scout-writer

name	scout-writer
version	1.0.0
model	sonnet
description	Produces a scout document: identifies a tension, generates 3-5 distinct routes with tradeoffs, synthesizes a recommendation, and proposes a first action. Use when: 'scout this', 'strategic scout', 'explore options for', 'what are the routes'.
triggers	["scout this","strategic scout","explore options for","what are the routes"]
category	dojo-craft
inputs	[{"name":"situation","type":"string","description":"The situation, tension, or decision landscape to scout","required":true}]
outputs	[{"name":"scout_document","type":"ref","format":"markdown","description":"Scout document with tension framing, 3-5 routes with tradeoffs, comparison table, synthesized recommendation, and first action"}]

Scout Writer Skill

I. Philosophy

A scout does not arrive with a solution. A scout arrives with a map.

The most expensive engineering decisions are the ones made before the terrain was understood. A well-written scout document is the cheapest possible way to stress-test a direction before committing resources. It costs an hour of careful thinking and saves days or weeks of course-correction.

The scout is not neutral. The scout has a point of view — grounded in evidence, stated explicitly, open to reframe. "Here are some options" is not scouting. Scouting is: "Here is the landscape, here is what I see in it, here is where I would go and why — and here is what would change my mind."

II. When to Use

• Before committing to an architectural direction with significant consequences
• When a team is stuck between competing legitimate approaches
• Before writing a specification — the scout produces the "why" that the spec translates into "what"
• When the question is "which direction?" not "how do we implement this direction?"
• As input to the adr-writer skill when the decision warrants formal recording

Do not use this skill when the direction is already decided and the question is implementation. Scouting a decided question wastes time and introduces doubt where certainty is needed.

III. Workflow

Step 1: TENSION

Frame the situation as a tension between competing forces — not a problem to solve, but a landscape to navigate.

A tension statement has the form: "[Force A] vs. [Force B]" with a brief explanation of why both forces are legitimate and why they pull in different directions.

Examples:

• "Velocity vs. coherence: shipping fast risks architectural drift, but slowing down to audit means missing the grant deadline."
• "Simplicity vs. extensibility: a single-file solution ships today but cannot accommodate the multi-tenant requirement arriving in Q3."
• "Build vs. buy: the existing library covers 80% of the need but the missing 20% is load-bearing."

A tension framed well reveals the routes naturally. A tension framed poorly produces routes that are all variations on one approach.

Step 2: ROUTES

Generate 3-5 distinct approaches. Distinct means architecturally different, not just implementation variations.

For each route, produce:

Field	Content
Name	Short label (e.g., "Route A: Minimal Wedge")
Description	What does this approach actually do? 2-4 sentences.
Risk Level	Low / Medium / High — with the specific risk named
Time Estimate	Rough order of magnitude (hours, days, weeks)
Key Tradeoff	What does this route give up to get its benefits?
When it wins	Under what conditions is this the right choice?

Generate routes that represent genuine alternatives. If you cannot name what a route gives up, you have not understood it.

Step 3: COMPARE

Build a route comparison table. This is the artifact that makes the scout document scannable in 30 seconds.

Route	Description	Risk	Time	Key Tradeoff	Wins When
A	...	Low	2d	...	...
B	...	High	1d	...	...
C	...	Med	3d	...	...

The table forces honest comparison. If one route dominates on all dimensions, that is suspicious — it means the routes are not genuinely distinct, or the "losing" routes need better articulation of when they would win.

Step 4: SYNTHESIZE

After laying out the routes, ask: can any of them be combined?

The best solutions often are not Route A or Route B — they are the part of Route A that addresses Force 1, combined with the part of Route B that addresses Force 2.

Identify synthesis opportunities:

• Which routes share underlying assumptions that make them combinable?
• Which routes address different aspects of the tension (not the same aspect from different angles)?
• What hybrid approach takes the ceiling of each route's strengths while avoiding its floor?

Synthesis is a creative act. Not every scout produces a hybrid. But looking for one forces you to understand the routes at a deeper level.

Step 5: DECIDE

Produce a recommendation with explicit rationale.

The recommendation has four parts:

1. Selected route (or hybrid): Which approach? Be specific.
2. Decisive factors: What made this route win? Name the 2-3 factors that tipped the decision. If one factor was decisive above all others, name it.
3. What would change this: Under what conditions would a different route be better? This makes the recommendation conditional and honest — it tells the reader when to revisit.
4. First concrete action: What is the single next step that commits to this route? Naming it converts the scout from analysis to motion.

A recommendation without rationale is a guess. A recommendation without a first action is still just analysis.

Step 6: FORMAT

Produce the scout document as structured markdown.

# Scout: [Topic]

**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Tension:** [one sentence]

## Context

[2-3 sentences on what prompted this scout. What is the forcing function?]

## Tension

[The tension statement from Step 1 — expanded to a paragraph if needed.]

## Routes

### Route A: [Name]
[Description, risk, time, key tradeoff, when it wins]

### Route B: [Name]
[...]

### Route C: [Name]
[...]

## Comparison

[The table from Step 3]

## Synthesis

[Hybrid opportunity or note that no synthesis applies]

## Recommendation

**Selected:** [Route or hybrid]

**Decisive factors:**
- [Factor 1]
- [Factor 2]

**What would change this:** [Condition]

**First action:** [Specific next step]

## Next Steps

- If proceeding to a formal decision: invoke `adr-writer` with this scout as input
- If proceeding to specification: invoke `release-specification` or `specification-writer`
- Review point: [When to re-evaluate — date, event, or metric]

Save the document to thinking/[topic]-scout.md or the equivalent docs directory for the project.

IV. Quality Checklist

• Tension framed as competing forces, not as a problem with one obvious solution
• 3-5 routes, each architecturally distinct
• Each route has named risk, time estimate, and key tradeoff
• Comparison table fills all columns for all routes
• Synthesis considered explicitly (even if result is "no synthesis applicable")
• Recommendation names decisive factors, not just the selected route
• First concrete action is specific and actionable
• Document saved to disk

V. Common Pitfalls

• Presenting routes that are not distinct. If Routes B and C are both "use a managed service" with different providers, collapse them. The strategic choice is "managed service vs. self-hosted" — the provider is an implementation detail.
• Recommending before all routes are laid out. The recommendation comes after the comparison table. Anchoring the reader to a preferred route before the alternatives are presented biases the analysis.
• No decisive factors. "This route seems best" is not a recommendation. "This route wins because our timeline eliminates Route B and our team has no Rust experience to make Route C viable" is a recommendation.
• Scout as substitute for decision. The scout produces clarity, not closure. A scout that ends without a recommendation or a first action is an incomplete artifact.
• Retrospective scouting of decided questions. If the decision is already irreversible, write an ADR instead — not a scout. The scout is for before commitment, not after.

VI. Output

• Scout document saved to thinking/[topic]-scout.md
• Recommendation with first action clearly stated
• If the scout reveals the decision warrants an ADR: explicit prompt to invoke adr-writer
• If the scout reveals the decision is more complex than expected: note the reframe before proceeding

Examples

Scenario 1: "Scout whether to use SSE or WebSockets for the Gateway streaming interface." → Tension: "Protocol simplicity vs. bidirectional capability." Routes: SSE-only, WebSocket-only, SSE for server-push + REST for client-to-server, WebSocket with SSE fallback. Comparison table. Synthesis: SSE + REST is the hybrid that matches current usage patterns without the complexity of WebSocket upgrade handshake. Recommendation: SSE + REST; decisive factors: existing CLI uses REST already, server-push is 95% of traffic, WebSocket adds complexity for 5% gain.

Scenario 2: "Explore options for how the CLI should discover available skills." → Tension: "Discovery completeness vs. startup latency." Routes: filesystem scan on startup, cached manifest with TTL, on-demand load per invocation, remote registry pull. Comparison table. Synthesis: cached manifest (filesystem scan once, invalidate on file change) takes the startup speed of on-demand with the completeness of full scan. Recommendation: cached manifest + inotify invalidation. First action: add manifest file write to the existing skill-validate.sh hook.

Edge Cases

• If the situation has only two genuine routes (binary choice), document both with full rigor and note explicitly that no third route was found after honest search. Do not invent a third route to fill the template.
• If external constraints eliminate routes before the scout begins, document those constraints in the Context section and start the routes from the remaining viable space.
• If the scout reveals that the question being asked is the wrong question, name the reframe explicitly before producing routes. A scout that maps the wrong landscape is worse than no scout.

Anti-Patterns

• Producing routes without tradeoffs — a route without a stated cost is not an honest analysis of that route.
• Treating "more information needed" as a scout output — if you cannot characterize the routes without more information, name exactly what information is needed and from where, then pause.
• Generating routes to fill a quota — three genuine routes are better than five padded ones. Quality over count.
• Scouting as a delay tactic — if a route is clearly correct and the only question is how to implement it, say so and proceed to specification. A scout that re-derives an obvious conclusion wastes time.