version: "1.0.2" name: flow-next-interview description: Interview user in-depth about a spec, task, or spec file to extract complete implementation details. Use when user wants to flesh out a spec, refine requirements, or clarify a feature before building. Triggers on /flow-next:interview with Flow IDs (fn-1-add-oauth, fn-1-add-oauth.2, or legacy fn-1, fn-1.2, fn-1-xxx, fn-1-xxx.2) or file paths. user-invocable: false

Flow interview

Conduct an extremely thorough interview about a task/spec and write refined details back.

IMPORTANT: This plugin uses .flow/ for ALL task tracking. Do NOT use markdown TODOs, plan files, TodoWrite, or other tracking methods. All task state must be read and written via flowctl.

Preamble

CRITICAL: flowctl is BUNDLED — NOT installed globally. which flowctl will fail (expected). Define once; subsequent blocks use $FLOWCTL:

FLOWCTL="${DROID_PLUGIN_ROOT:-${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}}/scripts/flowctl"
[ -x "$FLOWCTL" ] || FLOWCTL=".flow/bin/flowctl"

Pre-check: Local setup version

Compare .flow/meta.json setup_version to the plugin version; on mismatch, escalate once per plugin version. Fail-open throughout: a missing jq, .flow/meta.json, or plugin manifest silently continues.

SETUP_VER=$(jq -r '.setup_version // empty' .flow/meta.json 2>/dev/null)
PLUGIN_JSON="${DROID_PLUGIN_ROOT:-${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}}/.claude-plugin/plugin.json"
PLUGIN_VER=$(jq -r '.version' "$PLUGIN_JSON" 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
VERSION_ACK=$(jq -r '.version_ack // empty' .flow/meta.json 2>/dev/null)
if [[ -n "$SETUP_VER" && "$PLUGIN_VER" != "unknown" && "$SETUP_VER" != "$PLUGIN_VER" ]]; then
  if [[ "${FLOW_RALPH:-}" == "1" || -n "${REVIEW_RECEIPT_PATH:-}" \
        || "${FLOW_AUTONOMOUS:-}" == "1" || "${ARGUMENTS:-}" == *mode:autonomous* \
        || "$VERSION_ACK" == "$PLUGIN_VER" ]]; then
    echo "Local setup v${SETUP_VER} differs from plugin v${PLUGIN_VER}. Run /flow-next:setup to refresh local scripts." >&2
  else
    echo "FLOW_SETUP_ASK ${SETUP_VER} ${PLUGIN_VER}"
  fi
fi

If the block printed a FLOW_SETUP_ASK line, before proceeding ask the user with AskUserQuestion (local setup differs from the plugin; refresh now?), offering exactly the options Refresh now, Remind me next version, Skip this run, then continue the skill whichever is chosen:

• Refresh now: pause and have the user run /flow-next:setup in this session (do not run setup yourself), then continue once it finishes.
• Remind me next version: record the acknowledgement so this version is not re-asked (only a later plugin version re-arms it), then continue. Run this self-contained write (fail-open: on any error, continue anyway):

``bash PJ="${DROID_PLUGIN_ROOT:-${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}}/.claude-plugin/plugin.json" PV=$(jq -r '.version' "$PJ" 2>/dev/null) [[ -n "$PV" && "$PV" != "null" ]] && rm -f .flow/meta.json.tmp && jq --arg v "$PV" '.version_ack = $v' .flow/meta.json > .flow/meta.json.tmp && mv .flow/meta.json.tmp .flow/meta.json ``

• Skip this run: continue without writing anything; the next invocation asks again.

Any other output (the one-line differs notice, or nothing) is non-blocking: continue.

Role: technical interviewer, spec refiner Goal: extract complete implementation details through deep questioning (40+ questions typical)

Input

Full request: $ARGUMENTS

Accepts:

• Flow spec ID fn-N-slug (e.g., fn-1-add-oauth) or legacy fn-N/fn-N-xxx: Fetch with flowctl show, write back with flowctl spec set-plan
• Flow task ID fn-N-slug.M (e.g., fn-1-add-oauth.2) or legacy fn-N.M/fn-N-xxx.M: Fetch with flowctl show, write back with flowctl task set-description/set-acceptance
• File path (e.g., docs/spec.md): Read file, interview, rewrite file
• Empty: Prompt for target

Examples:

• /flow-next:interview fn-1-add-oauth
• /flow-next:interview fn-1-add-oauth.3
• /flow-next:interview fn-1 (legacy formats fn-1, fn-1-xxx still supported)
• /flow-next:interview docs/oauth-spec.md

If empty, ask: "What should I interview you about? Give me a Flow ID (e.g., fn-1-add-oauth) or file path (e.g., docs/spec.md)"

Setup

Parse --scope=business|technical|both (fn-44.1 plumbing)

Token-safe parsing for --scope / --biz / --tech lives in flowctl scope resolve — never re-implement inline. The subcommand strips scope tokens, preserves every other token in order (Flow IDs, paths, --docs, --strategy, ...), and emits the resolved scope plus a defaulted flag. The resolver's fallback when no scope flag is passed is technical (1.0.2 backward-compat) — but the skill does NOT silently run it: when defaulted == true, ask the user which pass to run after Detect Input Type (see "Scope selection when no flag passed" below). technical applies only when that question cannot be asked.

# Run BEFORE the --docs / --strategy strip block. Conflict / invalid value
# → non-zero exit; SKILL propagates.
#
# `--raw "$ARGUMENTS"` tokenizes via shlex INSIDE flowctl — preserves quoted
# paths with spaces (e.g., `/flow-next:interview --biz "docs/my spec.md"`).
# Unquoted `$ARGUMENTS` would word-split into broken tokens.
RESOLVED_JSON=$("$FLOWCTL" scope resolve --json --raw "$ARGUMENTS")
SCOPE=$(printf '%s' "$RESOLVED_JSON" | jq -r '.scope')
# true when no scope flag was passed — gates the "Scope selection when no
# flag passed" question below (older flowctl without the field → false,
# preserving the silent technical default).
SCOPE_DEFAULTED=$(printf '%s' "$RESOLVED_JSON" | jq -r '.defaulted // false')
# `remaining_args` is a JSON array of strings. Re-join with single spaces
# for downstream consumption; downstream code MUST re-tokenize via the
# same safe path (shlex) if it might re-encounter quoted paths.
ARGUMENTS=$(printf '%s' "$RESOLVED_JSON" | jq -r '.remaining_args | join(" ")')

The section-write policy for the resolved scope is computed by flowctl scope write-policy, called BEFORE any markdown edit. It returns which sections the pass MAY write and which it MUST preserve byte-for-byte (per the fn-44 spec Edge Cases merge contract):

# Build the current-sections JSON from the existing spec (T2 wires this).
# `flowctl scope write-policy <scope> --current-sections-json -` then emits
# {writable, preserved, decision_context, placeholder_write} as JSON.
WRITE_POLICY=$(echo "$CURRENT_SECTIONS" | "$FLOWCTL" scope write-policy "$SCOPE" --current-sections-json -)

The question-bank path for the resolved scope is resolved by flowctl scope bank, called when loading the question taxonomy:

# Resolves to questions-business.md, questions-technical.md, or (for `both`)
# the technical bank path (both-mode reads both banks).
BANK_PATH=$("$FLOWCTL" scope bank "$SCOPE")

The full pass-aware behavior (loading the resolved bank, per-section writes that honor the policy, technical-pass-reads-business-sections-first) lives in the "Scope-aware pass behavior" section below. The skill MUST call these subcommands rather than re-implementing parse/policy logic inline.

Parse --docs / --no-docs / --strategy / --no-strategy flags

Strip the four doc-aware override flags from $ARGUMENTS before input-type detection so they don't get confused for a Flow ID or path:

RAW_ARGS="$ARGUMENTS"
DOC_AWARE_FORCE=""        # "" = autodetect, "on" = forced on, "off" = forced off (controls glossary + decisions)
STRATEGY_AWARE_FORCE=""   # "" = autodetect, "on" = forced on, "off" = forced off (controls strategy independently)
 
# Glossary + decisions: --docs / --no-docs (mutually exclusive; --no-docs wins)
if [[ "$RAW_ARGS" == *"--no-docs"* ]]; then
  DOC_AWARE_FORCE="off"
  RAW_ARGS="${RAW_ARGS//--no-docs/}"
elif [[ "$RAW_ARGS" == *"--docs"* ]]; then
  DOC_AWARE_FORCE="on"
  RAW_ARGS="${RAW_ARGS//--docs/}"
fi
 
# Strategy: explicit --strategy / --no-strategy always wins. Otherwise --docs / --no-docs cascades.
# Order: explicit pair first (mutually exclusive; --no-strategy wins on conflict), then docs cascade.
if [[ "$RAW_ARGS" == *"--no-strategy"* ]]; then
  STRATEGY_AWARE_FORCE="off"
  RAW_ARGS="${RAW_ARGS//--no-strategy/}"
elif [[ "$RAW_ARGS" == *"--strategy"* ]]; then
  STRATEGY_AWARE_FORCE="on"
  RAW_ARGS="${RAW_ARGS//--strategy/}"
elif [[ "$DOC_AWARE_FORCE" == "off" ]]; then
  # --no-docs alone cascades to strategy: matrix row 3 says all three off.
  STRATEGY_AWARE_FORCE="off"
elif [[ "$DOC_AWARE_FORCE" == "on" ]]; then
  # --docs alone cascades to strategy: matrix row 2 says all three on.
  STRATEGY_AWARE_FORCE="on"
fi
 
RAW_ARGS=$(printf "%s" "$RAW_ARGS" | tr -s ' ' | sed 's/^ //;s/ $//')
# RAW_ARGS now contains the Flow ID / file path / empty.

Each pair is mutually exclusive (the if/elif checks the negation first so it wins on conflict). The --docs / --strategy tokens get left in the residual RAW_ARGS after stripping, which surfaces downstream as an unrecognized argument — loud failure beats silent acceptance of conflicting state.

Flag matrix — doc-aware flags (rows describe glossary / decisions / strategy gates):

--docs / --no-docs cascade to strategy when no explicit --strategy / --no-strategy is passed (matrix rows 2 + 3). Explicit --strategy / --no-strategy always wins (matrix rows 4 + 5) and is the only way to drive a different value into strategy than into glossary + decisions. The matrix is the contract.

Scope x doc/strategy — the --scope axis is orthogonal to the doc-aware matrix above. Each row of this table is a valid combination:

R26 project-docs investigation is gated on SCOPE=business (and the biz-pass phase of both) — runs BEFORE drafting the first biz question, regardless of doc-aware autodetect state.

Doc-aware autodetect

Decide whether doc-aware mode (behaviors a-e below) activates. DOC_AWARE controls glossary + decisions; STRATEGY_AWARE controls the strategy-conflict behavior independently. Each has three paths (forced-on / forced-off / autodetect) per the flag matrix above.

# DOC_AWARE: glossary + decisions
DOC_AWARE=0
if [[ "$DOC_AWARE_FORCE" == "on" ]]; then
  DOC_AWARE=1
elif [[ "$DOC_AWARE_FORCE" == "off" ]]; then
  DOC_AWARE=0
else
  TERMS=$("$FLOWCTL" glossary list --json 2>/dev/null | jq -r '.total_terms // 0')
  DECS=$("$FLOWCTL" memory list --track knowledge --category decisions --json 2>/dev/null | jq -r '.entries | length // 0')
  if [[ "${TERMS:-0}" -gt 0 || "${DECS:-0}" -gt 0 ]]; then
    DOC_AWARE=1
  fi
fi
 
# STRATEGY_AWARE: strategy (independent of DOC_AWARE — autodetects on its own signal)
STRATEGY_AWARE=0
if [[ "$STRATEGY_AWARE_FORCE" == "on" ]]; then
  STRATEGY_AWARE=1
elif [[ "$STRATEGY_AWARE_FORCE" == "off" ]]; then
  STRATEGY_AWARE=0
else
  STRAT_FILLED=$("$FLOWCTL" strategy status --json 2>/dev/null | jq -r '.sections_filled // 0')
  if [[ "${STRAT_FILLED:-0}" -ge 1 ]]; then
    STRATEGY_AWARE=1
  fi
fi

The default-autodetect rule is: doc-aware mode activates when any of three conditions has signal — glossary.total_terms > 0 (a) OR a decision entry exists (b) OR strategy.sections_filled >= 1 (c). The two flag pairs (--docs / --no-docs and --strategy / --no-strategy) override (a)+(b) and (c) independently per the matrix above.

Why `total_terms > 0` and `sections_filled >= 1` rather than `[[ -f <file> ]]`: flowctl glossary remove leaves a # Glossary H1 husk after the last term is removed; flowctl strategy leaves a frontmatter-plus-H1 husk under the same R18 invariant. Both files are project state, intentionally retained. A presence-only check would false-positive on an empty husk and surface phantom doc-aware questions when no canonical vocabulary / strategic intent is actually defined. glossary list --json and strategy status --json walk the file and count populated entries; both report zero for a husk.

When DOC_AWARE=1, behaviors (a)-(d) below layer onto the standard interview workflow. When STRATEGY_AWARE=1, behavior (e) layers on. When both are 0, the interview proceeds exactly as today.

Detect Input Type

Handle-recognition rule (R16): do NOT gate on a hard "must start with fn-" check. Before treating a single-token arg as a file path or freeform, route it through $FLOWCTL show <arg> --json — flowctl's widened resolver (fn-52.10) maps a tracker key (wor-17 / wor-17.M) to its linked spec/task, so a resolvable handle is the existing spec/task, never a new idea. Patterns 1-2 below are the common case; pattern 3 generalizes them to any resolvable handle.

1. Flow spec ID pattern: matches fn-\d+(-[a-z0-9-]+)? (e.g., fn-1-add-oauth, fn-12, fn-2-fix-login-bug)

• Fetch: $FLOWCTL show <id> --json
• Read spec: $FLOWCTL cat <id>

1. Flow task ID pattern: matches fn-\d+(-[a-z0-9-]+)?\.\d+ (e.g., fn-1-add-oauth.3, fn-12.5)

• Fetch: $FLOWCTL show <id> --json
• Read spec: $FLOWCTL cat <id>
• Also get parent spec context: $FLOWCTL cat <spec-id>

1. Resolvable tracker handle: any single-token arg (not an .md path) that $FLOWCTL show <arg> --json resolves — e.g. a Linear key wor-17 (spec) or wor-17.3 (task). Use the canonical id from the JSON; a .-containing handle is a task (fetch parent spec too), otherwise a spec. Treat exactly like patterns 1-2; never re-create.

1. File path: a path-like token / .md extension that does NOT resolve via flowctl show

• Read file contents
• If file doesn't exist, ask user to provide valid path

Scope selection when no flag passed

Fires ONLY when SCOPE_DEFAULTED=true (no --scope / --biz / --tech in the invocation). An explicit scope flag always wins and skips this section entirely.

Runs AFTER Detect Input Type — the spec/file content is in hand, so the recommendation is informed. Ask ONE AskUserQuestion (same blocking primitive as every interview question; the tool-unreachable fallback under "Question Format" applies):

• header: Interview scope
• body: Which interview pass should run? business = product framing (goal, users, boundaries, outcome AC — never decides architecture, stack, or APIs); technical = implementation details (architecture, API contracts, edge cases); both = business first, then technical. Recommended: <X> — <one-sentence rationale from the target's current state>. Confidence: [judgment-call].
• options (frozen): business, technical, both

Derive the recommendation from the target's current state:

• Biz sections empty AND tech sections empty (new idea, fresh spec, bare file) → recommend both — ground the product framing before any technical decision.
• Biz sections populated, tech sections empty or placeholder-only → recommend technical — the business layer exists; fill the technical layer.
• Tech sections populated, biz sections absent (1.0.2-shape solo spec) → recommend technical — refine in place.

Set SCOPE to the answer and proceed exactly as if the flag had been passed — write-policy, question bank, and pass behavior all follow the chosen scope. If the question genuinely cannot be asked (tool unreachable and no plain-text answer), fall back to technical and say so in the interview opener.

Why this exists: a PM invoking /flow-next:interview <spec-id> bare used to get a silent technical interrogation — stack/API questions they don't own, with skipped answers at risk of becoming rails-derived defaults. The scope question makes the business pass discoverable at the exact moment it matters.

Interview Process

CRITICAL REQUIREMENT: You MUST use the AskUserQuestion tool for every question.

• DO NOT output questions as text
• DO NOT list questions in your response
• ONLY ask questions via AskUserQuestion tool calls
• Group 2-4 related questions per tool call
• Expect 40+ questions total for complex specs

Anti-pattern (WRONG):

Question 1: What database should we use?
Options: a) PostgreSQL b) SQLite c) MongoDB

Correct pattern: Call AskUserQuestion tool with question and options.

Question Format: Lead with Recommendation

Every AskUserQuestion body must include the agent's recommended option AND a confidence tier. Mirrors the canonical phrasing in flow-next-audit/SKILL.md:64 ("Lead with the recommended option and a one-sentence rationale"). Call ToolSearch with select:AskUserQuestion first if its schema isn't loaded. Fall back to numbered options in plain text only when the tool is unreachable.

Pattern:

• question.body: "<stakes>. <options summary>. Recommended: <X> — <one-sentence rationale>. Confidence: [high | judgment-call | your-call]."
• question.options: neutral labels (no "(recommended)" markers — recommendation goes in the body; neutral options reduce anchoring)

Plain-language question contract (fn-90-adjacent field feedback, eval-validated)

Applies to EVERY question, both scopes. The interviewee must be able to read a question once and answer it confidently without asking what it means — field feedback showed jargon-dense questions disempower exactly the people the interview exists to hear (baseline legibility scored 4/10 for a second-language PM; this contract scores 7.5+ at ~30% fewer tokens).

• Open the body with ONE sentence of stakes: what this question decides, in the audience's words.
• Write for the audience in everyday words; prefer the common word over the term of art. A term of art you genuinely need gets a plain-word gloss in ≤1 clause at first use (e.g. "counter-metrics — things we'd hate to make worse").
• No unexplained acronyms or tool/repo shorthand. In business scope, no implementation vocabulary (no schemas, endpoints, config keys).
• Every option description states its consequence in plain words: "Choose this if…" / "This means…".

Required content and trim order (priorities — NOT a length cap; never trade required content for brevity):

• ALWAYS keep, in this order: the stakes sentence; the recommendation + its one-sentence rationale; the confidence tier; the gloss for any term of art used; each option's consequence.
• TRIM FIRST, until the question reads in one pass: repetition between body and options, secondary background, hedging, restated option lists.
• Target shape (calibration, not a ceiling): a body around 40-60 words with option descriptions around a dozen words each is what "done" usually looks like — reach it by trimming the trim-first list, never by dropping required content.

Confidence tiers (mandatory — pick one per question):

• [high] — strong codebase signal or convention match. Recommendation is load-bearing; user can usually accept.
• [judgment-call] — slight lean but reasonable people disagree. User's call carries weight.
• [your-call] — agent has no signal. "I genuinely don't know — your priority / domain knowledge / preference."

The [your-call] tier is mandatory when the agent has no basis for a recommendation. Skills that always recommend train users to defer (RLHF imitation of human bravado). Say so explicitly.

Examples (one per tier):

• [high]: "This decides where the new validation code lives so the next person can find it. Recommended: src/utils/validation.ts — three sibling validators already live there and the tests import from that module. Confidence: [high]." Options: src/utils/validation.ts, src/validators/, new module — each description says what choosing it means (e.g. "This means it sits beside the three existing validators").
• [judgment-call]: "This decides how long the rate-limiter remembers a result before re-checking (the cache TTL — time-to-live). Recommended: 60 seconds — short enough that stale answers stay rare, long enough to be worth caching. Confidence: [judgment-call]." Options: 30s, 60s, 300s, no cache — with plain consequences ("Choose this if freshness matters more than speed").
• [your-call]: "This decides what error callers see when the upstream service times out. Recommended: none — it depends on what your callers expect and I found no existing convention to copy. Confidence: [your-call]." Options: 502, 503, 504, 408.

Skipped Questions Are Not Answers

Leading with a recommendation NEVER implies consent. Distinguish three answer shapes:

• Explicit answer (an option picked, or a typed answer) → use it.
• Explicit delegation ("you decide", "go with your recommendation") → adopt the recommendation and note it as user-delegated; that is a real decision with a named consenter.
• Skip / decline / no-signal (question dismissed, "skip", "I don't know", "not my call", "ask someone else") → the question is UNRESOLVED. NEVER write the recommendation into a spec section as decided content — silently filling skipped questions with assumptions is the exact failure this rule exists to prevent.

For every skipped question:

1. Park it under ## Open Questions with an owner hint and the agent's unconfirmed leaning: **<question>** — skipped during interview; leaning <X>, unconfirmed. *(owner: engineering | product)*
2. A skipped user-judgment question STAYS user-judgment-required — never demote it to codebase-/docs-answerable to backfill an answer (see the Pre-Question Taxonomy in questions-shared.md).
3. Keep a running skip count for the write-back checkpoint below and the Completion summary.

Write-back consent checkpoint — when the skip count is ≥1, ask ONE AskUserQuestion BEFORE writing the spec back:

• header: Skipped items
• body: <N> question(s) were skipped during this interview. Recommended: park-open — record them under ## Open Questions with my unconfirmed leanings; nothing skipped becomes a decision. Confidence: [high].
• options (frozen): park-open (default — Open Questions entries only), fill-assumptions (write the agent's recommendation into the relevant spec section, each marked inline *(assumed — unconfirmed)*, plus one Open Questions entry pointing at the markers for later ratification), re-ask (walk the skipped questions once more — answers and explicit delegations resolve normally; anything skipped again parks per park-open)

Question Order: Walk the Decision Tree

Walk down branches of the decision tree in dependency order. Don't ask about implementation details before establishing whether they're needed.

Concrete rules:

1. Cap branch depth at 4. Research shows >4 prior turns rarely improves question quality — drop deeper threads, ask about something else. Heuristic; revisit if too restrictive in real use.
2. Discover-as-you-go, not pre-compute. Adapt the next question based on prior answers. Don't lock a tree before you start.
3. Surface abandoned branches. When an answer prunes a sub-tree, say so explicitly: "Skipping persistence questions — you said no DB."
4. One `AskUserQuestion` call per turn, period — never queue multiple tool calls back-to-back. Within that single call you may bundle 2-4 closely-related sub-questions per the existing batching rule above; do NOT pad with loosely-related questions just to hit four. The intent: one focused checkpoint per turn so the user isn't barraged with unrelated decisions in parallel. Use multi-select within a sub-question when options are non-exclusive.

Example flow:

Q: "Does this feature need persistence?"

A: "No, ephemeral state is fine."

[agent prunes the {DB choice, schema design, migration plan} sub-tree]

Q: "Skipped DB questions — you said ephemeral. Next: how should this state survive page reloads?"

Investigate Codebase Before Asking

Before every question, classify it via the questions-shared.md Pre-Question Taxonomy (hoisted out of the per-scope banks so both biz and tech reference the same classifier):

• Codebase-answerable ("what exists / how it's wired / what conventions live here") → use Read / Grep / Glob to answer; log to spec's ## Resolved via Codebase section with file:line evidence.
• Glossary-lookup-answerable (DOC_AWARE=1 only) — terms with a canonical entry in the nearest-ancestor GLOSSARY.md → silently resolve from the entry; log to spec's ## Glossary Conflicts section only when the user's wording diverges from canonical AND the term is load-bearing (see behavior (a) below).
• User-judgment-required ("what should exist / what tradeoff to make / what priority") → ask via AskUserQuestion.

If you find yourself answering a "should" question via grep, that's the bug. Stop and ask the user.

Code-versus-assertion contradiction (DOC_AWARE=1 — behavior (c))

When grep / Read reveals the code disagrees with something the user asserted ("we already have X at path Y" but Y is gone, or "the auth flow uses OAuth" but the code uses API keys), do not silently log under ## Resolved via Codebase. Surface the contradiction as an AskUserQuestion:

• header: Code mismatch?
• body: Code shows <X> at <file:line>; you said <Y>. Recommended: <treat-code-as-source-of-truth | update-spec-to-match-code | revisit-the-area>. Confidence: [<tier>].
• options: frozen — match-code (revise spec to align with what's there), update-code (treat the assertion as the goal; flag the divergence as a task), clarify (user explains; agent re-investigates with new context).

Confidence tier: [high] when grep evidence is unambiguous (file does not exist, function signature is clearly different); [judgment-call] when interpretation is at play (similar names, partial overlap, recent rename). Never silently pick a side — the user owns the resolution.

The bar for surfacing: a meaningful contradiction that affects spec correctness. If the user says "the validator returns boolean" and grep shows it returns Result<bool, Error>, surface. If the user paraphrases a function's role and grep shows the role matches but the implementation differs in unrelated detail, log under ## Resolved via Codebase and move on.

Scope-aware pass behavior

The interview runs in one of three scoped modes resolved by flowctl scope resolve (above). Each scope writes a different set of sections back to the spec and reads a different set as context. The full merge contract — which sections each pass writes, which it preserves byte-for-byte, and how ## Decision Context H3 promotion works — is computed by flowctl scope write-policy (called BEFORE any markdown edit). The structural canon for sections is plugins/flow-next/templates/spec.md (per R17 — never re-embed the section list inline; cross-link the template).

Compute the write policy

Before writing anything back, build the current-sections-state JSON from the existing spec markdown (or an empty object for new specs) and call scope write-policy. The policy result tells you which sections are writable, which are preserved, and how to handle the ## Decision Context substructure conditional.

One policy call per pass — when SCOPE == both, compute the biz policy first, run the biz pass, then recompute the current-sections state from the post-biz-pass result and compute a fresh technical policy for phase 2. A single pre-edit policy call for both cannot correctly decide tech-pass Decision Context shape (the biz pass may have promoted FLAT → substructured) or tech-pass placeholder replacement (biz pass may have written *Pending technical-scope interview pass.* under empty tech sections that the tech pass must now overwrite).

# Build CURRENT_SECTIONS by inspecting the existing spec markdown:
#   decision_context_has_h3:    spec has `### Motivation` / `### Implementation Tradeoffs` under `## Decision Context`
#   biz_pass_ran:               spec has populated `## Goal & Context` body OR a `### Motivation` H3
#   tech_sections_have_content: per-tech-section {name: bool} for whether the body has content
#                               beyond the placeholder `*Pending technical-scope interview pass.*`
#
# For a brand-new spec (no markdown yet), CURRENT_SECTIONS='{}' is fine.
CURRENT_SECTIONS='{"decision_context_has_h3": <bool>, "biz_pass_ran": <bool>, "tech_sections_have_content": {"Architecture & Data Models": <bool>, "API Contracts": <bool>, "Edge Cases & Constraints": <bool>}}'
 
# For SCOPE == business or SCOPE == technical: one call.
WRITE_POLICY=$(printf '%s' "$CURRENT_SECTIONS" | "$FLOWCTL" scope write-policy "$SCOPE" --current-sections-json -)
 
# For SCOPE == both: TWO calls — biz first, then recompute state + tech.
#
#   BIZ_POLICY=$(printf '%s' "$CURRENT_SECTIONS" | "$FLOWCTL" scope write-policy business --current-sections-json -)
#   # ... run biz pass, write biz sections (in memory or to disk) ...
#   # Rebuild CURRENT_SECTIONS_AFTER_BIZ from the post-biz state — biz_pass_ran=true,
#   # decision_context_has_h3 likely true now (Motivation H3 written), placeholder lines
#   # under empty tech sections counted as "no content" for tech-pass overwrite logic:
#   CURRENT_SECTIONS_AFTER_BIZ='{"decision_context_has_h3": true, "biz_pass_ran": true, "tech_sections_have_content": {"Architecture & Data Models": <still-bool>, ...}}'
#   TECH_POLICY=$(printf '%s' "$CURRENT_SECTIONS_AFTER_BIZ" | "$FLOWCTL" scope write-policy technical --current-sections-json -)
#   # ... run tech pass under TECH_POLICY ...

The policy JSON shape:

{
  "scope": "business|technical|both",
  "writable": ["<section names this scope may write>"],
  "preserved": ["<sections this scope MUST preserve byte-for-byte>"],
  "decision_context": {
    "shape": "flat|substructured",
    "writable_h3": ["<H3 names writable when substructured>"],
    "preserved_h3": ["<H3 names preserved byte-for-byte>"],
    "promote_flat_to_implementation_tradeoffs": <bool>
  },
  "placeholder_write": ["<tech sections under biz pass that should get the placeholder line>"]
}

Load the right question bank

Resolve the question-bank file path via flowctl scope bank:

# Resolves to questions-business.md (biz), questions-technical.md (tech), or
# questions-technical.md (both — the technical bank is loaded for the tech
# phase; biz phase loads questions-business.md when it runs).
BANK_PATH=$("$FLOWCTL" scope bank "$SCOPE")

When $SCOPE is business or both, load questions-business.md for the biz phase questions. When $SCOPE is technical or both, load questions-technical.md for the tech phase. Both banks reference questions-shared.md for the Pre-Question Taxonomy and Interview Guidelines blocks — read the shared file first so the classifier applies symmetrically across passes.

Auxiliary-sections rule (applies to every pass)

The auxiliary sections — Strategy Alignment / Strategy Conflicts / Glossary Conflicts / Conversation Evidence / Resolved via Codebase / Resolved via Project Docs — are preserved byte-for-byte across passes and scope changes: no pass deletes or rewrites an auxiliary section another pass wrote. Each pass only ADDS its own: the biz pass adds Resolved via Project Docs; the tech pass adds Resolved via Codebase.

Business pass (SCOPE == business, or first phase of both)

Run BEFORE the first AskUserQuestion call:

1. Project-docs investigation (R26) — see "Investigate Project Docs Before Asking (business pass)" below. Symmetric to the codebase-investigation rule for the tech pass. Items resolved by docs land in ## Resolved via Project Docs. The user is NOT asked about things the project docs already define.
2. Draft only user-judgment-required biz questions — load questions-business.md for the question taxonomy. Walk problem framing, target user/persona, success metrics, MVP boundary, business constraints, what-not-to-build, prioritization rationale, business risks, UX expectations.

Per-section write behavior (per the write-policy):

• Writable biz sections (Goal & Context, Boundaries, outcome-AC, ### Motivation under ## Decision Context): write/refine from interview answers.
• Preserved tech sections (Architecture & Data Models, API Contracts, Edge Cases & Constraints): MUST be preserved byte-for-byte. If a tech section is EMPTY (listed in placeholder_write), write the placeholder line *Pending technical-scope interview pass.* under its heading so the read-back makes the intentional emptiness visible. If a tech section has content, leave it untouched (refine-mode for a re-run on an already-tech-populated spec).
• `## Decision Context` (per decision_context shape):
• When shape == "substructured" and promote_flat_to_implementation_tradeoffs == true (FLAT body exists from a prior tech-only pass): promote the existing flat body byte-for-byte into a new ### Implementation Tradeoffs H3 (preserve the prose verbatim — same content, just under a new H3), and write the new ### Motivation H3 as a sibling.
• When shape == "substructured" and promote_flat_to_implementation_tradeoffs == false (H3s already exist): preserve ### Implementation Tradeoffs byte-for-byte; write/refine ONLY ### Motivation.
• `## Acceptance Criteria`: append outcome-AC R-IDs (R-IDs are append-only across passes per fn-29 rules — never renumber, never replace; take the next unused number).
• Auxiliary sections: preserve byte-for-byte per the auxiliary-sections rule above; biz pass adds Resolved via Project Docs only.

Technical pass (SCOPE == technical, default; or second phase of both)

Run BEFORE the first AskUserQuestion call:

1. Read biz sections when populated — if ## Goal & Context, ## Boundaries, ### Motivation (under ## Decision Context), or outcome-AC R-IDs are populated, read them as constraint context. Cite them in the interview opener (e.g., "Reading from the existing business layer: target user is X, MVP boundary excludes Y. Tech questions below..."). When biz sections are absent (default solo-dev 1.0.2-shape spec), proceed silently with technical-only questions — no opener about missing biz context.
2. Codebase investigation — existing "Investigate Codebase Before Asking" rule applies unchanged. Items resolved via Read/Grep/Glob land in ## Resolved via Codebase.

Per-section write behavior (per the write-policy):

• Writable tech sections (Architecture & Data Models, API Contracts, Edge Cases & Constraints, verifiable-AC): write/refine from interview answers. May overwrite *Pending technical-scope interview pass.* placeholder strings.
• Preserved biz sections (Goal & Context, Boundaries): MUST be preserved byte-for-byte.
• `## Decision Context` (per decision_context shape):
• When shape == "flat" (no H3s exist, no biz pass has run — default zero-flag-tech case on a fresh/legacy spec): write/refine the flat body in place. Do NOT introduce ### Motivation / ### Implementation Tradeoffs H3 substructure. Preserves R22 1.0.2 backward compat.
• When shape == "substructured" (### Motivation already exists from a prior biz pass, or the existing spec has the substructure): preserve ### Motivation body byte-for-byte; write/refine ONLY ### Implementation Tradeoffs.
• `## Acceptance Criteria`: append verifiable-AC R-IDs (R-IDs are append-only — never renumber).
• Auxiliary sections: preserve byte-for-byte per the auxiliary-sections rule above; tech pass adds Resolved via Codebase only.

Both pass (SCOPE == both)

Runs biz pass first, then tech pass in the same skill invocation. Each phase enforces its own merge contract:

1. Phase 1: biz pass — runs the full biz-pass workflow above. Writes biz sections; preserves any pre-existing tech sections byte-for-byte (with placeholder lines under empty tech sections).
2. Phase 2: tech pass — runs the full tech-pass workflow above using the just-written biz output as in-memory context. Reads biz sections, cites them in the opener, writes tech sections, preserves biz sections byte-for-byte.

Auxiliary sections are preserved across both phases per the auxiliary-sections rule above.

If the user interrupts between phase 1 and phase 2, the biz sections are written but the tech sections retain placeholder lines. Re-running --scope=technical later completes the spec.

Investigate Project Docs Before Asking (business pass — R26)

Symmetric to the "Investigate Codebase Before Asking" rule for the tech pass (above, under "Interview Process"). When SCOPE == business (or the biz phase of both), the agent MUST investigate project documentation BEFORE drafting any biz question.

Read — in order, with the bounded reads called out so this doesn't balloon into a multi-hour scan:

1. README.md (repo root) — full read.
2. CHANGELOG.md (or project-equivalent release notes — RELEASES.md, HISTORY.md) — full read.
3. STRATEGY.md (repo root) — full read.
4. GLOSSARY.md (repo root) — full read.
5. knowledge/decisions/ (or .flow/memory/knowledge/decisions/ — flowctl memory list --track knowledge --category decisions --json enumerates entries) — read the table-of-contents + first paragraph of each of the most-recent 10 entries (NOT full bodies; the first paragraph carries the decision; deeper drill-down is on-demand).
6. .flow/specs/ index (flowctl specs --json lists open specs) — scan titles + status; full-read only specs whose titles plausibly overlap the current spec's domain.
7. docs/ directory (if present at repo root) — scan filenames; full-read only files whose names plausibly overlap.

Classify biz questions via the Pre-Question Taxonomy before asking:

• Project-docs-answerable ("what does the strategy say / what does CHANGELOG show we've already shipped / what does GLOSSARY define the canonical term as / what decision did we record for X") → resolve from the docs; log to spec's ## Resolved via Project Docs section with path:line evidence (or path + section heading when line numbers are noisy).
• User-judgment-required ("what should our success metric be / what's MVP scope / what should we explicitly NOT build") → ask via AskUserQuestion.

If you find yourself asking the user a biz question that README/CHANGELOG/STRATEGY already answers, that's the bug. Stop and resolve from docs. Symmetric form of the existing "if you find yourself answering a 'should' question via grep, that's the bug" rule.

The ## Resolved via Project Docs section is auxiliary and biz-pass-only (parallel to ## Resolved via Codebase for the tech pass). Preserved across scope changes per the auxiliary-sections rule above.

Doc-aware behaviors — loaded on demand

GATE: when DOC_AWARE=1 or STRATEGY_AWARE=1 (set by the --docs / --strategy flags or the doc-aware autodetect in Setup), read [`references/doc-aware.md`](references/doc-aware.md) and apply its behaviors — Phase-zero glossary scan (a), fuzzy-term sharpening (b), decision-record write (d), and code-vs-strategy contradiction (e). On the default technical-scope, no-docs path (DOC_AWARE=0 and STRATEGY_AWARE=0) skip it entirely — do not read the file. (Split out of the always-loaded SKILL.md so the default interview does not pay ~2.5k tokens for behaviors it never runs.)

Question Categories

Question banks are scope-resolved via flowctl scope bank "$SCOPE":

• SCOPE=technical (default) → load questions-technical.md.
• SCOPE=business → load questions-business.md. Covers problem framing, target user/persona, success metrics, MVP boundary, business constraints, what-NOT-to-build, prioritization rationale, business risks, UX expectations.
• SCOPE=both → load questions-business.md for phase 1 then questions-technical.md for phase 2.

Both banks share the Pre-Question Taxonomy and Interview Guidelines blocks, hoisted to questions-shared.md — single source of truth referenced by both banks.

NOT in scope (defer to /flow-next:plan)

• Research scouts (codebase analysis)
• File/line references
• Task creation (interview refines requirements, plan creates tasks)
• Task sizing (S/M/L)
• Dependency ordering
• Phased implementation details
• Time estimates, deadlines, durations, sprint cadence, "ship before X" framing. Agents can't estimate their own work and shouldn't push the user into time-based prioritization debates. If the user volunteers a deadline in answer to another question, acknowledge it without cascading into MVP-Scope or What-NOT-to-Build re-asks driven by the time pressure.

Write Refined Spec — templates loaded at completion

At the Completion step, read [`references/write-back.md`](references/write-back.md) for the spec-write template matching the input type — NEW IDEA (text, no Flow ID), EXISTING SPEC (fn-N with tasks), Flow Task (fn-N.M), or File Path — plus the shared ## Resolved via Codebase / Project Docs, ## Glossary/Strategy Conflicts, and ## Open Questions section templates. Only the one matching branch runs; the file is loaded once, at write-time, not held through the Q&A.

Tracker sync (opt-in) — spec push/pull + merge

Optional. Runs only when the tracker bridge is active AND `interview` is opted in. With no tracker configured this is a no-op — the interview behaves exactly as today. After the refined spec is written back (## Write Refined Spec), project the enrichment to the linked tracker issue and reconcile two-way (R6): interview enrichment done in flow flows back to the tracker; tracker-side edits fold into the right flow sections. (Skip for the file-input case — there is no flow spec yet.)

LEAF="$($FLOWCTL config get tracker.perEvent.interview --json | jq -r '.value')"   # read the leaf ONCE (shared gating predicate — work SKILL.md)
if [ "$($FLOWCTL sync active --json | jq -r '.active')" = "true" ] \
   && [ "$LEAF" != "off" ] && [ "$LEAF" != "null" ]; then
  # Invoke the flow-next-tracker-sync skill: push/pull/reconcile the spec body
  # (operation follows the perEvent leaf — push | pull | reconcile).
  #   skill: flow-next-tracker-sync   (operation: <leaf> <spec-id>)
  # Unlinked spec → flow-first push (create + link) first, then reconcile
  # (tracker-sync §Phase 3 create-if-unlinked). No-op only if no transport reachable; genuine
  # body conflicts surface scoped (interactive) or queue (Ralph). Best-effort — a
  # tracker failure never blocks the interview write-back.
  :
fi

Mark-ready offer (optional; flow spec inputs only)

After the write-back (and the tracker-sync block above), optionally offer to mark the refined spec ready — the same consent shape and visibility predicate as capture's read-back follow-up (fn-58). Applies ONLY when the input was a flow spec (Detect Input Type patterns 1/3) — task ids and file paths carry no spec readiness.

READY_STATE=$($FLOWCTL config get tracker.readyState --json 2>/dev/null | jq -r '.value // empty')
READY_ADOPTED=$($FLOWCTL specs --json 2>/dev/null | jq '[.specs[] | select(.ready == true)] | length' 2>/dev/null || echo 0)
# Offer IFF READY_ADOPTED >= 1 AND READY_STATE is empty (probe failures degrade to "don't offer").

Both must hold:

• READY_ADOPTED -ge 1 — readiness is adopted in this repo (≥1 spec already marked ready); non-adopters see no question anywhere. First adoption enters via flowctl spec ready, the tracker ceremony, or prime — never via this prompt.
• READY_STATE empty — tracker.readyState NOT configured. Tracker-authoritative readiness is a one-way pull; never invite a local edit the next sync would silently revert.

When the predicate holds, ask once via AskUserQuestion (lead with recommendation):

• header: Mark ready?
• body: Mark <spec-id> ready for execution? Readiness is adopted in this repo (<READY_ADOPTED> ready spec(s)). Recommended: keep-draft — re-read the refined spec on disk first; readiness is the human gate, not an interview reflex. Confidence: [judgment-call].
• options (frozen): mark-ready (run $FLOWCTL spec ready <spec-id> --json — idempotent), keep-draft (default — no readiness write)

Best-effort: a failed spec ready prints a warning and continues — never blocks the interview write-back.

Interview NEVER auto-resets `ready` on refinement. The interview edits the spec in place — a previously-blessed spec stays ready unless the human unmarks it. Only capture --rewrite (a full re-authoring) resets readiness.

Completion

Show summary:

• Number of questions asked
• Skipped questions (ONLY when ≥1): count + disposition from the write-back checkpoint (parked under ## Open Questions / filled as *(assumed — unconfirmed)* / re-asked) — omit the line entirely when nothing was skipped
• Key decisions captured
• What was written (Flow ID updated / file rewritten)
• Tracker sync: when active and interview opted in, whether the spec body was pushed/pulled/reconciled to the linked issue (else a silent no-op)
• Readiness (ONLY when the mark-ready offer fired): marked ready vs kept draft — omit the line entirely otherwise (no readiness noise for non-adopters)
• Scope mode: which pass(es) ran — biz / tech / both — and which spec sections were written vs preserved byte-for-byte (cite the write-policy result). For --scope=business: project-docs resolutions captured under ## Resolved via Project Docs (R26).
• Doc-aware mode (when DOC_AWARE=1 was active): glossary terms added/updated via flowctl glossary add, decision entries written via flowctl memory add --track knowledge --category decisions, glossary conflicts captured under ## Glossary Conflicts
• Strategy-aware mode (when STRATEGY_AWARE=1 was active): strategy conflicts captured under ## Strategy Conflicts (read-only — interview never edits STRATEGY.md)

Suggest next step based on input type:

• New idea / spec without tasks → /flow-next:plan fn-N
• Spec with tasks → /flow-next:work fn-N (or more interview on specific tasks)
• Task → /flow-next:work fn-N.M
• File → /flow-next:plan <file>

Notes

• This process should feel thorough - user should feel they've thought through everything
• Quality over speed - don't rush to finish