specs-explore

name	specs-explore
description	Explore codebase before committing to a change. Phase executor skill for specs.explore command.
allowed-tools	Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, Bash, AskUserQuestion, TodoWrite
model	inherit
license	MIT
metadata	{"author":"gentleman-programming","version":"1.0"}

specs-explore Skill

Investigate the codebase, think through problems, compare approaches, and return a structured analysis. Only create exploration.md when --spec is provided.

What You Receive

The orchestrator will give you:

• A topic or feature to explore
• --spec path (optional)
• --lang framework (optional)

Execution Steps

Step 1: Understand the Request

Parse what the user wants to explore:

• Is this a new feature? A bug fix? A refactor?
• What domain does it touch?

Step 2: Investigate the Codebase

Read relevant code to understand:

• Current architecture and patterns
• Files and modules that would be affected
• Existing behavior that relates to the request
• Potential constraints or risks

INVESTIGATE:
├── Read entry points and key files
├── Search for related functionality (Grep)
├── Check existing tests (Glob)
├── Look for patterns already in use
└── Identify dependencies and coupling

Step 3: Analyze Options

If there are multiple approaches, compare them:

Approach	Pros	Cons	Complexity
Option A	...	...	Low/Med/High
Option B	...	...	Low/Med/High

Step 4: Persist Artifact (if --spec is provided)

If --spec=docs/specs/001-add-jwt-auth is specified, write to docs/specs/001-add-jwt-auth/exploration.md:

## Exploration: {topic}

### Current State
{How the system works today relevant to this topic}

### Affected Areas
- `path/to/file.ext` — {why it's affected}
- `path/to/other.ext` — {why it's affected}

### Approaches
1. **{Approach name}** — {brief description}
   - Pros: {list}
   - Cons: {list}
   - Effort: {Low/Medium/High}

2. **{Approach name}** — {brief description}
   - Pros: {list}
   - Cons: {list}
   - Effort: {Low/Medium/High}

### Recommendation
{Your recommended approach and why}

### Risks
- {Risk 1}
- {Risk 2}

### Ready for Proposal
{Yes/No — and what the user should know}

Step 5: Return Result

Return the same structured analysis (inline), plus:

Status Report:

• status: done | blocked | partial
• executive_summary: 1-sentence description of what was explored and key recommendation
• artifact: {spec}/exploration.md (if --spec provided) or "none"
• next_recommended: specs.brainstorm (if spec provided) or none (if standalone)
• risks: risks discovered, or "None"

---

Rules

• The ONLY file you MAY create is exploration.md inside the spec folder (if --spec provided)
• DO NOT modify any existing code or files
• ALWAYS read real code, never guess about the codebase
• Keep your analysis CONCISE — summary, not a novel
• If you can't find enough information, say so clearly
• If the request is too vague, ask for clarification