Turn a rough idea into a clear specification through focused dialogue. No code is written during this skill — the output is shared understanding and a refined problem statement.

HARD GATE — Do NOT proceed with planning or implementation until the problem space is clearly understood. Success criteria, actors, and scope must be explicit before drafting a plan.

Let the user describe their idea in their own words. Do not interrupt or redirect. Take notes on:

• The core problem they’re trying to solve
• Who is affected (actors)
• What success looks like to them
• Any constraints they’ve already identified

Ask one question at a time. Work through these areas:

Problem clarity

• What is the current behavior (or lack of behavior) that prompted this?
• Who experiences this problem? How often?
• What’s the cost of not solving it?

Solution boundaries

• What is explicitly IN scope?
• What is explicitly OUT of scope?
• Are there existing solutions (internal or external) this replaces or integrates with?

Success criteria

• How will you know this is done?
• What does the happy path look like end-to-end?
• What are the key failure modes to handle?

Constraints

• Any performance requirements?
• Any compatibility constraints (existing APIs, data formats)?
• Any non-negotiable implementation decisions already made?

HARD GATE — If the request admits ≥2 valid interpretations, do NOT guess. You must list them and ask the user to choose before proceeding. Proceeding with unresolved ambiguity is a failure of integrity.

Present the options clearly:

“I see two ways to read this:

1. [Interpretation A] — my recommendation because [reason]
2. [Interpretation B] Which is closer to what you mean?“

Once the user has answered the main questions, probe for assumptions:

• “You mentioned X — does that mean Y is also true?”
• “What happens when Z fails?”
• “Is this for internal users, external users, or both?”

Summarize your understanding in 3–5 bullet points aligned with countable-story-format.md:

• The problem (feeds into §1 Business narrative)
• The solution and main flow (feeds into §5)
• The key constraints and alternative flows (feeds into §6)
• The success criteria (feeds into §17 Gherkin)
• What’s out of scope (feeds into §18)

Ask: “Is this an accurate summary? Anything missing or wrong?”

After the user confirms the summary in step 4, persist the key decisions:

# specs/planning-context.yaml — written by elaborate-spec; consumed by scope-work and slice-tasks
feature_name: "<from step 1>"
problem_statement: "<one paragraph>"
constraints:
  - "<constraint 1>"
out_of_scope:
  - "<excluded item 1>"
key_decisions:
  - decision: "<what was decided>"
    rationale: "<why>"

If specs/planning-context.yaml already exists, ask: "Planning context from a prior session exists. Update it? [Y/n]". Overwrite on Y; leave unchanged on N.

Once the spec is clear, recommend the next step:

• If domain model needs work → model-domain
• If ready to plan → plan-release (creates epic capsules with epic.yaml + story .md + -tasks.yaml) then plan-work per story
• If a spike is needed first → spike-prototype
• If architecture decisions are needed → deepen-architecture or grill-me
• If the plan depends on a specific library or API → grill-me in docs mode