1 added, 0 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: flow-next-guide
description: Recommend the smallest sufficient flow-next workflow from the starting state. Stateless router. Use when unsure which command or stage applies next.
user-invocable: false
allowed-tools: Read, Bash, Grep, Glob, Task
---
# Guide - smallest-sufficient workflow router
Stateless prompt-first router. Recommends **one** next workflow from the starting state. Does **not** create specs, charts, tasks, artifacts, or flowctl state. Chart is an **optional** discovery route - never a mandatory stage and never a new pipeline stage.
**Role**: routing coordinator (inline skill - keep `plain-text numbered prompt` reachable). On portable hosts without `plain-text numbered prompt`, fall back to a plain-text numbered prompt with a final `Other - type your own answer` option.
## Preamble
**CRITICAL: flowctl is BUNDLED - NOT installed globally.** `which flowctl` will fail (expected). Define once; probe blocks use `$FLOWCTL`:
```bash
FLOWCTL="${CODEX_HOME:-$HOME/.codex}/scripts/flowctl"
[ -x "$FLOWCTL" ] || FLOWCTL="<plugin-root>/scripts/flowctl" # <plugin-root> = the directory two levels above this skill's SKILL.md file (the harness gave you that file's absolute path when the skill loaded); substitute it literally
[ -x "$FLOWCTL" ] || FLOWCTL=".flow/bin/flowctl"
```
No flowctl mutation. Optional read-only probes (`$FLOWCTL brief` for cold-session orientation; `$FLOWCTL list` / `$FLOWCTL show`, file reads) may ground the recommendation when a handle or path is named. Never run create/write/claim/resolve.
## Output contract (every recommendation)
Lead with a **natural-language next prompt** - the exact words or slash command the user should say/run next. Flags are secondary (automation only). Then:
1. **Route** - named skill/path
2. **Why (positive signal)** - which matrix signal matched
3. **Safe skip / narrow** - when this route may be skipped or narrowed
4. **Skip kind** - `signal absent` (the stage's work is not needed) vs `despite unresolved risk` (you chose a smaller path; evidence/consent/review contracts still apply later)
Skipping a command never skips the evidence, consent, or review contract that command would have provided.
## Smallest-sufficient matrix (exact)
Match the **starting state**. First clear match wins. Chart only when one oversized idea is still unclear.
| Starting state | Route | Positive signal | Safe skip / narrow |
|---|---|---|---|
| No written direction - target problem, users, or key metrics are not stated anywhere | `$flow-next-strategy` | Repeated arguments about what matters; no `STRATEGY.md` to ground prospect/capture/plan | Skip when `STRATEGY.md` exists or the effort is small enough that direction is not in question |
| Looking for candidate investments across a domain | `$flow-next-prospect` | Domain search; need ranked candidates | Skip prospect when the idea is already singular. After selection: chart **only if** the candidate remains singular + oversized + unclear; otherwise capture |
| One large idea, unclear boundaries, several consequential unknowns | `$flow-next-chart` then briefing then capture | Singular effort too big for one capture; unknowns block stating intent | Skip chart (`signal absent`) when intent and boundaries are already stateable - go capture or author the spec directly. Chart is never mandatory |
| A theme or direction rather than one effort ("make X more Y") | `$flow-next-prospect`, or narrow to a single effort | No nameable end state, so no Outcome and no scope boundary | Chart cannot take this (`signal absent` for chart): it needs a destination whose route is unknown, not a direction. Narrow first, or prospect when the real ask is which effort to pick |
| One meaningful idea whose intent and boundaries can already be stated | `$flow-next-capture` or author the spec directly | Clear meaningful idea | Skip chart (`signal absent`). Do not manufacture a chart for clear work |
| Existing structured brief with resolved business and technical choices | `$flow-next-capture` the brief | Structured brief / chart briefing package ready | Skip chart. Narrow or skip interview **only after** capture read-back proves no material gaps - never pre-declare skip interview |
| Tiny, local, low-risk change that fits one implementation context | Direct change + review path appropriate to the repo | One-context fix; low risk | Skip chart **and** the full spec pipeline (`signal absent`). Still run the review/consent gates the change would need |
| A valid spec with unresolved judgment questions | `$flow-next-interview` | Spec exists; judgment gaps remain | Do not reopen discovery as chart unless the questions reveal the **effort itself is not yet specifiable** - only then route backward to chart |
| A ready zero-task spec whose work is fully known, near-zero risk, one implementation context | `$flow-next-work <spec-id> --no-plan` (or answer the zero-task fork's ask with "work directly") | Task decomposition would convert no unknown; the fork mints one implicit task and runs the standard pipeline | Prefer `$flow-next-plan` when independent surfaces could parallelize or design risk remains; autonomous loops keep planning - pilot forwards only an explicit `--no-plan`, and `$flow-next-work-rolling` refuses the route |
| A ready spec whose work is understood | `$flow-next-plan` | Spec ready / work understood enough to task | Chart is too late. Unshaped oversized freeform ideas are not plan input - route those to chart first |
| Planned tasks ready to implement | `$flow-next-work`, then existing review / QA / ship choices | Tasks exist and are actionable | Stay on work + the repo's review/QA/ship menu. Guide does not invent new ship stages |
+ | A repo with a drivable user surface whose navigation should compound across QA/drive runs | `$flow-next-features` | No `.flow/features/` yet (seed), or a present map that needs a cadence maintain pass | Skip when there is no drivable surface. Never a pipeline stage; pilot/land/Ralph never dispatch it. QA and drive consume the map when it exists |
| Output too dense - a plan, spec, task, or diff needs reviewing at a glance | `$flow-next-visual` | Structure has to be reconstructed by serial reading (spec + N task files, an unread diff, a wall of prose) | Skip when the text is already short enough to judge directly. The digest is a lens, not a stage - it never advances the pipeline and never replaces reading the file you drill into |
| A substantial reply, report, or summary needs prose discipline | `$flow-next-prose` | The output is chat prose - self-applied by the agent at the drafting moment, or invoked with a draft to tighten | Skip for short turns, tool narration, the visual digest, and anything landing in a file, PR, or tracker - those artifact surfaces carry their own pointers to `docs/prose.md`. Never a pipeline stage |
| Unsure which of these situations applies | This matrix (this skill) | Ambiguous starting state | Ask at most **one** plain-text numbered prompt when two routes would **materially** differ; otherwise recommend one route |
There is **no** fixed prospect -> chart -> capture conveyor. Each hop re-evaluates the matrix.
**Host command form:** print every copy-pasteable flow-next command here in the spelling this host invokes - the flat `/flow-next-<name>` form when the resolved plugin root carries `.flow-next-opencode-manifest` (an OpenCode install - the same signal setup's host detection uses); on any other or indeterminate host, exactly as spelled here.
**Experimental variant - never a default route.** `/flow-next:work-rolling` is an experimental rolling-frontier variant of `/flow-next:work` (per-task admission, isolated workspaces, conductor-owned review). The router never recommends it as the route for "planned tasks ready to implement" - that row stays `/flow-next:work`, and pilot/land stay on canonical work. Name it only when the user explicitly asks for rolling or concurrent scheduling of a planned multi-task spec, and say it is experimental (can change or disappear).
**Router staleness is a defect, not drift.** This table is the router's inventory of what ships. Recommending a skill that no longer exists, or failing to know one that does, is a broken router - the recommendation looks confident and sends the user nowhere. Adding or removing a flow-next skill updates this table in the same change (`agent_docs/adding-skills.md`).
## Prompt-first behavior
1. Infer starting state from `$ARGUMENTS` + conversation (and optional read-only probes).
2. If exactly one matrix row fits, emit one recommendation (natural-language prompt first).
**Ask the user via plain text.** Render the options below as a numbered list `1.` … `N.`, followed by a final option `N+1. Other — type your own answer`. Print the question, then the numbered list, then **stop and wait for the user's next message before continuing**. Parse the reply as: a bare number `1`–`N+1` → that option; the literal text of an option label → that option; free text after `Other` → custom answer.
3. If two routes would materially change cost, consent, or discovery vs build path, ask **at most one** plain-text numbered prompt via bare `plain-text numbered prompt` (or the plain-text numbered fallback). Then recommend.
4. Never present chart as required onboarding, a pipeline stage, or the default after prospect.
5. Never mutate `.flow/` or invoke write-capable flowctl subcommands.
When the situation reads as a concrete task, the pull is to just answer it - the fix is one edit away, the question has an obvious response. That pull is the tell that a route exists and you are about to skip naming it. Name the route instead; a guide that does the work has stopped being a router.
## Recommendation shape (template)
```
Next: <natural-language prompt or slash command to run>
Route: <name>
Signal: <positive signal>
Skip/narrow: <explicit safe skip or narrow condition>
Skip kind: signal absent | despite unresolved risk
Why not the alternatives: <one line>
```
Examples of natural-language next prompts (not required flags):
- "Run prospect for DX improvements in the skills tree"
- "Chart this: multi-tenant billing with unknown pricing and migration risks"
- "Capture what we just agreed - intent and boundaries are clear"
- "Interview fn-12 on the open product judgment questions"
- "Plan the ready spec fn-12"
- "Just fix the typo in README and open a small review"
## Forbidden
- Writing files under `.flow/`, creating charts/specs/tasks, or any flowctl mutation
- Using `Write` or `Edit` tools
- Presenting chart as mandatory or as a pilot/build-loop stage
- A fixed multi-stage conveyor that always chains prospect -> chart -> capture
- Asking more than one plain-text numbered prompt per invocation
- Leading with flag vocabulary when a natural-language next prompt exists
- Claiming that skipping a command also skips its evidence/consent/review contracts