eai-cli 0.0.0-bootstrap.0

package/resources/gofer/system-skills/2_gofer_specify/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,860 @@
+---
+name: 2_gofer_specify
+description: "Generate a feature specification from research findings and any supporting review context."
+---
+
+## 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/templates/working-backwards-prfaq-template.md`
+   - `.specify/templates/business-owner-summary-template.md`
+   - `.specify/templates/cto-architecture-summary-template.md`
+   - `.specify/templates/ciso-security-summary-template.md`
+   - `.specify/templates/stakeholder-review-index-template.md`
+   - `.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 codex --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.
+
+---
+description: Create feature specification informed by codebase research
+---
+
+# Gofer Specify
+
+## 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.
+
+## 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 -->
+
+## User Input
+
+```text
+$ARGUMENTS
+```
+
+You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
+
+## Execution Profile And Artifact Churn
+
+Carry forward the `fast` / `standard` / `full` / `dynamic` profile chosen in
+research. Keep labels generic: `docs-only`, `single-repo-code`, `cross-repo`,
+`api-contract`, `auth-security`, `data-model`, `infra-config`,
+`release-critical`, `broad-fanout`, `unknown-blast-radius`, `unknown`.
+
+Also read `execution-profile.md` when present. Keep the same
+`effectiveProfile` unless new evidence changes the risk labels; if that
+happens, update the file and explain the new `profileFloor`,
+`effectiveProfile`, and reason in `traceability.md`.
+
+- **fast** specs should be short and scoped, with no new optional artifact set
+  unless research found implementation risk.
+- **standard** specs should include normal user stories, acceptance criteria,
+  test expectations, and protected boundaries.
+- **full** specs must explicitly capture contract, security, data, infra,
+  rollout, and validation obligations with evidence references.
+- **dynamic** specs must capture decomposition boundaries, shard ownership,
+  unresolved blast-radius questions, reducer evidence expectations, and
+  confirmation gates.
+
+Do not rediscover context already summarized in `research.md` or
+`proposal-review.md`; consume it, cite it, and only reopen files when a claim is
+ambiguous.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+This command expects:
+
+- Feature directory already created at `.specify/specs/{feature}/`
+- `research.md` completed from `/1_gofer_research`
+- `goal-ledger.json` seeded from `/1_gofer_research`
+- `loop-contract.json` seeded from `/1_gofer_research`
+- `proposal-review.md` if research created supporting review context
+
+If these don't exist, prompt user to run `/1_gofer_research` first.
+
+---
+
+## Spec Artifact Guarantee
+
+This stage is the first point where the placeholder `spec.md` created by
+feature bootstrap becomes a real feature specification. Before this command
+finishes or auto-chains to `/3_gofer_plan`, verify that
+`{FEATURE_DIR}/spec.md` exists, is non-empty, and no longer contains the raw
+template placeholders such as `[FEATURE NAME]`, `[###-feature-name]`,
+`[Describe this user journey]`, `System MUST [specific capability]`, or
+`ACTION REQUIRED`. If the check fails, write or repair `spec.md` immediately and
+do not continue to planning.
+
+Downstream stages use repo scripts that fail on missing, empty, or still-template
+specs. Treat that failure as a required return to `/2_gofer_specify`, not as a
+script problem to bypass.
+
+## Outline
+
+1. Context health check
+2. Validate any supporting proposal review context and load existing findings
+3. Dispatch specification agents (sub-agents handle heavy generation)
+4. Review agent output, handle clarifications
+5. Optional multi-perspective review
+6. Output: `.specify/specs/{feature}/spec.md`
+7. Stakeholder PR/FAQ output: `working-backwards-prfaq.md`,
+   `prfaq-history/02-specify.md`, `spec-summary.md`,
+   `business-owner-summary.md`, and `stakeholder-review-index.md`
+8. EnterpriseAI profile output: `.specify/specs/{feature}/contract-pack.md`
+
+---
+
+## Step 0: Context Health Check
+
+Before starting specification, assess context window health:
+
+```bash
+.specify/scripts/bash/check-context-health.sh
+```
+
+- If **< 50%**: Proceed normally
+- If **50-70%**: Consider `/compact` before loading research.md
+- If **> 70%**: Start new session with handoff summary
+
+---
+
+## Step 1: Load Context (Lightweight)
+
+1. **Run setup script**:
+
+   ```bash
+   .specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json --paths-only
+   ```
+
+   Parse JSON for FEATURE_DIR. Use `--paths-only` because specification runs
+   before planning, so `plan.md` must NOT be required at this stage.
+
+2. **Scan research.md** from FEATURE_DIR (do NOT load full content into main
+   context — agents will read it directly):
+   - Note the feature name and description
+   - Note whether discovery.md exists
+   - Note whether proposal-review.md exists
+   - Note whether goal-ledger.json exists and which goals, metrics, delivery
+     states, and re-loop triggers it records
+   - Note whether loop-contract.json exists and which evaluation commands,
+     success criteria, stop conditions, and escalation rules it records
+   - If loop-contract.json is missing, initialize it with
+     `node .specify/scripts/node/gofer-loop-audit.mjs --feature-dir {FEATURE_DIR} --stage 2_specify --init --json`
+
+3. **Note template path**: `.specify/templates/spec-template.md`
+
+4. **Check for discovery.md**:
+
+   ```bash
+   ls -la {FEATURE_DIR}/discovery.md 2>/dev/null
+   ```
+
+5. **Check for proposal-review.md**:
+   ```bash
+   ls -la {FEATURE_DIR}/proposal-review.md 2>/dev/null
+   ```
+
+---
+
+## Step 1.25: Optional Proposal Review Context
+
+`proposal-review.md` is optional supporting context between research and specification.
+
+- If `proposal-review.md` is missing: continue using `research.md` as the
+  source of truth.
+- If `proposal-review.md` exists: capture any business-scenario guidance,
+  architecture direction, selected option, and user overrides it records.
+- If `proposal-review.md` records a clear user-approved direction: treat that as
+  authoritative. Otherwise, treat it as advisory context.
+
+---
+
+## Step 1.5: Discovery and Proposal Context Reference
+
+If discovery.md exists, pass this mapping to the spec writer agent:
+
+### Discovery → Spec Mapping
+
+| Discovery Section    | Spec Section             | How to Use                           |
+| -------------------- | ------------------------ | ------------------------------------ |
+| Problem Statement    | Overview                 | Use pain point as feature motivation |
+| Target Users         | User Stories             | Use persona as "As a [user type]"    |
+| Value Proposition    | Success Criteria         | Convert to measurable metrics        |
+| Success Metrics      | Success Criteria         | Use directly as targets              |
+| Constraints          | Assumptions              | Include as spec assumptions          |
+| Competitive Analysis | Overview or Out of Scope | Inform differentiation               |
+
+**Note**: This mapping is included in the spec writer agent's prompt below. If
+discovery.md doesn't exist, the agent generates spec content from research.md
+and user input.
+
+If proposal-review.md exists, also pass this mapping:
+
+### Proposal Review → Spec Mapping
+
+| Proposal Section              | Spec Section                  | How to Use                                         |
+| ----------------------------- | ----------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------- |
+| Recommended Business Scenario | Overview, Stories, Scope      | Use as the approved scope and user value lens      |
+| Recommended Architecture      | Assumptions, Dependencies     | Carry forward the approved architecture direction  |
+| Architecture Options          | Out of Scope, Assumptions     | Record rejected options and why they were deferred |
+| Key Decisions and Why         | Requirements, NFRs            | Preserve decision rationale in business terms      |
+| User Feedback and Overrides   | Requirements, Scope, Glossary | Apply approved user changes before finalizing spec |
+
+---
+
+## Step 2: Dispatch Specification Agents
+
+**CRITICAL**: You **MUST** delegate document generation to sub-agents using the
+Task tool. Do NOT perform this work inline in the main context. The main context
+should only orchestrate and review agent outputs.
+
+### Agent 1: Specification Writer
+
+```
+Task: subagent_type="general-purpose", model="sonnet"
+Prompt: "Generate a complete feature specification for [FEATURE_NAME].
+
+Feature directory: {FEATURE_DIR}
+
+Read these files for full context:
+- {FEATURE_DIR}/research.md — Codebase analysis, integration points, patterns, constraints
+- {FEATURE_DIR}/goal-ledger.json — machine-readable goals, metrics, delivery states, and re-loop triggers
+- {FEATURE_DIR}/loop-contract.json — bounded loop objective, evaluation commands, success criteria, stop conditions, and escalation rules
+- {FEATURE_DIR}/proposal-review.md — Supporting business scenario, architecture direction, options, overrides (read if exists, skip if not)
+- .specify/templates/spec-template.md — Template structure to follow
+- {FEATURE_DIR}/discovery.md — Business discovery findings (read if exists, skip if not)
+- {FEATURE_DIR}/journeys/base-journey.md — AI-augmented four-step application journey (read if exists, skip if not)
+- {FEATURE_DIR}/ui-preview-brief.md — UI-first preview brief for app delivery (read if exists, skip if not)
+- {FEATURE_DIR}/service-fit-matrix.md — approved or draft service-fit evidence (read if exists, skip if not)
+- {FEATURE_DIR}/context-bundle.md — Compact EnterpriseAI context (read if exists, skip if not)
+- {FEATURE_DIR}/reuse-scan.md — Reuse-before-create evidence (read if exists, skip if not)
+
+Generate the COMPLETE spec.md following this structure:
+
+1. YAML frontmatter: id, title, status: draft, created (ISO date), updated, author: Gofer
+2. Overview — High-level description of what this feature does and why it matters
+3. User Stories — Prioritized P1/P2/P3 with 'As a [user] I want to [action] So that [benefit]'
+   - Each story MUST have checkable acceptance criteria (- [ ] format)
+4. Functional Requirements — Each must be testable, reference codebase patterns from research
+5. Non-Functional Requirements — Performance, security, compatibility
+6. Success Criteria — Measurable, technology-agnostic outcomes in table format
+7. Assumptions — From research findings
+8. Dependencies — From research integration points
+9. Out of Scope — Clear boundaries
+10. Glossary — Key terms
+11. Research Traceability — Matrix mapping each research finding to a spec section
+12. Goal Ledger Alignment — Goal IDs, outcomes, metrics/targets, linked stories, linked requirements
+13. Loop Contract Alignment — loop objective, success criteria, required eval commands, max-iteration stop rules, and human escalation triggers
+14. AI-Augmented 4-Step Journey — required for app delivery, not applicable for explicit non-app work
+15. UI Preview And Approval Gate — required for app delivery, not applicable for explicit non-app work
+16. EAI Platform/Azure App Stack Policy — required for app delivery, not applicable for explicit non-app work
+17. EnterpriseAI Service Fit — required for app delivery, not applicable for explicit non-app work
+18. EnterpriseAI Contract Pack Summary — actors, object types, workflows, permissions, APIs/events, runtime assumptions, acceptance tests
+
+If discovery.md exists, use it to:
+- Use Problem Statement for Overview motivation
+- Use Target Users persona for 'As a [user type]' in stories
+- Use Success Metrics as targets in Success Criteria
+- Use Value Proposition for primary value framing
+- Keep goal-ledger.json aligned with the measurable outcomes and scope decisions
+- Use Application Classification to decide whether the app journey is mandatory
+
+If journeys/base-journey.md exists and is classified as app delivery, use it to:
+- Keep the user-facing scope to four steps or fewer unless the user explicitly
+  accepted extra complexity
+- Convert each step goal into functional requirements and acceptance criteria
+- Preserve the AI assistance mode for each step: chat/voice/accessibility/
+  translation, contextual prefill, recommendation, validation, completion
+  checks, human review, audit trail, or escalation
+- Add explicit requirements for user control, evidence display, confidence,
+  editability, and accessibility at each AI-assisted step
+
+If ui-preview-brief.md exists, use it to:
+- Require the first MVP preview to stay inside the approved EAI App Template
+  blocks before any create-new UI concept is proposed
+- Require the specification to preserve the selected external/internal/hybrid
+  profile choice, package lane, coupling status, public-readiness target, and
+  block-porting decision for each UI block
+- Require every proposed UI building block to cite an `eai blocks describe`
+  result by stable ID; ambiguous display names are not acceptable
+- Require any unknown UI component to be recorded as a custom-block exception
+  with manifest shape, component owner, data/resource binding, and approval path
+- Require Storybook story IDs and theme override points for every reusable or
+  ported block; if no story exists, make story creation or an approved exception
+  part of the requirements
+- Require source-platform-coupled blocks to define the decoupling boundary through
+  `eai resources schema`, an adapter, or an explicit restricted-source exception
+- Carry forward branding/logo requirements as explicit scope, not as implied
+  polish
+- Require preview self-review evidence such as screenshot, local render proof,
+  or Playwright-style checks before stakeholder presentation
+- Require a versioned `ui-review-log.md` and explicit `ui-approval.md` before
+  downstream planning/tasks are treated as complete
+
+If service-fit-matrix.md exists, use it to:
+- Separate desired platform capabilities into accessible now, purchasable but
+  unavailable now, and unsupported without new platform work
+- Bind each chosen capability back to user-facing workflow needs rather than
+  generic platform availability
+- Keep non-selected or blocked capabilities in Out of Scope, Assumptions, or
+  Risks as appropriate
+
+If proposal-review.md exists, use it to:
+- Treat explicitly user-approved directions as authoritative scope for the spec
+- Reflect the strongest architecture direction in Assumptions, Dependencies, and NFR framing
+- Carry forward any user overrides before finalizing requirements
+- Place non-selected options in Out of Scope or Assumptions where appropriate
+
+Rules:
+- Focus on WHAT and WHY, never HOW to implement
+- Written for business stakeholders, not developers
+- Maximum 3 [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers for genuinely ambiguous items
+- Acknowledge ALL constraints from research.md in Assumptions or NFRs
+- Reference ALL integration points from research.md in Dependencies
+- Prefer explicit user-approved directions in proposal-review.md when present; otherwise treat it as advisory context
+- Each functional requirement must include Validation and Integration references
+- Explicit non-app work MUST keep the shared numbered stages but MUST NOT be
+  forced to create app-only preview, approval, branding, or service-fit
+  sections beyond marking them "Not applicable"
+
+Write the complete specification to {FEATURE_DIR}/spec.md.
+When `workflowProfile` is explicitly `enterpriseai`, also write
+{FEATURE_DIR}/contract-pack.md using the contract pack requirements below.
+
+Return a structured summary:
+- User story count and priorities
+- Functional requirement count
+- Success criteria count
+- [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] items (if any)
+- Research coverage: integration points addressed / total
+- Research coverage: constraints addressed / total"
+```
+
+### Agent 2: Quality Checklist & Research Validator
+
+```
+Task: subagent_type="general-purpose", model="haiku"
+Prompt: "Validate the specification at {FEATURE_DIR}/spec.md against research
+findings and generate a quality checklist.
+
+Read:
+- {FEATURE_DIR}/spec.md — The specification to validate
+- {FEATURE_DIR}/research.md — Research findings to cross-reference
+- {FEATURE_DIR}/proposal-review.md — Supporting review decisions to cross-reference when present
+
+Part 1: Research Integration Validation (GAP-04)
+For EACH integration point in research.md, check if it's addressed in spec:
+- In Dependencies, Functional Requirements, or Assumptions section
+For EACH constraint from research.md, check if acknowledged in spec:
+- In Assumptions or Non-Functional Requirements
+For EACH technology decision, check if reflected in Dependencies.
+For EACH decision or override captured in proposal-review.md, check if it is
+represented in Overview, Requirements, Assumptions, Dependencies, or Out of Scope.
+
+Build a coverage matrix:
+| Research Finding | Type | Spec Section | Status (COVERED/MISSING) |
+
+Part 2: Quality Checklist
+Validate these dimensions against spec.md:
+- Content Quality: No implementation details, user-focused, non-technical language
+- Requirement Completeness: Testable, unambiguous, measurable success criteria
+- Research Integration: All integration points, constraints, patterns addressed
+- Acceptance Criteria: Every user story has checkable criteria
+
+Write the checklist to {FEATURE_DIR}/checklists/requirements.md.
+
+Return:
+- Research coverage percentage
+- Count of MISSING research items (if any)
+- Specific gaps that need fixing
+- Quality checklist pass/fail status"
+```
+
+**Run Agent 1 first**, then Agent 2 after spec.md is written.
+
+---
+
+## Step 3: Review Agent Output
+
+After both agents complete:
+
+1. **Review spec writer summary** — Verify:
+   - All user stories have acceptance criteria
+   - Success criteria are measurable and technology-agnostic
+   - Dependencies reference correct codebase components from research
+  - Scenario and architecture choices from proposal-review.md are reflected
+   - Research traceability matrix is complete
+
+2. **Check research coverage** — From the validator agent:
+   - If MISSING items found: Edit spec.md to add missing coverage
+   - Add missing integration points to Dependencies section
+   - Add missing constraints to Assumptions or NFR sections
+   - Update the Research Traceability matrix
+
+3. **Fix any gaps** — Make targeted edits to spec.md for coverage failures
+
+4. **Handle clarifications** — If [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers exist (max 3):
+   - Present questions with suggested answers to user
+   - Wait for user response
+   - Update spec.md with answers
+
+---
+
+## Step 3.7: Multi-Perspective Spec Review (Optional)
+
+Before finalizing, optionally run multi-perspective strategies to stress-test
+the specification. **Skip this step if the spec is simple or time-constrained.**
+
+### Strategy #10: Spec Ambiguity Detector
+
+Spawn 3 agents that independently interpret the spec and write pseudocode.
+Compare their interpretations to find ambiguities:
+
+```
+Task: subagent_type="specify-ambiguity-detector", model="sonnet"
+Prompt: "You are Agent [1/2/3]. Read spec.md at [FEATURE_DIR]/spec.md.
+For each acceptance criterion, write pseudocode showing how you would implement it.
+Document every assumption you make. Focus on literal interpretation."
+```
+
+Run all 3 agents in parallel, then synthesize with judge:
+
+```
+Task: subagent_type="multi-perspective-judge", model="opus"
+Prompt: "Judge verdict type: ambiguity detection.
+Compare these 3 independent spec interpretations. Identify criteria where agents
+diverged — these are specification ambiguities that need clarification.
+[paste all 3 agent outputs]"
+```
+
+If the judge identifies HIGH ambiguity (>30% criteria diverge), add
+clarifications to the spec before proceeding.
+
+### Strategy #19: User Journey Stress Tester
+
+Spawn 4 persona agents to walk through user journeys and find gaps:
+
+```
+Task: subagent_type="specify-journey-stress-tester", model="haiku"
+Prompt: "You are Persona [1/2/3/4]. Walk through the user journeys in spec.md at [FEATURE_DIR]/spec.md.
+Persona 1: Power user — fast, keyboard-driven, expects batch operations
+Persona 2: First-timer — needs onboarding, clear errors, discoverable features
+Persona 3: Accessibility-dependent — screen reader, keyboard-only
+Persona 4: Adversarial — tries to break things, unexpected inputs"
+```
+
+Run all 4 personas in parallel, then synthesize with judge:
+
+```
+Task: subagent_type="multi-perspective-judge", model="opus"
+Prompt: "Judge verdict type: journey gap analysis.
+Synthesize 4 persona journey reports. Flag gaps found by 2+ personas as HIGH priority.
+[paste all 4 agent outputs]"
+```
+
+If HIGH priority gaps are found, add them to the spec before proceeding.
+
+---
+
+## Step 4: Validate Quality
+
+The quality checklist was generated by Agent 2 at
+`{FEATURE_DIR}/checklists/requirements.md`.
+
+1. **Verify checklist exists** and all dimensions pass
+2. **If items fail**: Update spec.md, re-validate (max 3 iterations)
+3. **If [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain** (max 3):
+   - Present questions with suggested answers
+   - Wait for user response
+   - Update spec with answers
+   - Re-validate
+
+---
+
+## Step 5: Sequence Diagram Option Generation (Optional)
+
+**If a base journey exists** at `{FEATURE_DIR}/journeys/base-journey.md`:
+
+Generate 5 implementation options spanning the efficiency→innovation spectrum.
+
+### Load Option Templates
+
+Read `.specify/templates/sequence-diagrams/option-spectrum.yaml` for option
+definitions:
+
+- Option 1: Minimal (95% efficiency, 10% innovation)
+- Option 2: Efficient (80% efficiency, 30% innovation)
+- Option 3: Standard (60% efficiency, 50% innovation)
+- Option 4: Enhanced (40% efficiency, 70% innovation)
+- Option 5: Innovative (20% efficiency, 95% innovation)
+
+### Generate 5 Options
+
+For each option (1-5), create a sequence diagram file at:
+`{FEATURE_DIR}/sequence-diagrams/option-{N}-{name}.md`
+
+**Each option file should include:**
+
+````markdown
+---
+id: {feature}-option-{N}
+optionNumber: {N}
+name: {Option Name}
+efficiencyScore: {from template}
+innovationScore: {from template}
+complexityTarget: {from template}
+estimatedEffort: {from template}
+created: {ISO-timestamp}
+---
+
+# Sequence Diagram Option {N}: {Name}
+
+## Overview
+
+{Description from option-spectrum.yaml adapted to this feature}
+
+## Characteristics
+
+{List characteristics from template, adapted to feature context}
+
+## Actors
+
+| Actor     | Role                  | System/Human |
+| --------- | --------------------- | ------------ |
+| {Actor 1} | {Role in this option} | {Type}       |
+
+## Sequence Diagram
+
+```mermaid
+sequenceDiagram
+    autonumber
+    participant User
+    participant System
+    {Additional participants based on option complexity}
+
+    Note over User: Option {N} - {Name}
+
+    {Interactions appropriate to this option's complexity level}
+
+    {Gen AI touchpoints if applicable - highlighted in rect}
+```
+````
+
+## Gen AI Touchpoints
+
+{List from template, or "None for this option" for Minimal}
+
+- **{Touchpoint 1}**: {How it applies to this feature}
+
+## Scores
+
+| Metric     | Score             |
+| ---------- | ----------------- |
+| Efficiency | {score}%          |
+| Innovation | {score}%          |
+| Complexity | {low/medium/high} |
+
+## Estimated Effort
+
+{From template}
+
+## Risks
+
+{List risks from template, adapted to feature}
+
+## Trade-offs
+
+{Explain what you gain and lose with this option}
+
+```
+
+### Present Options for Selection
+
+After generating all 5 options, present them to the user via **AskUserQuestion**:
+
+```
+
+Question: "Which implementation option best fits your needs?" Header: "Option"
+Options:
+
+1. "Option 1: Minimal" - "Fast delivery, basic functionality, no AI features"
+2. "Option 2: Efficient" - "Good balance of speed and quality, minimal AI"
+3. "Option 3: Standard (Recommended)" - "Full features, moderate AI integration"
+4. "Option 4: Enhanced" - "Rich features, significant AI assistance"
+5. "Option 5: Innovative" - "Cutting-edge, heavy AI/ML, longer timeline"
+
+````
+
+### Save Selection
+
+After user selects an option:
+
+1. **Copy selected option** to `{FEATURE_DIR}/sequence-diagrams/selected-option.md`
+2. **Add selection metadata** to the file header:
+   ```yaml
+   selected: true
+   selectedAt: {ISO-timestamp}
+   selectedBy: user
+````
+
+3. **Reference in spec.md** - Add section:
+
+   ```markdown
+   ## Selected Implementation Approach
+
+   **Option {N}: {Name}** was selected as the implementation approach.
+
+   - Efficiency Score: {score}%
+   - Innovation Score: {score}%
+   - Estimated Effort: {effort}
+
+   See `sequence-diagrams/selected-option.md` for full details.
+   ```
+
+### Skip Conditions
+
+Skip sequence diagram generation if:
+
+1. No base journey exists (user skipped journey mapping)
+2. Feature is purely technical infrastructure (no user-facing interactions)
+3. Context window is at Warning level (>50%)
+4. User explicitly opts out during journey confirmation
+
+---
+
+## Step 6: Report and Continue
+
+After spec.md is complete:
+
+```
+✓ Specification complete: {FEATURE_DIR}/spec.md
+✓ Goal ledger aligned: {FEATURE_DIR}/goal-ledger.json
+✓ Loop contract aligned: {FEATURE_DIR}/loop-contract.json
+
+Summary:
+- [N] User Stories defined
+- [N] Functional Requirements
+- [N] Success Criteria
+
+Checklist: {FEATURE_DIR}/checklists/requirements.md
+
+{If sequence diagrams generated:}
+Sequence Diagrams: {FEATURE_DIR}/sequence-diagrams/
+Selected Option: Option {N} - {Name}
+```
+
+**AUTO-CHAIN (MANDATORY)**: You MUST immediately invoke the next pipeline stage
+by calling the Skill tool with skill="/3_gofer_plan". Do NOT ask the user for
+confirmation. Do NOT output "Ready for next stage". Just invoke the skill NOW.
+
+---
+
+## Guidelines
+
+### Quick Guidelines
+
+- Focus on **WHAT** users need and **WHY**
+- Avoid HOW to implement (that's for /3_gofer_plan)
+- Written for business stakeholders, not developers
+- **Use research findings** to inform requirements
+
+### Success Criteria Guidelines
+
+Success criteria must be:
+
+1. **Measurable**: Specific metrics (time, percentage, count)
+2. **Technology-agnostic**: No frameworks, languages, databases
+3. **User-focused**: Outcomes from user perspective
+4. **Verifiable**: Can be tested without implementation details
+
+### Research Integration
+
+- Reference research.md for technical context
+- Use identified integration points in dependencies
+- Acknowledge constraints in assumptions
+- Align with codebase patterns discovered
+
+---
+
+## EnterpriseAI Integration Map Requirements
+
+The standard Gofer workflow is the public default. EnterpriseAI profile outputs
+remain opt-in and migration-only.
+
+When the workflow profile is `enterpriseai`, `spec.md` MUST include an explicit
+**Integration Map** section that traces the flow from end-user interaction to
+the deployed EnterpriseAI app and back. The map must be
+expressed as an ordered dependency chain following the pattern:
+
+```
+App -> EAI Services -> Deployment Target
+```
+
+At minimum the map must name:
+
+1. **App**: the student-facing or business-facing app being
+   delivered (maps to the `eai-app-template` reference).
+2. **EAI Services**: the EnterpriseAI platform services the app consumes
+   (maps to the current public platform documentation or explicitly provided
+   project references).
+3. **Deployment Target**: the deployment environment and pipeline that will host
+   the running app (maps to the configured deployment documentation for the
+   target project).
+
+Each link in the chain must reference the internal API contract that carries the
+integration payload (for example `IAP-001` → `IAP-002` → `IAP-003`) so the plan
+stage can bind implementation tasks directly to specification clauses.
+
+---
+
+## EnterpriseAI Contract Pack Requirements
+
+When `workflowProfile` is explicitly `enterpriseai`, generate
+`{FEATURE_DIR}/contract-pack.md` with these required sections:
+
+| Section | Required Content |
+| ------- | ---------------- |
+| Actors | Business users, administrators, approvers, external systems, support roles |
+| Object Types | Reused, extended, and newly proposed EnterpriseAI object types with owners |
+| Workflows and Journeys | External user journeys and internal orchestration flows as separate views; app delivery must include the four-step-or-fewer AI-augmented journey |
+| UI Preview and Approval | For app delivery: preview brief, EAI App Template constraints, branding inputs, preview validation evidence expectations, review-log requirements, approval gate rules; for non-app work: mark not applicable |
+| EAI App Delivery Preflight | For EAI app delivery: CLI version/install state, account/login state, tenant role, template initialization readiness, app enrollment readiness, block catalog readiness, and blocked/deferred decisions |
+| EAI Platform/Azure Stack Policy | For app delivery: EAI Platform as primary app substrate, Azure as preferred cloud/supporting substrate, custom code constrained to the EAI template, and non-EAI stacks only as approved exceptions |
+| AI Assistance Contract | Step goal, assistance mode, context used, generated output, user controls, confidence/evidence, audit trail, completion signal, and escalation for each app step |
+| EnterpriseAI Service Fit | For app delivery: desired capabilities, evidence source, accessible now vs purchasable vs unavailable classification, selected direction, and blocked-capability handling |
+| Public Platform Boundary | Public docs/help/CLI/PublicAPI behavior the builder may rely on; private platform details intentionally excluded; upgrade/operator-required paths expressed as product-safe user actions |
+| Permissions and Tenant Boundaries | Identity, authorization, policy, isolation, and tenant assumptions |
+| APIs and Events | ResourceAPI surfaces, events, payload ownership, and contract-test hooks |
+| Deployment and Runtime | Environment, config, observability, rollback, and operating assumptions |
+| Acceptance Tests | Business, security, data, architecture, operational, and regression checks |
+
+The contract pack must link every new object type/API/workflow back to
+`reuse-scan.md` and must flag any "create new" decision that lacks evidence.
+For EnterpriseAI public-facing work, the contract pack must also separate:
+
+- **Public builder knowledge**: EAI CLI commands, PublicAPI responses, template
+  configuration, support documentation, and user-safe statuses such as
+  `available`, `operator_required`, `upgrade_required`, and `not_ready`.
+- **Private platform knowledge**: internal service topology, direct downstream
+  credentials, private provisioning paths, and any bypass around plan limits or
+  AuthZ. These may inform internal implementation tasks, but must not be copied
+  into public docs, generated help, templates, or app guidance.
+
+## Step 7: Update Working Backwards PR/FAQ And Business Owner Summary
+
+After `spec.md` is stabilized and before stage completion logging:
+
+1. Create or update `{FEATURE_DIR}/spec-summary.md` using
+   `.specify/templates/spec-summary-template.md` if it does not already exist.
+   If the optional `gofer:spec-summary` helper was explicitly requested, keep
+   using that helper contract; otherwise write the concise stage summary inline.
+2. Update `{FEATURE_DIR}/working-backwards-prfaq.md` from the current
+   specification.
+   - Tighten the Press Release headline, customer problem, launch description,
+     customer benefit, and "How To Get Started" around the approved product
+     behavior.
+   - Fill External FAQ with user-facing behavior, process change, included
+     scope, explicit exclusions, success measures, and fallback path.
+   - Keep Internal FAQ CTO/CISO sections as `Pending /3` or `Pending /6` where
+     the stage has not produced evidence yet.
+3. Write `{FEATURE_DIR}/prfaq-history/02-specify.md` as an immutable snapshot of
+   the updated PR/FAQ.
+4. Update `{FEATURE_DIR}/business-owner-summary.md` from
+   `.specify/templates/business-owner-summary-template.md` using
+   `problem-brief.md`, `discovery.md`, `spec-summary.md`, assumptions, value
+   stream, ROI, and business metrics when present.
+5. Update `{FEATURE_DIR}/stakeholder-review-index.md` and explicitly ask the
+   Business Owner to approve, revise, or defer:
+   - business scenario
+   - process change
+   - business case / value measures
+   - assumptions and exclusions
+
+Do not block the normal auto-chain unless the user explicitly asks to pause for
+review. The review index captures pending stakeholder decisions so downstream
+stages can reconcile them.
+
+---
+
+## Observability Logging
+
+At stage completion, log metrics:
+
+```bash
+.specify/scripts/bash/log-stage.sh 2_specify --complete --tokens [N] --compactions [N]
+```
+
+Logs to: `.specify/logs/pipeline.jsonl`
+
+---
+
+## Optional Helpers: Vocabulary Extraction and Spec Summary
+
+- If the operator explicitly requests the `vocabulary` selector after `spec.md`
+  is stabilized, run `gofer:vocabulary` inline and write
+  `.specify/specs/{feature}/glossary.md` using the same artifact contract as the
+  standalone helper.
+- This stage creates or updates a baseline `spec-summary.md` for the
+  Business Owner summary and PR/FAQ. If the operator explicitly requests the
+  `spec-summary` selector after `spec.md` is stabilized, run
+  `gofer:spec-summary` inline to deepen or regenerate
+  `.specify/specs/{feature}/spec-summary.md` using the same artifact contract as
+  the standalone helper.
+- If `spec.md` is missing, continue the stage normally and report that the
+  helper was not run.
+- These selectors are optional and do not change stage progress, routing, or
+  pipeline state.