git:20260622.60a87e6 to git:20260623.34d9591

1 added, 1 removed. Audit B to B.

---

- description: "Elicit knowledge through dialogue and stage it under intake/. Modes: `project` scopes a new build, `knowledge` captures a topic from the user, and `deep-dive` extracts rationale behind an existing system with grounding. Trigger on /interview, interview me, deep dive on X, scope this project, or ask me questions about X."

+ description: "Interview the user to ELICIT knowledge through dialogue, then stage it to the intake/ tree (the elicit-side counterpart to /extract and /intake which HARVEST existing sources). Three modes: '/interview project' (scope a new project/build), '/interview knowledge' (get a topic out of your head into the KB), '/interview deep-dive' (comprehensively extract the rationale behind an existing-but-undocumented system you built — REQUIRES a basis to review). Cadence (one-at-a-time socratic vs research-then-batch-of-questions) is chosen in-session. Use when user says '/interview', 'interview me about X', 'grill me on X', 'deep dive on X', 'scope this project', 'ask me questions about X'. Stages to intake/projects/ or intake/interviews/ for manual review; never auto-promotes. (Code port — ADR-094.)"

---

# /interview — Elicit Knowledge Through Dialogue

Interview the user to draw out knowledge that lives in their head (and in their artifacts), then stage it as structured markdown in the `intake/` tree. Unlike `/extract` (reads the current conversation) or `/intake` (captures/scans external sources — URLs, snippets, files), `/interview` *asks questions* — the answers become the knowledge. Output is staged for **manual review** (the `/meeting-notes` model), never auto-promoted.

## Step 0: Resolve Config

Read `~/.gemini/antigravity/aria-knowledge.local.md` and extract `knowledge_folder`. If the file doesn't exist, stop: "aria-knowledge is not configured. Run /setup to get started."

## Step 1: Resolve Mode, Topic, Grounding

Parse arguments: first positional = **mode** (`project` | `knowledge` | `deep-dive`). Remaining text = **topic**. `--ground=<path|glob|url>[,...]` = optional grounding artifacts.

If no mode given, ask: "Which interview — `project` (scope a new build), `knowledge` (get a topic into the KB), or `deep-dive` (extract rationale behind something you already built)?"

**Derive the slug** from the topic (kebab-case, ≤6 words). If no topic yet, ask for a one-line subject.

### GATE — deep-dive requires a basis (explicit early-return)

**If mode is `deep-dive` AND no `--ground` was provided AND no basis is named in the topic:**

> STOP. Do not ask any interview questions. Emit:

> "`deep-dive` extracts the rationale behind something that already exists, so it needs a basis to review and build questions around. Point me at what to study — source code, a directory, a design doc / plan / spec, a project folder, a data file (e.g. a spreadsheet), or a URL."

> Wait for the user to supply a basis. Re-enter this gate with their answer. Do NOT proceed to Step 2 until `deep-dive` has at least one grounding artifact.

For `project` and `knowledge`, grounding is optional — proceed to Step 2 regardless.

## Step 2: Ingest Grounding (if any)

For each grounding artifact: file/dir/glob → Read/Glob/Grep; URL → WebFetch; project folder → read its CLAUDE.md + top-level structure; data file → read/parse. Record key observations — these become the evidence you cite in questions. (`deep-dive` always has ≥1; `project`/`knowledge` may have none.)

## Step 3: Choose Cadence (in-session)

Recommend a cadence in one line, then accept an override:

- `deep-dive` → recommend **battery**

- `project` / `knowledge` WITH grounding or a broad topic → recommend **battery**

- `project` / `knowledge`, focused + ungrounded → recommend **socratic**

> "This looks like a **battery** interview (grounded / broad): I research, then present a full clustered question set you answer at once. Or **socratic**: one question at a time, adapting as we go. [battery] — reply to switch."

## Step 4: Interview

**battery cadence:** Derive a question set for the mode (banks below), grounded with cited evidence where artifacts exist. Cluster by **leverage** (highest-impact first), number them, present all at once, invite answers in any order/prose.

**socratic cadence:** Ask ONE question, wait, adapt the next to the answer. Maintain a running **coverage ledger** (which mode-bank items are satisfied / thin / waved-off).

**Hybrid stop (both cadences):** cover the mode's checklist floor, probe where answers are thin, and always honor an early "done". Periodically surface coverage: "Covered: X, Y. Still thin: Z. Say 'done' to stop early."

## Step 5: Assemble & Confirm (confirm-before-write)

Assemble the staged-file draft (frontmatter + the mode's body template, filled from answers). Show the full draft and ask: "Here's what I captured — write it to `{path}`? (`y` to write, or tell me what to change)". Do not write until `y`.

## Step 6: Stage

Target by mode:

- `project` → `{knowledge_folder}/intake/projects/{YYYY-MM-DD}-{slug}.md`

- `knowledge` / `deep-dive` → `{knowledge_folder}/intake/interviews/{YYYY-MM-DD}-{slug}.md`

Lazy-create the subfolder if missing. Write the file. Report the path and note: "Staged for manual review — promote later via /extract or by hand (not auto-swept by /audit-knowledge)."

---

## Question Banks (by mode)

**project** — Problem & motivation · Users / who it's for · Scope (in) · Scope (explicitly out) · Constraints (technical/time/dependency) · Stack / approach leanings · Success criteria · Risks & open questions

**knowledge** — Claim / position · Basis & evidence · Confidence (firm/working/speculative) · Contested points & counter-views · Connections to existing knowledge ([[links]]) · What would change my mind

**deep-dive** (the DF-session method) — cluster by leverage, cite evidence per question, hunt negative space:

- Load-bearing invariants — what's immovable vs revisable, and why

- Origin of each decision — where did this come from (research / inheritance / invention)?

- **Negative space** — what was considered and deliberately NOT built?

- What would force a rebuild — name the scenarios that invalidate the current design

- Open threads

---

## Output Templates

Each file opens with this frontmatter (fill `mode`/`cadence`/`slug`; list `grounding` artifacts or omit if none):

```yaml

---

type: interview

mode: project | knowledge | deep-dive

cadence: socratic | battery

date: YYYY-MM-DD

slug: <kebab-topic>

grounding:

- <artifact>

status: staged

---

```

### project → body

```markdown

# Project Intake: <name>

## Problem & motivation

## Users / who it's for

## Scope — in

## Scope — explicitly out

## Constraints

## Stack / approach leanings

## Success criteria

## Risks & open questions

```

### knowledge → body

```markdown

# <topic>

## Claim / position

## Basis & evidence

## Confidence

## Contested points & counter-views

## Connections to existing knowledge

## What would change my mind

```

### deep-dive → body (preserve Q AND A)

```markdown

# Deep-Dive: <system>

## Grounding reviewed

## Q&A by leverage cluster

## Load-bearing invariants

## Negative space

## What would force a rebuild

## Open threads

```