninstall-skills.js active list has `'intuition-outline'` | present | present (line 49) | PASS |
+| S6: install-skills.js has legacy cleanup for `intuition-plan` | present | present (lines 112-117) | PASS |
+| S7: uninstall-skills.js legacy section has `'intuition-plan'` | present | present (line 65) | PASS |
+
+---
+
+## Phase 3: Migration Handler Validation
+
+### V7 State Migration (handoff SKILL.md, line 192-194)
+
+| Test | Expected | Actual | Status |
+|------|----------|--------|--------|
+| Fires on version | `"7.0"` | `version == "7.0"` | PASS |
+| Renames `planning` key | to `outline` | "rename the `planning` key to `outline` in the `workflow` object" | PASS |
+| Changes status | `"planning"` to `"outline"` | "change any `status == \"planning\"` to `\"outline\"`" | PASS |
+| Sets version | `"8.0"` | `Set version: "8.0"` | PASS |
+| Preserves sub-fields | started, completed, completed_at, approved | "(preserving all sub-fields: started, completed, completed_at, approved)" | PASS |
+
+### Initialize Skill State Template (SKILL.md)
+
+| Test | Expected | Actual | Status |
+|------|----------|--------|--------|
+| Version in SKILL.md | `"8.0"` | `"version": "8.0"` (line 125) | PASS |
+| Workflow key in SKILL.md | `"outline"` | `"outline": { ... }` (line 137) | PASS |
+| No `"planning"` key in SKILL.md | absent | absent | PASS |
+
+### State Template JSON (references/state_template.json)
+
+| Test | Expected | Actual | Status |
+|------|----------|--------|--------|
+| Version in JSON | `"8.0"` | `"version": "8.0"` (line 3) | PASS |
+| Workflow key in JSON | `"outline"` | `"outline": { ... }` (line 15) | PASS |
+| No `"planning"` key in JSON | absent | absent | PASS |
+
+---
+
+## Phase 4: Cross-Reference Integrity
+
+### Artifact: `outline.md`
+
+| Skill | Role | Reference Found | Status |
+|-------|------|----------------|--------|
+| intuition-outline | Producer | `{context_path}/outline.md` (line 19, 70, 77, 331) | PASS |
+| intuition-handoff | Consumer | `{context_path}outline.md` (line 48), `outline.md` (lines 226, 246, 282, 293, 389, 397, 430) | PASS |
+| intuition-detail | Consumer | (not expected — detail reads blueprints, not outline directly) | N/A |
+| intuition-build | Consumer | `outline.md` (lines 59, 77, 94, 201, 202) | PASS |
+| intuition-start | Consumer | `outline.md` (line 151) | PASS |
+
+### Artifact: `outline_brief.md`
+
+| Skill | Role | Reference Found | Status |
+|-------|------|----------------|--------|
+| intuition-handoff | Producer | `{context_path}outline_brief.md` (lines 220, 222) | PASS |
+| intuition-outline | Consumer | `outline_brief.md` (line 24, 91) | PASS |
+
+### Artifact: `.outline_research/`
+
+| Skill | Role | Reference Found | Status |
+|-------|------|----------------|--------|
+| intuition-outline | Producer/Consumer | `.outline_research/` (lines 21, 80, 98, 142, 173, 244, 249, 295, 539, 549, 554-556) | PASS |
+
+### Stale artifact names in skills
+
+| Artifact | Pattern | Hits in Skills | Status |
+|----------|---------|---------------|--------|
+| `planning_brief` | old brief name | 1 hit — handoff V3 migration only | PASS |
+| `.planning_research` | old research dir | 1 hit — handoff V3 migration only | PASS |
+
+---
+
+## Out-of-Scope Files
+
+These legacy/historical documentation files contain stale `intuition-plan`, `planning_brief`, `plan.md`, `"planning"`, or `planning phase` references. They were NOT in the plan scope and are classified as OUT OF SCOPE:
+
+| File | Stale Patterns Found |
+|------|---------------------|
+| `INSTALLATION.md` | `intuition-plan`, `project_plan.md` |
+| `docs/intuition-architecture.md` | `intuition-plan`, `plan.md`, `"planning"`, `planning phase`, workflow arrows |
+| `docs/intuition-workflow.md` | `intuition-plan`, `plan.md` |
+| `QUICK_TEST_CHECKLIST.md` | `intuition-plan`, `planning_brief`, `plan.md`, workflow arrows |
+| `docs/PROJECT_CONTEXT.md` | `intuition-plan`, `planning_brief`, `plan.md`, `"planning"`, workflow arrows |
+| `docs/v7_design_spec.md` | `intuition-plan`, `planning_brief`, `plan.md`, `.planning_research`, `"planning"`, `planning phase` |
+| `docs/v7_plan.md` | `intuition-plan`, `planning_brief`, `plan.md`, `.planning_research` |
+| `SKILL_INTERACTION_GUIDE.md` | `intuition-plan`, `planning_brief`, `plan.md`, `"planning"`, workflow arrows |
+| `WALDO_V3_DESIGN_SUMMARY.md` | `intuition-plan` |
+| `WALDO_V3_COMPLETE_DOCUMENTATION.md` | `planning_brief` |
+| `docs/intuition_design_skill_spec.md` | `planning_brief`, `plan.md`, workflow arrows |
+| `.claude-plugin/marketplace.json` | `"planning"` keyword |
+| `docs/v9/test/phase4/TEST_PLAN.md` | `mock_plan.md` (test fixture) |
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+| Category | Count |
+|----------|-------|
+| Total checks | 34 |
+| Passed | 34 |
+| Failed | 0 |
+| Out of scope files | 13 |
+| Expected hits (migration handlers, legacy cleanup, npm keywords) | 8 |
+| **Overall** | **PASS** |

package/docs/v9/decision-framework-direction.md

@@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
+# Decision Framework — Direction Summary
+
+**Status**: IMPLEMENTED — see `decision-framework-implementation.md` for build details
+**Date**: 2026-03-03
+
+## Problem Statement
+
+In v9 workflows, the user (creative director) experiences two failure modes:
+
+1. **Rubber-stamping**: Specialists surface technical decisions the user doesn't care about. The user always accepts the recommendation, making the interaction feel like wasted time.
+2. **Silent decisions**: Specialists confidently make choices about user-facing experience, interaction patterns, and outputs without surfacing them. The user discovers these downstream when they're harder to change.
+
+The root cause is structural: the system lacks a principled framework for classifying **who should make which decisions**. Classification currently relies on individual specialist judgment — and the classifier is the same entity making the decision, creating a blind spot.
+
+## Core Insight
+
+The user is the **creative director**, not the tech lead. They care about **what the user experiences** — outputs, interactions, workflows, look-and-feel. They do not care about **how the machine achieves it** — algorithms, patterns, internal architecture.
+
+This maps to a universal pattern across creative industries (film, architecture, advertising, product management, music production): the principal retains control over the **experiential outcome**; specialists own the **technical method**.
+
+## Research Foundations
+
+Five external frameworks inform this direction:
+
+### Appelo's 7 Levels of Delegation
+A spectrum from "user decides" to "full autonomy." For practical use, the roundtable collapsed this to three tiers (see Framework below).
+
+### RAPID (Bain & Company)
+Separates "Recommend" from "Decide." Key insight: the specialist's job is *always* to recommend. The routing system determines whether the user reviews or the recommendation is auto-approved.
+
+### Commander's Intent (Military / Product Management)
+State the desired end state and why it matters. Let specialists determine how to get there. The prompt brief is the user's intent statement — it must be clear enough that downstream phases can classify decisions without guessing.
+
+### Principal-Agent Theory (Economics)
+The strongest alignment mechanism is **information forcing** — requiring specialists to show reasoning, surface assumptions, and present alternatives rather than just conclusions. When a specialist is confident and picks a direction silently, that's the exact scenario where blind spots occur.
+
+### Decision Fatigue (Cognitive Psychology)
+Every decision drains the same cognitive pool regardless of importance. The solution isn't "ask less" — it's "ask only the right things." Decision policies (rules that handle categories automatically) reduce fatigue more than individual case-by-case delegation.
+
+## Professional Practice Patterns
+
+Across film, architecture, advertising, product management, and music production:
+
+- **Principal always retains**: Emotional register, strategic alignment, user/audience experience, approval gates, cross-specialist coordination
+- **Specialist always owns**: Technical execution, tool selection, craft-level decisions, method of achieving stated outcome
+- **Communication artifacts** (creative briefs, lookbooks, performance specs, reference tracks) all share a structure: **"here is what success feels like"** + **"here are the hard constraints"**
+- The explicit anti-pattern in every domain is micromanagement — prescribing method when you should be evaluating outcome
+
+## Proposed Framework: Three-Layer Decision System
+
+### Layer 1: Prompt — Capture Intent + Posture
+
+Prompt currently produces a brief through iterative refinement. Two additions:
+
+**Commander's Intent Block** — a new section in the prompt brief:
+- Desired end state: what success feels like to the end user
+- Non-negotiables: the 2-3 things that would make the user reject the result
+- Boundaries: constraints on the solution space (not prescribed solutions)
+
+**Decision Posture Map** — the user's engagement preferences per brief element:
+- "I decide" — surface with full options and tradeoffs
+- "Show me options" — specialist recommends, user approves or redirects
+- "Just handle it" — specialist has full autonomy
+
+The posture map is coarse at this stage — it gets refined as outline decomposes tasks. Prompt can be somewhat longer here; the tradeoff is that more clarity upfront means fewer and faster questions in every downstream phase.
+
+### Layer 2: Outline — Classify Decisions Per Task
+
+Plan decomposes work into tasks. Each task gets a `Decisions` field with classified decision points:
+
+**Three delegation tiers:**
+
+| Label | Meaning | Appelo Equivalent |
+|-------|---------|-------------------|
+| `[USER]` | Specialist recommends, user decides | L2-L3 |
+| `[SPEC]` | Specialist decides, reports rationale | L5-L6 |
+| `[SILENT]` | Full autonomy, no report needed | L7 |
+
+**Classification heuristic (2x2):**
+
+| | Human-facing | Machine-facing |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Hard to reverse** | `[USER]` always | `[SPEC]` (reported with full reasoning) |
+| **Easy to reverse** | `[USER]` by default, user can downgrade | `[SILENT]` |
+
+Outline uses the Commander's Intent and Decision Posture from the prompt brief to determine what counts as "human-facing" from the user's perspective. Without that signal, outline defaults conservative.
+
+**User confirmation**: After presenting the full task breakdown, one question: "Here are the decisions I'd surface to you during detail work. Want to reclassify any?" Shows `[USER]` and `[SPEC]` items only. One pass, not per-task. Capped at ~2-3 decisions per task to prevent overload.
+
+### Layer 3: Downstream Phases — Follow, Log, Escalate
+
+All phases after outline follow the delegation assignments:
+
+**Detail / Specialists:**
+- Follow `[USER]` / `[SPEC]` / `[SILENT]` labels from outline
+- During Stage 1a research planning, explicitly separate "technical questions I'll resolve" from "experience questions I need principal input on"
+- User gate surfaces `[USER]` decisions with full options + tradeoffs
+- `[SPEC]` decisions logged with rationale
+- New decisions discovered during work get classified using the 2x2 before being routed
+
+**Engineer (v8 compat):**
+- Simple boundary test: "Would the user notice this from the outside?"
+- Decisions appended to a decision log with: decision, tier, rationale (one line), user-facing flag
+- Gray area: implementation choices that constrain future UX get elevated to joint decisions
+
+**Build:**
+- Decision log is a read-only verification artifact
+- Build report includes "Decision Compliance" section: user-reserved honored, expert-delegated applied, deviations noted
+- Unanticipated decisions with user-facing impact: pause task and escalate, never guess
+- Build's only autonomous domain: production logistics (task ordering, retries, format validation)
+
+## The ECD Lens on Decision Ownership
+
+The existing ECD framework (Elements, Connections, Dynamics) maps naturally:
+
+- **Elements** (what exists): *Selection* of elements = user decision. *Internal composition* = specialist.
+- **Connections** (how elements relate): Primarily user — these define experience flow. Technical protocol of connections = specialist.
+- **Dynamics** (behavior over time): The danger zone. Experiential dynamics (loading states, error messages, progressive disclosure) = user. Mechanical dynamics (retry logic, caching strategy) = specialist. This is where implicit UX theft happens most — specialists make "technical" choices that shape what users perceive.
+
+## Agent Architecture Considerations
+
+- Decision policies must be serialized into agent spawn prompts (agents can't discover files)
+- Structured decision artifacts (not free-text summaries) for reliable parsing by parent skills
+- Classification belongs in outline (opus), not a separate agent or step
+- Haiku research subagents never classify decisions — they flag potential decision points, opus synthesizes and classifies
+- Decision policy blocks kept under 30 lines to avoid context bloat in agent prompts
+
+## Open Questions
+
+1. **Where does the decision log live?** Options include: inline in existing artifacts (code_specs.md, blueprints), a structured `decisions.json`, or a unified format that serves multiple consumers. Needs design-phase exploration.
+
+2. **Default when unclassified.** Conservative (ask before deciding) vs. aggressive (specialist decides + reports). May be calibrated by the user's posture map — hands-on users get conservative defaults, delegators get aggressive defaults.
+
+3. **Cross-specialist decisions.** When a decision spans multiple specialists (e.g., a database schema choice that affects API design that affects frontend display), who classifies and who decides? Likely needs coordination at the outline or handoff level.
+
+4. **Learning over time.** Can the system build precedent? ("Last time you upgraded font choice from SILENT to USER — should I default color/typography decisions to USER going forward?") This is a future enhancement, not a v1 requirement.
+
+5. **Metrics / feedback loop.** How does the user signal that the framework is calibrated well vs. still asking too much or too little? Post-build retrospective? Lightweight thumbs-up/down on decision quality?
+
+## Roundtable Participants
+
+Direction synthesized from perspectives of: Prompt, Outline, Design, Engineer, Build, Agent-Advisor — run as parallel consultation on 2026-03-03.

package/docs/v9/decision-framework-implementation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+# Decision Framework — Implementation Tracker
+
+**Source**: `docs/v9/decision-framework-direction.md`
+**Started**: 2026-03-03
+
+## Implementation Layers
+
+### Layer 1: Prompt Skill — Capture Intent + Posture
+**Status**: DONE
+**File**: `skills/intuition-prompt/SKILL.md`
+
+Changes made:
+- Added INTENT step to REFINE order (between SCOPE and SUCCESS)
+- Added POSTURE phase (Phase 4, between REFLECT and CONFIRM)
+- Added Commander's Intent section to `prompt_brief.md` template
+- Added Decision Posture table to `prompt_brief.md` template
+- Added `commander_intent` and `decision_posture` fields to `prompt_output.json` template
+- Updated phase flow: 4 phases → 5 phases, 5-7 turns → 6-9 turns
+- Updated REFLECT to include Commander's Intent synthesis before posture question
+
+### Layer 2: Outline Skill — Classify Decisions Per Task
+**Status**: DONE
+**File**: `skills/intuition-outline/SKILL.md`
+
+Changes made:
+- Added `Decisions` field to task template with `[USER]`/`[SPEC]`/`[SILENT]` tier classifications
+- Added 2x2 classification heuristic (human-facing × reversibility) as Section 10 reference
+- Added Decision Policy output (conservative/aggressive) based on Commander's Intent + Posture Map
+- Added post-outline confirmation step: "Want to reclassify any decisions?" with shift options
+- Added decision classification checklist item
+
+Each outline task gets a `Decisions` field with classified decision points using three tiers:
+
+| Label | Meaning | Appelo Equivalent |
+|-------|---------|-------------------|
+| `[USER]` | Specialist recommends, user decides | L2-L3 |
+| `[SPEC]` | Specialist decides, reports rationale | L5-L6 |
+| `[SILENT]` | Full autonomy, no report needed | L7 |
+
+Classification heuristic (2x2):
+
+| | Human-facing | Machine-facing |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Hard to reverse** | `[USER]` always | `[SPEC]` (reported with full reasoning) |
+| **Easy to reverse** | `[USER]` by default, user can downgrade | `[SILENT]` |
+
+Plan reads Commander's Intent and Decision Posture from prompt brief to determine what counts as "human-facing." Without that signal, defaults conservative.
+
+After presenting the full task breakdown, one confirmation question: "Here are the decisions I'd surface to you during detail work. Want to reclassify any?" Shows `[USER]` and `[SPEC]` items only. One pass, not per-task. Cap at ~2-3 decisions per task.
+
+### Layer 3: Downstream Phases — Follow, Log, Escalate
+**Status**: DONE
+**Files**: `skills/intuition-detail/SKILL.md`, `skills/intuition-build/SKILL.md`
+
+Changes made (detail):
+- Step 2: extracts decision classifications + decision policy from detail brief
+- Stage 1a: research budget cap (Deep: 3, Standard: 2) + decision tier awareness in specialist framing
+- Stage 1b: hard enforcement of research cap with warning log
+- Stage 1c: tier tagging in synthesis output ([UNCLASSIFIED] for specialist-discovered decisions)
+- User Gate Phase 2: split into 2a (USER→ask), 2b (SPEC→display+auto-record), 2c (UNCLASSIFIED→classify via 2x2 then route)
+- decisions.json schema: added `decision_policy`, `tier`, `classified_by` fields
+- New section: CLASSIFYING UNCLASSIFIED DECISIONS (2x2 heuristic + posture-based borderline handling)
+
+Changes made (build):
+- Removed all v8 compat artifacts (~135 lines: v8 mode detection, steps, subagents, delegation, verification, report)
+- Step 1: reads `scratch/*-decisions.json` + extracts decision log from blueprint Section 4
+- Layer 2 verification: checks [USER] decisions honored, [SPEC] rationale documented, flags untraced producer choices
+- Build report: new "Decision Compliance" section per task
+- New "Unanticipated Decision Escalation" rule: human-facing unclassified decisions pause+escalate
+
+**Detail / Specialists:**
+- Follow `[USER]`/`[SPEC]`/`[SILENT]` labels from outline
+- Stage 1a: explicitly separate "technical questions I'll resolve" from "experience questions needing principal input"
+- User gate surfaces `[USER]` decisions with full options + tradeoffs
+- `[SPEC]` decisions logged with rationale
+- New decisions discovered during work get classified using the 2x2 before routing
+
+**Engineer (v8 compat):**
+- Boundary test: "Would the user notice this from the outside?"
+- Append to decision log: decision, tier, rationale (one line), user-facing flag
+- Elevate implementation choices that constrain future UX to joint decisions
+
+**Build:**
+- Decision log is read-only verification artifact
+- Build report includes "Decision Compliance" section: user-reserved honored, expert-delegated applied, deviations noted
+- Unanticipated decisions with user-facing impact: pause and escalate, never guess
+- Autonomous domain: production logistics only (task ordering, retries, format validation)
+
+## Open Design Decisions
+
+### D1: Decision Log Location & Format
+**Status**: RESOLVED — decisions.json with tier field
+
+Uses the existing `decisions.json` file that detail already writes. Added `tier` and `classified_by` fields to each decision entry, plus `decision_policy` at the root. Build reads this for compliance verification. No new file needed.
+
+### D2: Default for Unclassified Decisions
+**Status**: RESOLVED — posture-calibrated (conservative/aggressive from outline Section 10)
+
+Detail reads the Decision Policy from outline Section 10. If the user's posture leans hands-on (many "I decide" areas), unclassified decisions default to `[USER]`. If delegator posture, default to `[SPEC]`. Encoded as `"decision_policy": "conservative"` or `"aggressive"` in decisions.json.
+
+### D3: Cross-Specialist Decisions
+**Status**: RESOLVED — first specialist owns, deferred to handoff for v2
+
+When handoff passes prior blueprints to the next specialist, it already includes cross-specialist context. The outline's Decisions field tags the owning task. If a decision spans tasks assigned to different specialists, the first specialist to encounter it owns the classification.
+
+### D4: Learning Over Time
+**Status**: DEFERRED (not v1)
+
+Can the system build precedent from past decisions? ("Last time you upgraded font choice from SILENT to USER — should I default typography decisions to USER going forward?")
+
+### D5: Metrics & Feedback Loop
+**Status**: DEFERRED (not v1)
+
+How does the user signal the framework is calibrated well vs. still asking too much or too little? Post-build retrospective? Lightweight thumbs-up/down?