eai-cli 0.0.0-bootstrap.0

package/resources/gofer/gemini/commands/gofer/0_gofer_start.md

@@ -0,0 +1,1282 @@
+---
+description: Start Gofer, confirm EAI readiness, and orchestrate the unified pipeline
+---
+
+# Gofer Start
+
+## Token And Cost Policy
+<!-- gofer:token-cost-policy:start -->
+
+Before spawning agents, calling tools, or loading large files:
+
+1. Treat `.specify/memory/gofer-model-policy.yaml` as the repo-owned source of truth for simple, medium, hard, and arbiter model routing. If it is missing, run `/gofer:bootstrap-workspace` before continuing.
+2. Use the cheapest capable model first.
+   - Claude: Haiku for scouting/extraction; Sonnet for normal implementation, synthesis, validation, and security; Opus for high-risk arbitration or release-critical failures.
+   - Codex/OpenAI: GPT mini for simple coding; GPT nano only for locate/classify/summarize/mechanical work; GPT-5.3-Codex or flagship GPT for tool-heavy coding, architecture, and release-critical validation.
+   - Gemini: Flash-Lite for cheap large-context scan/summarize; Flash for default research synthesis; Pro for large-context architecture or high-risk arbitration.
+   - Copilot: prefer Auto for simple and default work; ask the user before choosing a paid/high-tier picker model for hard security, architecture, or release gates.
+3. Keep raw tool output out of the main conversation context. Save stable findings to `.specify/specs/{feature}/context-bundle.md`, then work from summaries.
+4. Use provider prompt/context caching only for stable, non-secret prefixes: Gofer scaffold, AGENTS/CLAUDE/Copilot instructions, constitution, repo map, stage contracts, and validation rubric.
+5. Before continuing after large research, planning, implementation, or validation bursts, checkpoint the durable artifacts and compact/clear/resume context when the host supports it.
+6. Escalate model tier only when a cheaper pass is low-confidence, contradictory, security-sensitive, or blocking release quality.
+<!-- gofer:token-cost-policy:end -->
+
+## Workspace Preflight
+
+Before doing stage/helper work:
+
+1. Resolve the repository root.
+2. Check the core Gofer sentinels:
+   - `.specify/.gofer-version`
+   - `.specify/commands/0_gofer_start.md`
+   - `.specify/templates/spec-template.md`
+   - `.specify/templates/loop-contract-template.json`
+   - `.specify/scripts/bash/create-new-feature.sh`
+   - `.specify/scripts/node/parse-stage-command.mjs`
+   - `.specify/scripts/node/gofer-loop-audit.mjs`
+   - `.specify/scripts/hooks/post-tool-use.mjs`
+   - `.specify/scripts/powershell/install-optional-tools.ps1`
+   - `.specify/templates/gofer-model-policy.yaml`
+   - `.specify/memory/gofer-model-policy.yaml`
+   - `.specify/specs/`
+   - `.specify/memory/`
+3. Check host-specific repo-owned files when relevant:
+   - Claude: `AGENTS.md`, `CLAUDE.md`, `.claude/settings.json`
+   - Codex: `AGENTS.md`
+   - Copilot: `.github/copilot-instructions.md`
+   - VS Code extension mirrors Claude/Copilot/Gemini resources itself and should still keep the core scaffold healthy
+4. If the repo already has the workspace checker script, prefer running:
+   - `node .specify/scripts/node/gofer-workspace-check.mjs --host gemini --json`
+5. If the workspace is missing or stale, ask exactly:
+   - **"This repo is missing or stale for Gofer. Initialize/update it now?"**
+6. If the user says yes, run the Gofer workspace bootstrap helper and then resume this command from the top.
+7. If the user says no, stop and explain that Gofer stage/helper work depends on the repo-owned scaffold.
+
+## EAI Platform Session Preflight
+
+Before any Gofer stage/helper command does pipeline work:
+
+1. Treat durable delivery as EAI Platform delivery by default, with Azure second
+   and every other stack only by explicit exception.
+2. Run `eai whoami` and confirm the EAI CLI is installed, the user is logged in,
+   and an active tenant is visible.
+3. If `eai` is missing, `eai whoami` fails, the token is expired, or no active
+   tenant is available, stop and run `/gofer:eai-first-run` or ask the user to
+   approve login/setup before continuing.
+4. For EAI app delivery, do not continue into research, specification, planning,
+   tasks, implementation, or validation until
+   `.specify/specs/{feature}/eai-preflight.md` records login, tenant, template,
+   app-readiness, and next-action evidence.
+5. Do not write tokens, secrets, private tenant IDs, or local `.env` values into
+   Gofer artifacts; record only product-safe readiness status and evidence.
+
+## EAI App Delivery Preflight
+
+Run this after the Gofer workspace preflight and before application-delivery
+discovery whenever the request is an app build, dashboard, portal, workflow,
+form, chatbot, app, tenant-scoped business experience, or any
+durable user-facing product. App delivery in EAI Gofer means EAI Platform
+delivery by default. Do not run this for explicit non-app work. If the user asks
+for a non-EAI app stack, pause and confirm that they are intentionally leaving
+the EAI Gofer app-delivery path before continuing.
+
+Use current public EAI documentation as the safe source of truth:
+
+- EAI CLI docs: `https://eai-tools.github.io/eai/docs/overview`
+- EAI API reference: `https://eai-tools.github.io/eai/docs/api-reference`
+- EAI static registry: `https://eai-tools.github.io/eai/registry/`
+- EAI scenario library: `https://eai-tools.github.io/eai/scenarios`
+- EAI app template: `https://github.com/eai-tools/eai-app-template`
+
+### EAI Platform And Azure App Stack Policy
+
+For application delivery, Gofer MUST use this stack order:
+
+1. **EAI Platform first, including the EAI app template**: EAI app template, EAI
+   CLI, PublicAPI, object types, workflows, block catalog, ResourceAPI/resource
+   schema, tenant/app enrollment, identity, provisioning, diagnostics, and
+   documented EAI platform services are one EAI Platform app substrate.
+2. **Azure second**: Azure services that are already part of, documented for, or
+   compatible with the EAI Platform operating model, especially deployment,
+   identity, storage, observability, and integration services.
+3. **Everything else only by explicit exception**: Firebase, Supabase, Vercel as
+   the primary runtime, AWS, GCP, bespoke backends, unmanaged databases, or
+   unrelated SaaS platforms must not be recommended as the primary app substrate.
+   They may appear only as integration targets, migration references, or
+   approved exceptions with rationale, owner, expiry, and validation evidence.
+
+Application-specific logic, adapters, UI extensions, and tests belong inside the
+EAI Platform/EAI app template scaffold and must obey package-profile,
+public-readiness, tenant, and security constraints. They are implementation
+inside the primary substrate, not a separate stack tier.
+
+If a required capability is not accessible in EAI Platform or Azure, record it
+in `{FEATURE_DIR}/service-fit-matrix.md` as `unavailable without new platform
+work`, `operator_required`, or `upgrade_required`. Do not silently replace it
+with an unrelated non-EAI stack.
+
+### EAI Preflight Checks
+
+1. **Classify the build path**
+   - Treat the work as EAI app delivery when the user asks to build an app,
+     dashboard, portal, workflow, form, chatbot, app,
+     tenant-scoped business experience, or durable user-facing product.
+   - If the user is only doing research, docs, audit, migration planning, or
+     non-EAI application work, record that EAI preflight is not applicable.
+   - If the user asks for a non-EAI app stack, ask whether they want to leave the
+     EAI Gofer app-delivery path. If yes, record the exception and stop EAI app
+     implementation guidance; if no, keep the EAI Platform/Azure stack policy.
+2. **Run first-run setup when prerequisites are missing**
+   - If Git, Node.js, npm, `eai`, login, tenant access, the EAI app template, or
+     the Gofer scaffold is missing or stale, run `/gofer:eai-first-run` before
+     research, specification, planning, or implementation.
+   - `/gofer:eai-first-run` is the cross-platform setup contract for macOS,
+     Linux, Windows, GitHub Codespaces, Claude Code, Codex, Copilot, Gemini, and
+     VS Code. It checks first, asks only when action is needed, installs the EAI
+     CLI when approved, checks `eai update --check`, confirms login and tenant,
+     runs `eai init <project-name> --skip-prompts --company-tenant
+     <active-tenant-id>` when approved, verifies Gofer files, and then returns
+     here.
+   - If `/0_gofer_start` is unavailable in a new repo, the user should run
+     the plugin-level `/gofer:eai-first-run` command after installing or
+     updating the Gofer plugin.
+3. **Install or update the EAI CLI when needed**
+   - Check `git --version`, `node --version`, `npm --version`, `npm config get
+     @eai-tools:registry`, and `eai --version`.
+   - If `eai` is missing and the user approves, install it:
+     ```bash
+     npm config set @eai-tools:registry https://eai-tools.github.io/eai/registry/ --location=user
+     npm install -g @eai-tools/cli
+     eai --version
+     ```
+   - On Windows, use the same npm commands in PowerShell and avoid shell
+     redirection. In GitHub Codespaces, prefer user-level npm and avoid `sudo`
+     unless the user explicitly approves. If install fails, stop EAI app
+     delivery and give the user the exact commands above plus the EAI
+     account/setup link. Continue only if the user explicitly chooses a non-EAI
+     path.
+   - If `eai` is already installed, run `eai update --check`. If the CLI is
+     behind, record `upgrade_required` and ask before running `eai update`.
+4. **Discover CLI capabilities before assuming syntax**
+   - Run `eai --describe` and prefer advertised subcommands/options over stale
+     remembered syntax.
+   - If advertised, run `eai agent guide --format json` before planning EAI
+     platform work so the agent uses current CLI contracts and safe recovery
+     patterns.
+   - After any `eai` command error, run
+     `eai errors explain <code-or-reason> --format json` before proposing a
+     fix, and prefer the CLI's public-safe recovery commands over guessed
+     platform internals.
+   - If the CLI does not advertise `eai errors explain`, match the failure
+     against `.specify/references/platform/eai-error-catalog.yaml`, run the
+     listed read-only diagnostics before mutating fixes, and stop at the retry
+     or escalation condition instead of looping.
+   - For tenant member/admin changes, if `eai user invite` fails with
+     `EXTERNAL_SERVICE_ERROR`, a 5xx response, or
+     `user_invite_external_service_existing_member`, check for an existing
+     direct member with `eai user list --tenant <tenant-id> --search <email>
+     --format json`; use `eai user role set --tenant <tenant-id> --member-id
+     <member-id> --role tenant-admin --format json` only after read-only
+     evidence and user approval, verify the read-back, and tell the affected
+     app user to sign out and sign back in because Auth.js session or JWT role
+     data may be cached.
+   - Use JSON only where the CLI advertises it. `eai tenant list --format json`
+     is suitable for automation; `eai whoami` may be plain text on current
+     versions.
+   - Record whether the installed CLI advertises `eai app`, `eai resources
+     schema`, `eai workflow readiness`, `eai template check`, `eai gofer
+     refresh --check`, `eai provision entra`, `eai blocks`,
+     `eai agent guide`, and `eai errors explain`.
+5. **Check account, login, and tenant readiness**
+   - Run `eai whoami` to confirm login, active tenant, profile, token status,
+     and PublicAPI context.
+   - If not logged in or the token is expired, run `eai login` and then
+     `eai tenant select`.
+   - Run `eai tenant list --format json` and require at least one usable tenant
+     membership for EAI app delivery. Prefer a `tenant-admin` membership because
+     app enrollment and provisioning are tenant-admin actions.
+   - If no tenant is available, tell the user they need an EAI Platform account
+     and tenant access before Gofer can build an EAI app. Do not fabricate
+     tenant IDs or continue into implementation.
+6. **Check EAI template/project readiness**
+   - Detect existing template markers before scaffolding:
+     - `src/eai.config/object-types.ts`
+     - `src/eai.config/register.ts`
+     - `.env.example`
+     - `.npmrc`
+     - `package.json`
+   - Run `eai verify` only when the repo appears to be an EAI project. If
+     `eai verify` reports `E001` or "Not in an EAI project", treat the repo as
+     not initialized from the EAI app template.
+   - If the repo appears to be an EAI project and the commands are advertised,
+     run `eai template check --format json` and `eai gofer refresh --check
+     --format json` to identify EAI template or Gofer scaffold drift before
+     planning implementation.
+   - For a new or empty app workspace, ask:
+     **"This looks like an EAI app build, but this repo has not been initialized from the EAI app template. Initialize it with `eai init <app-name>` now?"**
+   - If the repo is non-empty or already contains source files, do not scaffold
+     over it silently. Ask whether to initialize a new sibling EAI app directory
+     with `eai init <app-name>`, or to stop and let the user prepare the repo.
+7. **Check app enrollment capability before build planning**
+   - Once app name and tenant are confirmed, run `eai app list --format
+     json` to confirm the tenant's current app enrollments.
+   - Before creating anything remote, ask the user to confirm the app name,
+     app key, company tenant, and any child-tenant boundary.
+   - If confirmed, use `eai app create <name> --tenant-id <tenant-id>
+     --format json` or the currently advertised equivalent from `eai
+     --describe`.
+   - Record the selected app key with `eai app select <key> --format json`
+     when available.
+   - Do not claim platform readiness from app creation alone. Later stages must
+     keep real EAI app gates separate: `eai app provision <key> --tenant-id <tenant-id> --select --format json`,
+     `eai types validate`,
+     `eai types seed --tenant-key <key> --tenant-id <tenant-id> --format json`,
+     `eai types diff`, `eai resources schema --tenant-id <tenant-id> --format json`,
+     `eai resources storage doctor --tenant-id <tenant-id> --format json`,
+     `eai verify storage --tenant-id <tenant-id>`, workflow readiness, and
+     preview/runtime readiness.
+   - Provision storage, Entra app registration, environment sync, object types,
+     and deployment only in the later plan/tasks/implement stages after the
+     business scenario and UI approval gates are complete.
+8. **Check template block and platform knowledge for research**
+   - Run or plan to run `eai blocks list --format json`, `eai blocks readiness
+     --package-profile <external|internal|hybrid> --format json`, and `eai
+     blocks describe <id> --format json` for candidate UI blocks.
+   - Run or plan to run `eai resources schema --format json` and
+     `eai workflow readiness --format json` so later stages can cite actual
+     platform resource fields, actions, events, and workflow availability
+     instead of guessing.
+   - For v4 passive ResourceAPI search requirements, run or plan to run
+     `eai resources storage doctor --tenant-id <tenant-id> --format json` and
+     treat fulltext, hybrid, and vector as separate readiness states. Prefer
+     `eai resources search "<query>" --fulltext` until doctor reports semantic
+     search modes ready. Do not apply this fallback to legacy v1/v3 or active
+     ResourceAPI behavior.
+   - Use the EAI scenario library to map the business problem to the common
+     four-step pattern: capture demand/context, prepare the decision, execute
+     and collaborate, then resolve/explain/improve.
+   - Keep private tenant IDs, tokens, secrets, and `.env.local` contents out of
+     Gofer artifacts. Record only product-safe readiness states and evidence.
+   - Treat `.specify/references/platform/eai-repo-contract.md` and
+     `.specify/references/platform/eai-error-catalog.yaml` as the repo-owned
+     fallback contract whenever live docs are unavailable or a command fails.
+   - If the user provides a browser or auth log with `AADSTS50011`,
+     `redirect_uri`, "reply URL specified in the request does not match", or
+     `/api/auth/callback/microsoft-entra-id`, record
+     `EAI_ENTRA_REDIRECT_URI_MISMATCH` in `eai-preflight.md` with a redacted
+     callback route pattern such as `https://<app-host>/api/auth/callback/...`.
+     Keep the exact callback URI and any debug output in the active terminal or
+     user-approved local notes only. Recover through EAI login, tenant
+     selection, and `eai provision entra --force --redirect-uri
+     <confirmed-callback-uri>` before suggesting manual Azure Portal edits. Use
+     `--debug` only when the user approves it, and redact private hostnames,
+     tenant IDs, client IDs, and tokens before writing artifacts.
+
+### EAI Preflight Artifact
+
+For EAI app delivery, create or update
+`.specify/specs/{feature}/eai-preflight.md` with:
+
+| Field | Required Content |
+| ----- | ---------------- |
+| CLI install | `eai` path, version, install/update action taken |
+| CLI release status | `eai update --check` result and whether upgrade is required |
+| CLI capability source | `eai --describe` timestamp and relevant commands found |
+| Login status | Logged in / needs login / account required, without tokens or secrets |
+| Tenant readiness | Active tenant status, role category, whether app enrollment is allowed |
+| Template readiness | Already EAI template / needs `eai init` / non-EAI repo decision |
+| Drift readiness | `eai template check` / `eai gofer refresh --check` result or `E001` explanation |
+| App enrollment | Existing app, new app to create, or blocked pending user confirmation |
+| Entra redirect readiness | Redacted callback route pattern, tenant/client alignment state, and `AADSTS50011` recovery status. Never write exact private URLs, tenant IDs, client IDs, tokens, or debug output to committed artifacts. |
+| Block catalog readiness | Available block commands and package profile compatibility evidence |
+| App stack policy | EAI Platform including app template first, Azure second, or approved exception |
+| Next action | Continue discovery, initialize template, request account/tenant access, or stop |
+
+You are the Gofer orchestrator. Your job is to understand the user's business
+scenario and route them through the **unified Gofer pipeline**.
+
+## The Unified Gofer Pipeline
+
+```text
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│                    UNIFIED GOFER PIPELINE                        │
+├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│                                                                  │
+│  0. /0_gofer_start → Gofer Start, routing, discovery       │
+│     Business scenario intake + optional problem validation       │
+│                         ↓ AUTO                                   │
+│  1. /1_gofer_research    → research.md                           │
+│     Deep codebase exploration + supporting review context        │
+│                         ↓ AUTO                                   │
+│  2. /2_gofer_specify     → spec.md                              │
+│     Feature specification informed by research                   │
+│                         ↓ AUTO                                   │
+│  3. /3_gofer_plan        → plan.md, data-model.md, contracts/   │
+│     Technical architecture and design                            │
+│                         ↓ AUTO                                   │
+│  4. /4_gofer_tasks       → tasks.md, traceability.md, issues.md │
+│     Dependency-ordered task breakdown                            │
+│                         ↓ AUTO                                   │
+│  5. /5_gofer_implement   → [source code]                        │
+│     Execute tasks phase by phase                                 │
+│                         ↓ AUTO                                   │
+│  6. /6_gofer_validate    → validation artifacts                 │
+│     Validation, blast radius, and final engineering review       │
+│                                                                  │
+│  All artifacts go to: .specify/specs/{feature}/                 │
+└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+## Auxiliary Gofer Commands
+
+| Command                       | Purpose                                                 |
+| ----------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- |
+| `/0a_problem_validation`      | Optional deeper problem framing before research         |
+| `/7_gofer_save`               | Save session checkpoint mid-implementation              |
+| `/8_gofer_branding`           | Brand templates and stakeholder documents               |
+| `/9_gofer_tests`              | Define acceptance test cases using DSL                  |
+| `/10_gofer_cloud`             | READ-ONLY cloud infrastructure analysis                 |
+| `/7a_stakeholder_comms`       | Optional post-validation communications package         |
+| `/gofer_hydrate`              | Reverse-engineer spec from existing code                |
+| `/gofer_constitution`         | Create/update project constitution                      |
+| `/gofer:check-workspace`      | Check whether the repo scaffold is healthy              |
+| `/gofer:bootstrap-workspace`  | Create or update the repo-owned Gofer scaffold          |
+
+---
+
+## Step 1: Quick Context Scan
+
+Before asking questions, scan the workspace for existing state:
+
+```bash
+# Check for Gofer artifacts
+ls -la .specify/specs/ 2>/dev/null
+
+# Check for session checkpoints
+find .specify/specs -name "session-checkpoint.md" -type f 2>/dev/null
+
+# Check for constitution
+ls -la .specify/memory/constitution.md 2>/dev/null
+```
+
+### What to Look For
+
+| Artifact                | Location                    | Indicates                    |
+| ----------------------- | --------------------------- | ---------------------------- |
+| `spec.md`               | `.specify/specs/{feature}/` | Feature specified            |
+| `research.md`           | `.specify/specs/{feature}/` | Research complete            |
+| `proposal-review.md`    | `.specify/specs/{feature}/` | Optional supporting review context |
+| `plan.md`               | `.specify/specs/{feature}/` | Planning complete            |
+| `tasks.md`              | `.specify/specs/{feature}/` | Ready for implement          |
+| `goal-ledger.json`      | `.specify/specs/{feature}/` | Active objective ledger and drift triggers |
+| `loop-contract.json`    | `.specify/specs/{feature}/` | Bounded check-repair loop objective, commands, and stop rules |
+| `loop-ledger.jsonl`     | `.specify/specs/{feature}/` | Implementation/validation iteration evidence |
+| `loop-audit-report.md`  | `.specify/specs/{feature}/` | Latest loop contract and ledger audit |
+| `goal-rebaseline-report.md` | `.specify/specs/{feature}/` | Latest closed-loop audit result |
+| `working-backwards-prfaq.md` | `.specify/specs/{feature}/` | Running product release PR/FAQ |
+| `prfaq-history/`        | `.specify/specs/{feature}/` | Immutable stage snapshots of the PR/FAQ |
+| `business-owner-summary.md` | `.specify/specs/{feature}/` | Business owner scenario, process, and value summary |
+| `cto-architecture-summary.md` | `.specify/specs/{feature}/` | CTO/EAI Platform architecture summary |
+| `ciso-security-summary.md` | `.specify/specs/{feature}/` | CISO security posture summary |
+| `stakeholder-review-index.md` | `.specify/specs/{feature}/` | Stakeholder review status and approval asks |
+| `session-checkpoint.md` | `.specify/specs/{feature}/` | Work paused (resumable)      |
+| `validation-report.md`  | `.specify/specs/{feature}/` | Feature validated            |
+| `constitution.md`       | `.specify/memory/`          | Project principles set       |
+
+Report what you found before proceeding.
+
+---
+
+## Step 2: Determine Scenario
+
+**ALWAYS ask the user what they want to do** - even if artifacts exist. Existing
+artifacts might be for OTHER features, not what the user wants to work on now.
+
+**"What would you like to accomplish today?"**
+
+Present these options using the AskUserQuestion tool:
+
+| Option                  | Description                                              |
+| ----------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------- |
+| **A. New Feature**      | Build something new from scratch with clear requirements |
+| **B. Modify Existing**  | Change or extend existing functionality in the codebase  |
+| **C. Fix a Bug**        | Diagnose and fix a specific issue                        |
+| **D. Explore/Research** | Understand the codebase before making changes            |
+| **E. Continue Work**    | Continue from where I left off                           |
+| **F. Setup Project**    | Initialize constitution and project guidelines           |
+
+### For Existing Codebases
+
+If the context scan found existing artifacts, list them and ask:
+
+**"I found these existing features/work items:"**
+
+- List each spec in `.specify/specs/*/` with its name and status
+- Note any session checkpoints (paused work)
+
+Then ask: **"Do you want to continue one of these, or start something new?"**
+
+---
+
+## Step 2.5: Consultative Discovery (For New Features, Modifications, Bug Fixes)
+
+When the user selects **A. New Feature**, **B. Modify Existing**, or **C. Fix a
+Bug**, conduct a consultative discovery interview BEFORE routing to the
+pipeline.
+
+**First, offer the option to skip:**
+
+| Option                      | Description                                                             |
+| --------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| **Continue with Discovery** | Answer a few questions to ensure we build the right thing (Recommended) |
+| **Skip Discovery**          | I have clear requirements, go straight to implementation                |
+
+If user selects "Skip Discovery", proceed directly to Step 3.
+
+### Discovery Question 1: Problem Statement
+
+**"What problem are you trying to solve?"**
+
+**Recommended:** Based on initial context, suggest the most likely problem type.
+
+| Option | Description                             | Implications                          |
+| ------ | --------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------- |
+| A      | Users can't find what they need quickly | Focus on search/navigation UX         |
+| B      | Manual processes taking too much time   | Focus on automation/efficiency        |
+| C      | Data is siloed across systems           | Focus on integration/consolidation    |
+| D      | Quality/reliability issues              | Focus on testing/monitoring           |
+| E      | [Context-specific suggestion]           | [Based on user's initial description] |
+| Custom | Describe your specific problem          | We'll tailor the approach             |
+
+You can reply with the option letter, accept the recommendation by saying "yes",
+or provide your own answer.
+
+**Store response** in discovery context.
+
+### Discovery Question 2: Target Users
+
+**"Who are the primary users of this feature?"**
+
+**Recommended:** Suggest based on problem type selected.
+
+| Option | Description                | Implications                      |
+| ------ | -------------------------- | --------------------------------- |
+| A      | End customers (external)   | Focus on UX, onboarding, support  |
+| B      | Internal team members      | Focus on efficiency, integrations |
+| C      | Developers/technical users | Focus on APIs, documentation      |
+| D      | Business stakeholders      | Focus on reporting, dashboards    |
+| Custom | Describe your users        | We'll create appropriate personas |
+
+**Store response** in discovery context.
+
+### Discovery Question 3: Value Proposition
+
+**"What specific value should this deliver?"**
+
+**Recommended:** Suggest based on problem and user type.
+
+| Option | Description                               | Implications                         |
+| ------ | ----------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------ |
+| A      | Time savings (reduce X by Y%)             | Need baseline metrics, time tracking |
+| B      | Cost reduction (save $X/month)            | Need cost analysis, ROI tracking     |
+| C      | Quality improvement (reduce errors by Y%) | Need error tracking, quality metrics |
+| D      | User satisfaction (increase NPS by Y)     | Need feedback collection, surveys    |
+| Custom | Define your value metric                  | We'll build appropriate tracking     |
+
+**Store response** in discovery context.
+
+### Discovery Question 4: Success Metrics
+
+**"How will you measure success?"**
+
+Based on the value type selected, suggest relevant metrics:
+
+| Value Type     | Suggested Metrics                                |
+| -------------- | ------------------------------------------------ |
+| Time savings   | Task completion time, manual steps eliminated    |
+| Cost reduction | Monthly costs before/after, resource utilization |
+| Quality        | Error rate, defect count, test coverage          |
+| Satisfaction   | NPS score, support tickets, feature adoption     |
+
+Ask user to confirm or customize the metrics.
+
+### Optional: Competitive Research
+
+**"Would you like me to research how leading companies solve this problem?"**
+
+| Option | Description                                |
+| ------ | ------------------------------------------ |
+| Yes    | Research competitors and document insights |
+| Skip   | Continue without competitive analysis      |
+
+If user selects Yes, note for research phase. If skipped, mark "Competitive
+Analysis: Skipped".
+
+### Adaptive Depth
+
+If user responds with uncertainty signals ("I'm not sure", "what would you
+suggest?", "not certain"):
+
+- Offer to explore deeper: **"I notice you might want more clarity on this.
+  Would you like me to ask a few more questions to help narrow down the
+  approach?"**
+- If yes, ask context-appropriate follow-up questions
+- If no, proceed with best recommendation
+
+### Create Discovery Artifact
+
+After completing discovery questions, create
+`.specify/specs/{feature}/discovery.md`:
+
+```markdown
+---
+feature: '[Feature Name]'
+created: '[ISO timestamp]'
+discoveredBy: Gofer + [User]
+status: complete
+---
+
+# Business Discovery: [Feature Name]
+
+## Problem Statement
+
+**Pain Point**: [From Question 1] **Current State**: [If mentioned] **Impact**:
+[If mentioned]
+
+## Target Users
+
+### Primary Users
+
+- **Persona**: [From Question 2]
+- **Technical Level**: [Inferred or asked]
+- **Key Needs**: [Captured from context]
+
+## Value Proposition
+
+**Primary Value**: [From Question 3] **Quantified Goal**: [From Question 4]
+
+## Success Metrics
+
+| Metric     | Target   | Measurement    |
+| ---------- | -------- | -------------- |
+| [Metric 1] | [Target] | [How measured] |
+
+## Competitive Analysis
+
+**Status**: [Researched / Skipped] [Insights if researched]
+
+## Discovery Decisions
+
+| Decision      | Choice   | Rationale |
+| ------------- | -------- | --------- |
+| Problem Focus | [Choice] | [Why]     |
+| User Target   | [Choice] | [Why]     |
+| Value Metric  | [Choice] | [Why]     |
+
+## AI-Readable Blocks Bridge
+
+| Field | Decision |
+| ----- | -------- |
+| Profile Choice | External / Internal / Hybrid |
+| Package Lane | {{public-package | internal-app | hybrid-adapter | app-local}} |
+| Coupling Status | {{source-platform-coupled | source-platform-decoupled | hybrid-adapter}} |
+| Public-Readiness Target | {{required | deferred | not-applicable}} |
+| Block Porting Need | {{reuse | port | custom-block-exception}} |
+```
+
+### Store in Memory
+
+Create Memory entries for key discovery findings:
+
+```
+Category: 'discovery'
+Tags: ['#problem', '#feature-{id}']
+Content: 'Problem: [pain point]. Impact: [who affected].'
+
+Category: 'discovery'
+Tags: ['#users', '#personas', '#feature-{id}']
+Content: 'Primary users: [persona]. Technical level: [level]. Key needs: [needs].'
+
+Category: 'discovery'
+Tags: ['#value', '#metrics', '#feature-{id}']
+Content: 'Primary value: [benefit]. Success metric: [metric] target [goal].'
+```
+
+### Edge Cases
+
+- **Mid-flow abandonment**: If user cancels during discovery, save partial
+  discovery.md with `status: incomplete`
+- **Re-running discovery**: If discovery.md already exists, ask: "Discovery
+  already exists for this feature. Would you like to merge new insights or
+  replace it?"
+- **Web search failure**: If competitive research fails, continue without it and
+  note the failure
+
+---
+
+## Step 2.6: Application Classification and AI Process Default
+
+Before journey mapping, classify the request as **application delivery** or
+**non-application work**.
+
+In EnterpriseAI mode, assume the request is application delivery unless the
+user's intent is clearly non-app. Roughly 90% of Gofer business requests should
+be treated this way: the user is trying to improve a customer journey or
+business process by building an app, workflow, portal, dashboard, mobile
+experience, form, assistant, or app.
+
+For app delivery in any profile, apply the **EAI Platform And Azure App Stack
+Policy**: EAI Platform is the primary app substrate, Azure is the preferred
+cloud/infrastructure substrate, and unrelated non-EAI stacks are exceptions
+only.
+
+### Application Signals
+
+Treat the request as application delivery when it includes any of these signals:
+
+- Build an app, tool, dashboard, portal, workflow, form, chatbot, or app.
+- Improve how a customer, employee, advisor, agent, or operator completes work.
+- Replace a manual process with a guided digital process.
+- Use EnterpriseAI data, object types, screens, APIs, or tenant context.
+- Add generative AI to help users complete a business outcome.
+
+### Non-Application Signals
+
+Classify as non-app only when the user is asking for work such as:
+
+- Strategy, research, market analysis, board papers, or written advice.
+- Documentation, executive summaries, or slide decks without an app to build.
+- Codebase exploration, cloud audit, engineering review, or migration planning.
+- A one-off analysis task where no durable user workflow will be implemented.
+
+If non-app, record this explicitly in `discovery.md`:
+
+```markdown
+## Application Classification
+
+| Field | Decision |
+| ----- | -------- |
+| Classification | Non-application work |
+| Reason | {{why-this-is-not-an-app-or-workflow}} |
+| Four-step AI journey required | No |
+```
+
+Then continue through the pipeline without creating a four-step AI-augmented app
+journey.
+
+If app delivery is selected or inferred, continue to Step 2.7 and create the
+AI-augmented journey.
+
+### Shared Numbered Stage Contract
+
+Gofer MUST keep the same numbered stages for both classifications. The
+classification changes the behavior inside the shared stages; it does **not**
+remove existing non-app functionality or fork Gofer into unrelated products.
+
+| Mode | Stage Behavior |
+| ---- | -------------- |
+| Application delivery | Shared stages gain EAI Platform/Azure stack enforcement, a UI-first interview, an EAI App Template constrained preview loop, preview self-review, optional branding intake, an explicit UI approval gate, and a post-approval EnterpriseAI service-fit gate before plan/tasks are finalized |
+| Non-app work | Shared stages preserve the current research, documentation, exploration, bug-fix, migration, audit, and other non-app workflows without app-only preview, branding, or service-fit requirements |
+
+---
+
+## Step 2.7: AI-Augmented Journey Confirmation (For Application Delivery)
+
+When the request is classified as **application delivery**, confirm the
+customer journey before routing to the rest of the pipeline. For application
+delivery, the default target is a concise **four-step or fewer AI-augmented
+process**. Even when the current business process has more than four steps,
+Gofer should use generative AI to compress, combine, or simplify the process
+into four business-goal-driven stages unless the user explicitly rejects that
+structure.
+
+Before journey mapping for EAI app delivery, complete the **EAI App Delivery
+Preflight** above. If the EAI CLI, login, tenant, template, or app enrollment
+readiness is blocked, pause the EAI build path and explain the smallest next
+step. Do not proceed to plan/tasks/implementation for an EAI app until
+`.specify/specs/{feature}/eai-preflight.md` records a ready or explicitly
+deferred status.
+
+### UI-First App-Delivery Default
+
+For app delivery, the default early process is:
+
+1. **Interview and visual brief** — understand the MVP outcome, must-have
+   screens, target users, workflow goals, and whether client branding or logos
+   must be applied.
+2. **Constrained MVP preview** — generate the first preview from the EAI App Template
+   Template blocks already installed in the project by `eai`, rather than
+   from an unconstrained custom UI.
+3. **Preview self-review and approval** — use screenshot or Playwright-style
+   local review before showing the preview, then iterate with the stakeholder
+   until the UI is explicitly approved.
+4. **EnterpriseAI service-fit gate** — after UI approval, review which
+   platform services are accessible now, purchasable but unavailable now, or
+   unsupported, and lock that decision before plan/tasks are treated as
+   complete.
+
+### AI-Readable Blocks Bridge Intake
+
+For EnterpriseAI app delivery, the interview must also capture the packaging
+and coupling path before research starts:
+
+| Intake Field | Required Decision |
+| ------------ | ----------------- |
+| Profile choice | External, internal, or hybrid package profile |
+| Package lane | Public reusable block package, internal app, hybrid adapter, or app-local implementation |
+| Coupling status | source-platform-coupled, source-platform-decoupled, or hybrid adapter boundary |
+| Public-readiness target | Whether the first delivery must be ready for external package consumers |
+| Block porting need | Reuse existing block, port an EAI App Template block, or request a custom-block exception |
+
+External and hybrid profile choices require explicit public-readiness,
+block-porting, source-platform decoupling, Storybook, and theme-override evidence in the
+later Gofer artifacts. Restricted-source choices still record why public readiness
+is not required now.
+
+**First, offer the option to skip:**
+
+| Option                                   | Description                                                                 |
+| ---------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| **Confirm AI Journey (Recommended)**     | Review the four-step AI-augmented process for this app                      |
+| **Classify as Non-App / Skip AI Journey** | Use only when this is strategy, research, documentation, audit, or analysis |
+
+If the user selects "Classify as Non-App / Skip AI Journey", capture the
+non-application rationale in discovery and proceed directly to Step 3. If the
+request is still an app, do not silently skip journey mapping; create a draft
+four-step journey with assumptions and ask the user to confirm or correct it.
+
+### Journey Extraction
+
+Based on the discovery answers, extract:
+
+1. **Actors**: Who interacts with this feature?
+   - User types (e.g., "End User", "Admin")
+   - AI agents (if applicable)
+   - Systems (e.g., "Auth Service", "Database")
+
+2. **Steps**: What is the main flow?
+   - Compress the flow into four steps or fewer
+   - Number each step (1, 2, 3, 4)
+   - Identify which actor performs each step
+   - State the business goal and completion outcome for each step
+   - Note which generative AI assistance improves that step
+   - For app delivery, default the steps to: brief -> preview -> approval ->
+     service fit unless the user clearly needs a different four-step shape
+
+3. **Touchpoints**: Where do interactions happen?
+   - UI touchpoints (screens, buttons)
+   - API touchpoints
+   - Notifications
+   - Local preview touchpoints such as browser views, screenshots, or
+     Playwright/self-review outputs when the feature includes a UI
+
+4. **AI augmentation**: How does generative AI help?
+   - Conversational help: chatbot, voice, accessibility, translations, or
+     guided explanation
+   - Contextual prefill: populate fields from screen context, known data,
+     user profile, customer record, document, or prior workflow state
+   - Step-goal assistance: understand the goal of the step, recommend next
+     actions, validate completeness, and drive the user to successful
+     completion
+   - Human control: show confidence, evidence, edit controls, escalation path,
+     and audit trail
+   - Preview critique: review the generated MVP before presentation and suggest
+     concrete fixes when the first pass is visually weak or off-brief
+
+### Journey Confirmation Questions
+
+Use AskUserQuestion to present the extracted journey:
+
+**Question 1: Confirm Actors**
+
+"Based on your description, I've identified these actors in the journey:"
+
+| Option | Description                        |
+| ------ | ---------------------------------- |
+| A      | **[Actor 1]** - [role description] |
+| B      | **[Actor 2]** - [role description] |
+| C      | **[System]** - [role description]  |
+| Custom | Add or modify actors               |
+
+**Question 2: Confirm Journey Steps**
+
+"Here's the main flow I've identified:"
+
+| Option | Description                                                                                         |
+| ------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| A      | Step 1: [goal] → Step 2: [goal] → Step 3: [goal] → Step 4: [goal] (Confirm this AI-augmented flow) |
+| B      | I need to modify some steps                                                                         |
+| C      | Show me all steps, AI assistance, and completion criteria in detail first                           |
+
+**Question 2a: Confirm AI Assistance**
+
+"For each step, how should generative AI help the user complete the goal?"
+
+| Option | Description                                                                         |
+| ------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| A      | Chat/voice/accessibility/translations help the user understand and complete the step |
+| B      | Prefill or recommend data using screen context, user context, and EnterpriseAI data  |
+| C      | Validate completion, explain missing information, and guide the user to success      |
+| D      | Mix all of the above, with human review and audit trail controls                    |
+| Custom | Describe the AI assistance for each step                                            |
+
+**Question 3: Identify Key Touchpoints**
+
+"What are the main interaction points for this feature?"
+
+| Option | Description                                    |
+| ------ | ---------------------------------------------- |
+| A      | UI-heavy: Multiple screens and forms           |
+| B      | API-driven: Primarily backend/integration work |
+| C      | Mixed: Both UI and API touchpoints             |
+| Custom | Describe your touchpoints                      |
+
+### Save Confirmed Journey
+
+After confirmation, save to `.specify/specs/{feature}/journeys/base-journey.md`:
+
+````markdown
+---
+id: {{feature-id}}-journey
+name: {{journey-name}}
+featureId: {{feature-id}}
+status: confirmed
+created: {{ISO-timestamp}}
+modified: {{ISO-timestamp}}
+applicationClassification: app
+aiAugmentedJourney: true
+maxSteps: 4
+---
+
+# AI-Augmented Customer Journey: {{feature-name}}
+
+## Overview
+
+{{discovery-problem-statement}}
+
+## Actors
+
+| ID     | Name        | Type   | Role                        |
+| ------ | ----------- | ------ | --------------------------- |
+| user   | End User    | user   | Primary user of the feature |
+| system | Backend API | system | Handles business logic      |
+
+## Journey Steps
+
+### Step 1: {{business-goal}}
+
+**Actor**: {{actor-id}}
+**User action**: {{action-description}}
+**AI assistance**:
+{{chatbot-or-voice-or-accessibility-or-translation-or-prefill-or-guidance}}
+**Context used**: {{screen-context-user-data-enterpriseai-data-documents}}
+**Completion criteria**: {{how-we-know-this-step-is-successful}}
+**Controls**: {{human-review-confidence-evidence-audit-escalation}}
+
+### Step 2: {{business-goal}}
+
+...
+
+### Step 4: {{business-goal}}
+
+...
+
+## Journey Diagram
+
+```mermaid
+sequenceDiagram
+    participant user as End User
+    participant system as Backend API
+
+    user->>system: Step 1 action
+    system-->>user: AI-guided response, prefill, or validation
+    user->>system: Step 2 action
+```
+
+## AI Augmentation Matrix
+
+| Step | Business Goal | AI Assistance | Data / Context Used | Completion Signal |
+| ---- | ------------- | ------------- | ------------------- | ----------------- |
+| 1    | {{goal}}      | {{assist}}    | {{context}}         | {{signal}}        |
+| 2    | {{goal}}      | {{assist}}    | {{context}}         | {{signal}}        |
+| 3    | {{goal}}      | {{assist}}    | {{context}}         | {{signal}}        |
+| 4    | {{goal}}      | {{assist}}    | {{context}}         | {{signal}}        |
+
+## Touchpoints
+
+| ID         | Type | Description             | Actors | Steps |
+| ---------- | ---- | ----------------------- | ------ | ----- |
+| login-form | ui   | Login screen            | user   | 1     |
+| auth-api   | api  | Authentication endpoint | system | 1, 2  |
+
+## Confirmation
+
+- [x] Actors confirmed
+- [x] Steps confirmed
+- [x] Touchpoints identified
+
+````
+
+### Store Journey in Memory
+
+```
+Category: 'journey' Tags: ['#journey', '#feature-{id}', '#confirmed'] Content:
+'Journey for {feature}: {actor-count} actors, {step-count} steps. Main flow:
+{step-summary}.'
+```
+
+---
+
+## Step 3: Route to Gofer Command
+
+Based on user selection and detected state:
+
+### Route A/B/C: New Feature, Modify Existing, or Fix Bug
+
+All three scenarios use the same pipeline - the difference is in the research
+focus:
+
+| Scenario        | Research Focus                                             |
+| --------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |
+| New Feature     | Technology research + codebase patterns                    |
+| Modify Existing | Understanding existing implementation + integration points |
+| Fix Bug         | Root cause analysis + affected code paths                  |
+
+#### Determine Starting Point
+
+**Closed-Loop Audit (Highest Priority when feature artifacts exist)**:
+
+Before pipeline-state routing, run the closed-loop audit when the selected
+feature directory already exists:
+
+```bash
+node .specify/scripts/node/gofer-closed-loop-audit.mjs --feature-dir {FEATURE_DIR} --json
+```
+
+If `{FEATURE_DIR}/loop-contract.json` is missing, initialize it before routing
+past discovery:
+
+```bash
+node .specify/scripts/node/gofer-loop-audit.mjs --feature-dir {FEATURE_DIR} --stage 0_gofer_start --init --json
+```
+
+Do not ask the user about loop initialization unless the command fails or would
+overwrite an existing contract. The loop contract is standard Gofer feature
+scaffold, not an optional extra.
+
+If the audit recommends a `recommendedStartStage`, resume from that stage even
+when later artifacts exist. This is how Gofer behaves like a goal-seeking loop:
+goal drift, expired assumptions, contract drift, UX scope changes, or
+post-validation code/test movement reopen the smallest valid mini-loop instead
+of pretending the pipeline is still complete.
+
+**Pipeline State Check (Priority)**:
+
+Before file-existence checks, read `pipeline-state.json` for authoritative
+resume information:
+
+```bash
+.specify/scripts/bash/pipeline-state.sh read --json
+````
+
+If `pipeline-state.json` exists and `status` is `in_progress`, resume from
+`currentStage`. This takes priority over file-existence heuristics because
+pipeline-state.json is updated atomically by each stage on completion.
+
+If the closed-loop audit recommends an earlier stage than `currentStage`, the
+audit wins. Pipeline state tracks progress; the audit tracks whether progress is
+still valid.
+
+**Spec Artifact Guard (Mandatory)**:
+
+Before routing to `/3_gofer_plan`, `/4_gofer_tasks`, `/5_gofer_implement`, or
+`/6_gofer_validate`, confirm that `.specify/specs/{feature}/spec.md` exists and
+is not the unfilled `spec-template.md` copy created by feature bootstrap. A
+missing, empty, or placeholder-filled spec always routes back to
+`/2_gofer_specify`, even when `pipeline-state.json`, `plan.md`, `tasks.md`, or
+validation artifacts imply later progress. Gofer must never plan, task,
+implement, or validate a feature from research or plan artifacts alone.
+
+**Fallback — File-existence heuristics** (used when no pipeline-state.json
+exists):
+
+| Has This                                  | Missing This                | Start At             |
+| ----------------------------------------- | --------------------------- | -------------------- |
+| tasks.md (unchecked)                      | -                           | `/5_gofer_implement` |
+| plan.md                                   | tasks.md                    | `/4_gofer_tasks`     |
+| spec.md                                   | plan.md                     | `/3_gofer_plan`      |
+| research.md                               | spec.md                     | `/2_gofer_specify`   |
+| Nothing                                   | research.md                 | `/1_gofer_research`  |
+| Nothing                                   | Everything                  | `/1_gofer_research`  |
+
+#### For New Features
+
+1. Ask: **"What would you like to call this feature?"** (use AskUserQuestion)
+2. Create the spec directory: `.specify/specs/{feature-name}/`
+3. Seed stakeholder review scaffolding from templates:
+   - `{FEATURE_DIR}/working-backwards-prfaq.md` from
+     `.specify/templates/working-backwards-prfaq-template.md`
+   - `{FEATURE_DIR}/stakeholder-review-index.md` from
+     `.specify/templates/stakeholder-review-index-template.md`
+   - `{FEATURE_DIR}/prfaq-history/00-business-scenario.md` as the initial
+     product release PR/FAQ snapshot
+   - Draft persona files only when enough context exists; otherwise let stages
+     1, 3, and 6 create the Business Owner, CTO, and CISO summaries with
+     evidence.
+4. Invoke `/1_gofer_research` to start the pipeline
+
+Output:
+
+```
+ROUTING: GOFER PIPELINE
+FEATURE: {feature-name}
+STARTING: /1_gofer_research
+AUTO-CHAIN: research → specify → plan → tasks → implement → validate
+NOTE: research may also create optional supporting review artifacts
+NOTE: create/update the running product release PR/FAQ and stakeholder review index from the first stage
+REASON: [explanation]
+```
+
+#### For Existing Features
+
+If user chose to continue an existing feature:
+
+1. Detect most advanced artifact
+2. Route to appropriate command
+3. Pipeline auto-chains from there
+
+Output:
+
+```
+ROUTING: GOFER PIPELINE
+FEATURE: {feature-name}
+STARTING: /[N]_gofer_[stage]
+REMAINING: [remaining stages]
+REASON: Continuing from existing artifacts
+```
+
+### Route D: Explore/Research
+
+Start with `/1_gofer_research` without auto-chaining:
+
+```
+ROUTING: GOFER RESEARCH (STANDALONE)
+COMMAND: /1_gofer_research
+AUTO-CHAIN: disabled after research until the user asks to continue
+REASON: User wants to explore the codebase first
+```
+
+### Route E: Continue Work
+
+Check for session checkpoints:
+
+```bash
+find .specify/specs -name "session-checkpoint.md" -type f 2>/dev/null
+```
+
+If checkpoint found, read the most recent checkpoint and continue from the
+stage it names. Do not invoke a separate resume command.
+
+If no checkpoint but unchecked tasks exist:
+
+1. Find features with `- [ ]` in tasks.md
+2. Present options to user
+3. Resume with `/5_gofer_implement`
+
+Output:
+
+```
+ROUTING: GOFER CONTINUE
+FEATURE: {feature-name}
+COMMAND: /5_gofer_implement or /6_gofer_validate
+CHECKPOINT: {path to checkpoint}
+REASON: Resuming from saved session
+```
+
+### Route F: Setup Project
+
+For new projects or establishing guidelines:
+
+```
+ROUTING: GOFER CONSTITUTION
+COMMAND: /gofer_constitution
+REASON: User wants to establish project principles
+```
+
+---
+
+## Step 4: Invoke the Routed Command
+
+After determining the route:
+
+1. Output the routing decision clearly
+2. Invoke the target command using the Skill tool
+3. Let that command take over the workflow
+
+### Auto-Chaining Behavior
+
+The unified Gofer pipeline automatically chains commands:
+
+```text
+/1_gofer_research completes  → auto-invokes /2_gofer_specify unless user pauses
+/2_gofer_specify completes  → auto-invokes /3_gofer_plan
+/3_gofer_plan completes     → auto-invokes /4_gofer_tasks
+/4_gofer_tasks completes    → auto-invokes /5_gofer_implement
+/5_gofer_implement completes→ auto-invokes /6_gofer_validate
+/6_gofer_validate completes → pipeline complete
+```
+
+**The user only needs to run `/0_gofer_start` once** - the orchestrator
+handles everything else automatically.
+
+---
+
+## Step 5: Handle Interruptions
+
+If the user needs to pause:
+
+1. Invoke `/7_gofer_save` to create checkpoint
+2. Document current state
+3. User can start a fresh session, read the checkpoint, and continue from the
+   named stage
+
+If context window is filling up:
+
+1. Save progress with `/7_gofer_save`
+2. Recommend user start new conversation
+3. User opens the checkpoint and continues from the appropriate stage
+
+---
+
+## Important Notes
+
+- Keep the interview SHORT - max 2-3 questions
+- **ALWAYS ask what the user wants to do** - don't assume existing artifacts are
+  relevant
+- Show existing features and let user choose to continue OR start new
+- Technology architecture decisions must be asked **one-by-one** with a
+  discussion loop so users can ask clarifying questions before finalizing each
+  answer
+- Document the routing decision for debugging
+- If user seems confused, default to research first
+
+---
+
+## Quick Reference: Core Pipeline And Helpers
+
+### Core Pipeline
+
+| Stage | Command               | Main output                        | Description                               |
+| ----- | --------------------- | ---------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------- |
+| 0     | `/0_gofer_start`| Full pipeline kickoff              | Business scenario intake and routing      |
+| 1     | `/1_gofer_research`   | research.md                        | Research and supporting review prep       |
+| 2     | `/2_gofer_specify`    | spec.md                            | Feature specification                     |
+| 3     | `/3_gofer_plan`       | plan.md, data-model.md, contracts/ | Technical architecture and contracts      |
+| 4     | `/4_gofer_tasks`      | tasks.md, traceability.md, issues.md | Dependency-ordered task breakdown       |
+| 5     | `/5_gofer_implement`  | Code, docs, loop-ledger.jsonl      | Execute bounded check-repair loops        |
+| 6     | `/6_gofer_validate`   | Validation artifacts, loop-audit-report.md | Terminal quality gate, including review |
+
+Every stage also updates the running product release PR/FAQ:
+`working-backwards-prfaq.md`, writes an immutable snapshot in
+`prfaq-history/`, and refreshes `stakeholder-review-index.md` so the user sees
+which Business Owner, CTO/Architecture, CISO/Risk, or Delivery review is needed.
+
+### Helper Commands
+
+| Command                        | Purpose                                          |
+| ----------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------ |
+| `/0a_problem_validation`      | Optional deeper problem framing before research  |
+| `/7_gofer_save`               | Save session checkpoint                          |
+| `/7a_stakeholder_comms`       | Post-validation communications                   |
+| `/8_gofer_branding`           | Brand templates and stakeholder documents        |
+| `/9_gofer_tests`              | Define test cases (DSL approach)                 |
+| `/10_gofer_cloud`             | Cloud infrastructure analysis (READ-ONLY)        |
+| `/gofer_hydrate`              | Reverse-engineer spec from code                  |
+| `/gofer_constitution`         | Project principles and standards                 |
+| `/gofer:check-workspace`      | Check whether the repo scaffold is healthy       |
+| `/gofer:bootstrap-workspace`  | Create or update the repo-owned scaffold         |
+
+---
+
+## EnterpriseAI Profile Extensions
+
+The standard Gofer workflow is the public default. EnterpriseAI guidance is a
+legacy compatibility profile and must be used only when `workflowProfile` is
+explicitly set to `enterpriseai` or the user asks for that migration path. The
+sections below add EnterpriseAI guardrails on top of the standard orchestrator;
+standard-profile outputs remain unchanged.
+
+### EnterpriseAI-First Discovery Framing (MANDATORY)
+
+When the workflow profile is explicitly `enterpriseai`:
+
+- Frame every discovery option as an EnterpriseAI platform delivery outcome.
+- Do **not** present non-EAI platforms as primary recommendations.
+- Non-EAI platforms must never be presented as primary recommendations during
+  discovery. They may only appear as optional reference material in the research
+  stage, clearly labelled as non-primary.
+- All recommended scenarios must map to an EnterpriseAI app
+  (business analysis → EAI services → deployment target).
+- Maintain a running domain model using the user's vocabulary. Ask adaptive
+  follow-up questions that clarify actors, object types, workflows, tenant
+  boundaries, decision owners, and measurable value.
+- Before recommending a new object type, API, workflow, module, or spec concept,
+  require a reuse-before-create scan: reuse existing, extend existing, or create
+  new with rationale.
+
+### EnterpriseAI Contract and Context Guardrails (MANDATORY)
+
+Every EnterpriseAI discovery must preserve enough information for downstream
+stages to create these artifacts without re-interviewing the user:
+
+| Artifact | Required Content |
+| -------- | ---------------- |
+| `journeys/base-journey.md` | Application classification, four-step-or-fewer AI-augmented customer journey, step goals, AI assistance, context used, controls, completion criteria |
+| `ui-preview-brief.md` | App-delivery-only preview brief: target screens, EAI App Template component constraints, branding inputs, preview validation expectations |
+| `ui-review-log.md` | App-delivery-only iteration log: preview evidence, requested changes, accepted changes, unresolved issues |
+| `ui-approval.md` | App-delivery-only approval gate: approved preview, approved branding, approved component exceptions, approver and timestamp |
+| `service-fit-matrix.md` | App-delivery-only service selection evidence: desired platform capability, evidence source, accessible now vs purchasable vs unavailable, selected direction |
+| `eai-preflight.md` | App-delivery-only EAI readiness evidence: CLI install/version, login status, tenant role, template initialization state, app enrollment readiness, block catalog readiness, and next action |
+| `context-bundle.md` | Compact feature context, selected scenario, app/non-app decision, AI-augmented journey summary, EnterpriseAI object types, tenant assumptions, API surfaces, deployment assumptions, validation criteria |
+| `contract-pack.md` | Actors, object types, workflows/journeys, four-step AI assistance contract, permissions, tenant boundaries, APIs/events, runtime assumptions, acceptance tests |
+| `reuse-scan.md` | Existing specs, platform references, object types, APIs, workflows, modules, and the reuse/extend/create decision |
+| `audit-history.md` | Stable finding IDs, recurring-finding history, accepted exceptions, owner, expiry, and review cadence |
+| `working-backwards-prfaq.md` | Product release PR/FAQ: headline, customer problem, launch description, external FAQ, internal FAQ, evidence links, and review asks |
+| `prfaq-history/` | Stage-by-stage immutable PR/FAQ snapshots: `00-business-scenario.md` through `06-validate.md` |
+| `business-owner-summary.md` | Business scenario, process change, business case, metrics, assumptions, and Business Owner review ask |
+| `cto-architecture-summary.md` | EAI Platform/Azure architecture, auth, tenancy, data, contracts, diagrams, and CTO review ask |
+| `ciso-security-summary.md` | Security posture, identity/tenant controls, secrets/data handling, residual risk, validation evidence, and CISO review ask |
+| `stakeholder-review-index.md` | One-page index of review-ready artifacts, current status, reviewer, and approve/revise/defer response contract |
+
+Use these artifacts as decision evidence for executive, architecture, CISO,
+data, delivery, CIO, CFO, COO, and risk/compliance stakeholders.
+
+For application delivery, downstream stages must preserve the four-step
+AI-augmented journey as the default scope spine. If a later stage expands beyond
+four user-facing steps, it must explain why the extra complexity is necessary
+and whether generative AI could combine or automate the additional steps.
+Non-app work keeps the same numbered stages without requiring the app-delivery
+preview, branding, approval, or service-fit artifacts.
+
+### Novice Walkthrough Guardrail (MANDATORY)
+
+Assume the user is a first-time student or business learner with no prior
+platform experience.
+
+- Do not require external documentation to complete discovery.
+- Provide recommended options and plain-language implications for every
+  question. Each recommendation must explain, in one sentence, what choosing it
+  means for the next stage.
+- Pipeline auto-chains from there: once discovery inputs are confirmed, the
+  orchestrator progresses through research → specify → plan → tasks → implement
+  → validate without requiring the user to invoke each stage by hand.
+
+---
+
+## Observability
+
+Log orchestrator routing:
+
+```bash
+.specify/scripts/bash/log-stage.sh 0_orchestrator --route [command] --feature [name]
+```