direction

name	direction
description	dure direction — gather survey/audit/status evidence, run a deep interview that converges a project direction, write a validated .dure/directions/<slug>.md proposal, and hand the chosen direction to /dure:plan. Report-only at the validator boundary; never writes the roadmap.
argument-hint	[focus or question]
allowed-tools	Bash Read Write Task AskUserQuestion
disable-model-invocation	true

/dure:direction — Strategic direction proposal (M3, E3.2)

Goal: per specs/dure-direction.md, turn the project's current state into a critiqued direction proposal and hand the chosen direction to /dure:plan. This is M3's second half — the survey discovers signals, this skill decides a direction from them. The interview runs in the user's language; artifacts stay English (ADR-0007).

Boundary (MUST hold)

• The proposal doc (.dure/directions/<slug>.md) is a non-canonical sketch. This skill MUST NOT write .dure/roadmap/ and MUST NOT create issues — /dure:plan re-derives the canonical roadmap (assigning stable ids, re-running the critic for real testability). The proposal is consumed, never synced.
• ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/dure-proposal.py is validate-only — it writes nothing.
• Gate-readiness is the reused ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/dure-gate.py PASS, embedded verbatim in the doc — never a hand-typed sign-off. Anti-gaming is inherited from the gate, never re-invented.

Procedure

1. Context — run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/dure-context.sh to confirm the target repo.
2. Evidence (grounding) — run the three read-only scanners and read their JSON:
   • ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/dure-survey.py (forward-looking planning signals),
   • ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/dure-audit.py (debt signals),
   • ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/dure-status.py (completion / blockers / conflicts). These are evidence, not commands — present them in the user's language.
3. Converge a direction — run the deep-interview loop (the /dure:interview methodology, §4 of the parent spec): decompose the question, gather evidence, score ambiguity, ask the weakest dimension, and every round spawn an independent redteam-critic (via Task) to try to break the candidate directions. Target which direction to pursue, framed by the evidence, with ≥2 critiqued options.
4. Gate — when stop conditions are met, run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/dure-gate.py with the full stdin payload (the same shape /dure:interview uses — parent spec §2): round, components (each with per-dimension scores + the critic testable_signoff), new_ambiguity_last_round, and blocking_open_questions. Keep iterating until it returns gate: PASS, then keep that JSON verbatim.
5. Write the proposal — write .dure/directions/<slug>.md with: a non-empty Problem, the ≥2 options each with a Critique, the Chosen option + Rationale, a Candidate issues sketch (- <title> | acceptance: <text>, non-canonical), and the verbatim gate PASS block under ## Gate.
6. Validate — run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/dure-proposal.py .dure/directions/<slug>.md. If it reports any direction:* violation, fix the doc and re-validate until status: pass.
7. Hand off — offer to run /dure:plan on the chosen direction (which re-derives the canonical roadmap). Do not write the roadmap from this skill.

---

Implementation status: orchestrates the tested dure-survey/dure-audit/dure-status evidence, the dure-gate convergence gate, and the dure-proposal validator. Auto-running the scanners on SessionStart is a possible later increment, kept out of this slice.