| name | intent-gate |
| description | Use as a brief local routing step before non-trivial planning, execution, review, refactoring, debugging, or design when a shallow reading could change scope, risk, or user-visible behavior. Keep it silent when intent is clear; it does not imply an artifact or subagent. |
Intent Gate
Determine what the user actually wants, whether the obvious reading is safe, and which primary path and assurance profile fit. This is a brief local routing decision, not optional ceremony and not an automatic subagent step.
Gate
- State the intended outcome internally in one sentence.
- Identify only misreads that could materially change scope, safety, or user-visible behavior.
- Inspect cheap repository facts that can resolve them.
- Choose complexity (
simple, medium, complex, very_complex) for execution shape and assurance (fast, standard, assurance, explicit audit) for risk.
- Set a change envelope: requested behavior, expected change class, expected surfaces, must-preserve constraints, and explicit non-goals.
- Choose the next module or direct path.
- Ask only when remaining ambiguity is material and a reasonable assumption would be costly, irreversible, or behavior-changing.
Use L0 for content/config-only changes, L1 for a localized behavior change, L2 for a cross-module contract or reusable abstraction, and L3 for a new subsystem/platform layer. Do not silently raise the class. A new API/schema/protocol/shared abstraction/layer outside the expected envelope requires a narrower alternative, explicit justification, or a material user question.
Before presenting any material plan, architecture decision, or scope-expanding solution, take one local second look from existing context: compare it with the request and envelope, remove unsupported scope, and choose KEEP, SHRINK, ASK, or REPLAN. Do this silently for chat-only work; do not add an agent or discovery pass.
When confidence is high, continue without printing a gate report. When a decision must be exposed, report only intent, assumption/question, assurance, and next path.
Independent Intent Review
Use read-only workflow_intent_reviewer only when all are true:
- assurance risk applies;
- material ambiguity remains after cheap inspection;
- independent interpretation could prevent a high-impact misread;
- the task-wide agent budget permits it.
Routine implementation, bounded reading, clear corrections, and multiple applicable skills never justify this reviewer. If unavailable, continue locally unless the user explicitly requires independent intent review.
Stop the gate as soon as the workflow path is safe to choose.
