--- name: flow-next-capture description: Synthesize the current conversation context into a flow-next spec at `.flow/specs/.md` via `flowctl spec create + spec set-plan` — agent-native, source-tagged, with mandatory read-back before write. Triggers on /flow-next:capture, "capture spec", "lock down what we discussed", "make a spec from this conversation", "convert conversation to spec". Optional `mode:autofix` token runs without questions and requires `--yes` to commit. Optional `--rewrite ` overwrites an existing spec; `--from-compacted-ok` overrides the incomplete-evidence refusal after compaction; `--override-strategy` proceeds despite a contradiction with an active STRATEGY.md track (and prompts to record the override as a decision). user-invocable: false allowed-tools: AskUserQuestion, Read, Bash, Grep, Glob, Write, Edit, Task --- # /flow-next:capture — agent-native conversation → spec A free-form discussion (or a `/flow-next:prospect` survivor) frequently produces enough material for a complete spec, but stops short of the formal `flowctl spec create` + `spec set-plan` heredoc documented in `CLAUDE.md`. Without an explicit synthesis step, that context decays — the next session loses the conversation, the spec never lands, and the user re-explains the same idea to `/flow-next:plan`. This skill IS the synthesis. The host agent (Claude Code / Codex / Droid) extracts the recent user turns, drafts a CLAUDE.md-shaped spec with **per-line source tags** (`[user]` / `[paraphrase]` / `[inferred]` / `[strategy:]`), **prints the full draft as ordinary markdown then issues a short approval ask** (print-then-ask — never embed multi-paragraph drafts in `AskUserQuestion` bodies), and only then writes the spec via existing flowctl plumbing. There is no Python synthesizer, no codex / copilot subprocess, no fast-model classifier. The host agent is already an LLM and does the work directly. flowctl provides thin spec plumbing (`spec create`, `spec set-plan`, optional `spec set-branch`, `memory search` for duplicate detection) plus the chart handoff callback (`chart link-spec`) after a successful chart-briefing capture. Capture never writes chart files and never mutates a chart's `ready` flag; chart never writes `.flow/specs`. ### Routing boundary (fn-135 / guide matrix) Clear meaningful ideas and finished chart briefings route **here** - to capture (or direct spec authoring). Capture does **not** manufacture a chart for clear work. When intent and boundaries are already stateable, skip chart (`signal absent`). After a structured brief lands, narrow or skip interview only once read-back proves no material gaps - never pre-skip interview on hope. Unsure: `/flow-next:guide`. ### Chart briefing ingestion (fn-135) When the conversation (or `$ARGUMENTS`) references a chart briefing — a path under `.flow/charts/*-briefing*.md`, an explicit B-ID (`B1`, `B2`, …), or a chart id with a published briefing — capture treats that briefing as **attributable evidence**, not as pre-tagged acceptance criteria: 1. **Detect** the briefing input early (Phase 1 evidence). Read the index (and cluster file when multi-spec). Record chart id, B-ID, cluster key (if any), D-ID links, and approved asset references. 2. **Admission (fail closed):** ordinary capture **REFUSES draft or stale briefings**. A forced draft (`status: draft`) is never treated as final. A stale B-ID (after `chart reopen` or supersession of linked D-IDs) is refused by default. 3. **Explicit risk override only:** to admit a draft or stale briefing, the user must name the unresolved or invalidated D-IDs and the agent must **read back the exact risk** before write. The override never promotes a forced draft into a final briefing and never rewrites chart history. 4. **Provenance separation (load-bearing):** - Chart/B-ID/cluster/D-ID evidence and approved assets go into `## Decision Context` / evidence sections as **links and references** — never with trailing `[user]` / `[paraphrase]` / `[inferred]` / `[strategy:]` tags. - The four source tags apply **only** to acceptance criteria capture **newly authors**. Never retag existing criteria. A criterion derived from an unattended resolved D-ID is **not** automatically `[user]`. - Do **not** introduce verified/inferred fact or decision grammar (fn-148 closed STOPPED — no verdict; it licenses nothing here). 5. **Write order after approval:** `spec create` → `spec set-plan` → `flowctl chart link-spec --briefing --spec --decisions [--cluster ]`. Call `link-spec` **only after** each successful spec creation. Decline records nothing and leaves the chart resumable. 6. **Retry / partial multi-spec:** on retry, first check `produced_specs[]` (and existing specs) for this B-ID+cluster identity; if a link already exists, link/use that spec instead of minting a duplicate. Partial multi-spec capture records only successful links and resumes the failed cluster without duplicating the first. Shared-context D-IDs stay attributable in each handoff but become acceptance requirements only where read-back confirms the target spec needs that guarantee. **Read [workflow.md](workflow.md) for the full phase-by-phase execution. Read [phases.md](phases.md) for the must-ask cases lookup, source-tag taxonomy, confidence tiers, and forbidden-behaviors list.** ## Preamble **CRITICAL: flowctl is BUNDLED — NOT installed globally.** `which flowctl` will fail (expected). Define once; subsequent blocks (here and in `workflow.md` / `phases.md`) use `$FLOWCTL`: ```bash FLOWCTL="${DROID_PLUGIN_ROOT:-${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}}/scripts/flowctl" [ -x "$FLOWCTL" ] || FLOWCTL=".flow/bin/flowctl" ``` **Inline skill (no `context: fork`)** — `AskUserQuestion` must stay reachable across phases. Subagents can't call blocking question tools (Claude Code issues #12890, #34592). Phase 0 (duplicate detection) and Phase 4 (read-back loop) both require user choice in interactive mode. (sync-codex.sh rewrites this to a plain-text numbered prompt in the Codex mirror.) ## Mode Detection Parse `$ARGUMENTS` for the literal token `mode:autofix` and the flags `--rewrite `, `--from-compacted-ok`, `--yes`, `--override-strategy`. Strip recognized tokens; whatever remains is treated as freeform context (ignored — the conversation is the input, not `$ARGUMENTS`). ```bash RAW_ARGS="$ARGUMENTS" MODE="interactive" REWRITE_TARGET="" FROM_COMPACTED_OK=0 COMMIT_YES=0 OVERRIDE_STRATEGY=0 # Mode token if [[ "$RAW_ARGS" == *"mode:autofix"* ]]; then MODE="autofix" RAW_ARGS="${RAW_ARGS//mode:autofix/}" fi # --rewrite if [[ "$RAW_ARGS" =~ --rewrite[[:space:]]+([^[:space:]]+) ]]; then REWRITE_TARGET="${BASH_REMATCH[1]}" RAW_ARGS="${RAW_ARGS//--rewrite ${REWRITE_TARGET}/}" fi # --from-compacted-ok if [[ "$RAW_ARGS" == *"--from-compacted-ok"* ]]; then FROM_COMPACTED_OK=1 RAW_ARGS="${RAW_ARGS//--from-compacted-ok/}" fi # --yes (autofix commit gate) if [[ "$RAW_ARGS" == *"--yes"* ]]; then COMMIT_YES=1 RAW_ARGS="${RAW_ARGS//--yes/}" fi # --override-strategy (Phase 5.0 strategy-contradiction override) if [[ "$RAW_ARGS" == *"--override-strategy"* ]]; then OVERRIDE_STRATEGY=1 RAW_ARGS="${RAW_ARGS//--override-strategy/}" fi ``` | Mode | When | Behavior | |------|------|----------| | **Interactive** (default) | User is at the terminal | Phase 0 asks on duplicate detection; Phase 3 asks on must-ask ambiguities; Phase 4 print-then-ask read-back (full draft as ordinary markdown, then short blocking-question tool) — write only on `approve` | | **Autofix** (`mode:autofix`) | Batch usage from another skill / scripted invocation | No user questions. Phase 0 hard-errors on duplicates / relevant evidence made incomplete by compaction without explicit overrides. Historical compaction signals alone do not block. Phase 3 must-ask cases hard-error (autofix can't ask). Phase 4 Writes the full draft once + prints the summary tally to stdout (autofix path unchanged). **Writes to `.flow/` ONLY when `--yes` is also passed**; without `--yes`, exit 0 with "draft written; rerun with --yes to commit" | ### Autofix mode rules - **No user questions.** Never call the blocking-question tool. - **Phase 0 hard-errors:** duplicate detected → list overlapping spec IDs to stderr, exit 2 unless `--rewrite ` was passed; relevant capture evidence is missing / truncated / summary-only after compaction → exit 2 unless `--from-compacted-ok` was passed. A historical compaction marker or system-summary block alone is advisory and does not block. - **Phase 3 must-ask hard-errors:** ambiguous title / untestable acceptance / scope-conflict-with-existing-spec → exit 2 with which case fired and why. Autofix cannot resolve must-ask cases. - **Phase 4 single emission, no `.flow/` write.** Full draft Written once to the §4.1 draft file (all sections + R-IDs); summary payload (`[inferred]` tally + 8+ acceptance suggestion if applicable) printed to stdout. Without `--yes`, exit 0 with the "rerun with --yes" hint. With `--yes`, proceed to Phase 5 write. (Autofix has no interactive print-then-ask; `--yes` is the consent substitute.) - **Phase 5 commits identically to interactive once it runs.** - **Readiness never written.** The mark-ready write (workflow.md §5.9) is interactive-consent-only; autofix prints a footer suggestion at most (and only when readiness is adopted, no `tracker.readyState`, and the spec was written). The `--rewrite` readiness reset (§5.3) still runs — it is idempotent plumbing, not a consent question. ## Ralph-block (R13) — runs first, before everything else `/flow-next:capture` requires conversation context + user confirmation. Autonomous loops have neither. Hard-error with exit 2 when running under Ralph. ```bash if [[ -n "${REVIEW_RECEIPT_PATH:-}" || "${FLOW_RALPH:-}" == "1" ]]; then echo "Error: /flow-next:capture requires conversation context + a user at the terminal; not compatible with Ralph mode (REVIEW_RECEIPT_PATH or FLOW_RALPH detected)." >&2 exit 2 fi ``` No env-var opt-in. Ralph never decides direction. ## Interaction Principles (interactive mode only) In autofix mode, skip user questions entirely and apply the rules above. In interactive mode: - Ask **one question at a time** via `AskUserQuestion` (call `ToolSearch` with `select:AskUserQuestion` first if its schema isn't loaded). Fall back to numbered options in plain text only if the tool is unreachable or errors. Never silently skip the question. - **Lead with the recommended option** and a one-sentence rationale, followed by a confidence marker — `[high]` / `[judgment-call]` / `[your-call]`. The body carries the recommendation; option labels stay neutral so the user isn't anchored on the option text itself. (See [phases.md](phases.md) §Confidence tiers.) **Exception — the Phase 4 read-back never recommends `approve` while unverified `[inferred]` items exist** (no self-blessing; workflow.md §4.2). - **Plain language, explained answers** (same contract as the interview skill, eval-validated): open with one sentence of stakes; everyday words; a needed term of art gets a ≤1-clause plain gloss at first use; no unexplained acronyms or tool shorthand (`R-ID`, `[inferred]` get translated when user-facing); option descriptions state their consequence ("Choose this if…"). Priorities, not length caps — trim repetition and background, never required content. - Prefer **multiple choice** when natural options exist (Phase 0 duplicate decision; Phase 4 approve/edit/abort). - **Do not ask the user for facts** they already gave you in conversation — Phase 1 extracts evidence first; Phase 3 asks only on the three hard-error must-ask cases plus genuinely missing context that can't be inferred. The goal is automated synthesis with human oversight on judgment calls — not a question for every section. ## Forbidden behaviors (R10) - **Tech-stack mentions the user did not state.** "Needs persistence" is fine; "uses PostgreSQL" needs the user to have said PostgreSQL. Defer technology choices to `/flow-next:plan` (spec-kit convention — capture writes intent, plan writes implementation). - **Inventing acceptance criteria not in conversation.** Every acceptance criterion must be source-tagged; pure `[inferred]` criteria must surface at Phase 4 read-back so the user can reject them. - **Code snippets or specific file paths in the spec body.** Those belong in `/flow-next:plan` task specs after research lands. Capture's output is a high-level spec, not an implementation guide. - **Silent overwrite of an existing spec.** Idempotency requires `--rewrite ` (R8). Without it, Phase 0 conflict-detection branches into extend / supersede / proceed-anyway. - **Auto-splitting a spec that has 8+ acceptance criteria.** Phase 4 surfaces the option to split; the user decides. Never auto-action a split. - **Setting `context: fork`** — blocking-question tools must stay reachable. - **Calling `flowctl spec create` before Phase 4 approval.** Phase 5 is the only write phase. - **Writing glossary terms without consent, or in autofix mode.** Term-adds require the Phase 4.2 `Glossary?` approval; autofix prints suggestions only (`--yes` consents to the spec write, not to vocabulary changes). The gate is husk-aware (`glossary list --json` `total_terms > 0`) — seeding an empty glossary is `/flow-next:prime`'s job, never capture's. - **Using `git add -A` from this skill.** When committing the new spec, stage only the JSON sidecar (`.flow/specs/.json`) + `.flow/specs/.md` (and `.flow/meta.json` if the next-id counter mutated). Other working-tree changes are not capture's concern. ## Workflow Execute the phases in [workflow.md](workflow.md) in order: 0. **Pre-flight** — duplicate detection (scan `.flow/specs/` + `flowctl memory search` on extracted keywords); compaction relevance check (refuse only when the evidence needed for this capture is missing / truncated / summary-only, not merely because history contains a compaction signal); idempotency (refuse silent overwrite without `--rewrite`); chart-briefing admission when a briefing path/B-ID is in play (refuse draft/stale unless explicit risk override with named D-IDs + read-back). 1. **Extract conversation evidence** — build a verbatim `## Conversation Evidence` block FIRST (raw quotes from recent user turns, capped ~30 lines). When a chart briefing is in play, also extract chart id / B-ID / cluster / D-ID / asset evidence references (untagged). Spec sections refer to evidence by line, not from agent memory. 2. **Source-tagged synthesis** — draft each section with per-line tags (`[user]` / `[paraphrase]` / `[inferred]` / `[strategy:]`) **only on acceptance criteria and prose capture newly authors**. Chart D-ID evidence is never source-tagged. Apply the canonical template at [`plugins/flow-next/templates/spec.md`](../../templates/spec.md) (per R17 — cross-link, never re-embed the section list inline). At runtime the template is resolved via the 4-tier discovery cascade — first match wins: `/SPEC.md` → `/spec.md` → `.flow/templates/spec.md` → bundled `${PLUGIN_ROOT}/templates/spec.md`. The bundled file is the canonical source of truth; earlier tiers are user-customized overrides. Route explicit biz-context signals (nine SIGNAL CATEGORIES per fn-44 R24, only `[user]` / `[paraphrase]` tags) to their destinations; sections without conversation signal stay absent. Compute `BIZ_SIGNAL_CATEGORIES` (0..9) for Phase 6's R25 dispatch. 3. **Must-ask cases (R9)** — interactive only; autofix exits 2 if any fire. Hard-error conditions: ambiguous title / untestable acceptance / scope-conflict. Optional ambiguities use lead-with-recommendation + confidence tier. 4. **Read-back loop (mandatory, even in autofix)** — Write the full draft ONCE to a literal unique path (workflow.md §4.1). **Interactive print-then-ask (R13):** print the FULL draft markdown (and rewrite-mode diff when applicable) as an ordinary assistant message FIRST, then issue a SHORT `AskUserQuestion` — one-line pointer + compact `[inferred]` tally/warnings + options only; never embed multi-paragraph drafts, diffs, or criteria lists in the ask body (they render as collapsed plain text). Never `Recommended: approve` while unverified `[inferred]` items exist (workflow.md §4.2). Interactive: `approve` / `split-as-proposed` (when workflow.md §2.5 proposed N>1 — writes N linked specs via §5.2b) / `edit` / `abort`; edit cycles revise via Edit + full-file Read + **reprint the revised draft** before each short re-ask. Epic-shaped inputs get a concrete split proposal at read-back (§2.5: 8+ counted criteria or multiple independently shippable outcomes → titles + criteria allocation + dependency edges; R11). When the glossary is populated (`total_terms > 0`) and the conversation surfaced new project vocabulary: surface term-add proposals + a consent question after approve (workflow.md §2.7 / §4.2; writes land in §5.8). With no `tracker.readyState`, a new capture in a repo with adopted local readiness offers one `Mark ready?` question; a rewrite offers it only when the target itself was ready before the rewrite. An unrelated ready spec never prompts on a draft rewrite. The copy explains Pilot/autonomous eligibility; default keep-draft (workflow.md §4.2; write lands in §5.9). Autofix: prints summary payload to stdout; requires `--yes` to commit; term proposals print as suggestions, never written; readiness never written (autofix path unchanged). 5. **Write via flowctl** — `flowctl spec create --title "..." --json` → parse `id` → `flowctl spec set-plan --file --json` (consumes the §4.1 draft file — no heredoc re-authoring). When capturing from a chart briefing: after each successful create+set-plan, call `flowctl chart link-spec --briefing --spec --decisions [--cluster ] --json`. On retry, discover an already-linked B-ID+cluster identity in `produced_specs[]` first and link the existing spec instead of creating a duplicate. Decline / abort records nothing. Partial multi-spec: record only successful links; resume the failed cluster. Optional `flowctl spec set-branch` if user named one. Capture creates fresh specs; allocate R-IDs sequentially from R1. `--rewrite` resets readiness via idempotent `spec unready` (§5.3); consented mark-ready lands via `spec ready` (§5.9). When `artifacts.html.enabled` is true, Phase 5 closes by regenerating the spec render lens at `.flow/artifacts//spec.html` per the shared disclosure reference ([`plugins/flow-next/references/html-artifacts.md`](../../references/html-artifacts.md)) and replacing the spec's artifact link line in place (workflow.md §5.10); the Phase 6 footer then names the artifact path. With the mode off/unset there is zero artifact-related behavior or output. 6. **Suggested next step** — print `Spec captured at .flow/specs/.md.` plus `/flow-next:plan ` and `/flow-next:interview ` next-step hints. The R25 business-pass suggestion fires when the captured conversation names 1-2 distinct R24 signal categories (the same `1 <= n < 3` rule), agent-judged. When it fires, append the `/flow-next:interview --scope=business` suggestion line. ## Output rules The new spec is the deliverable — it lives in `.flow/specs/.md` after Phase 5. Standard output also receives: - The full draft (Phase 4) — interactive: printed as ordinary markdown then a short approval ask (print-then-ask); autofix: Written to the §4.1 path with summary payload on stdout. Edit cycles reprint the revised draft before each short re-ask. - The created spec id + spec path (Phase 5). - The next-step footer (Phase 6). Autofix mode without `--yes` produces a draft + the "rerun with --yes" hint and exits 0 — no write happens, no spec is allocated.