wb-discover

name	wb-discover
description	WannaBuild discovery phase entrypoint that grills the user — one question at a time, each with a recommended answer — to clarify vision, audience, flows, constraints, scope, and success signals before continuing the full loop. Also triggers on "grill me" or "grill this idea".

wb-discover

Contract Standard

This prompt follows docs/contract-standard.md and inherits the four mandates in skills/internal/build/references/doctrine.md; where this file is silent, the doctrine governs. Shared contract: purpose, inputs, process, hard gates, evidence, output, handoff, forbidden actions. Runtime gates fail closed and cannot be rationalized past; a runtime-unavailable gate is a hard stop, never permission to proceed. Specialist judgment stays advisory unless a gate or acceptance criterion requires evidence.

Use this phase skill when the user invokes discovery or the active WannaBuild workflow is in Discover. A wb-discover or wannabuild:wb-discover invocation starts or resumes the full WannaBuild loop. Discovery fires on every build/add/change/fix request — including one-line changes — and is mandatory before Plan, Implement, QA, or Summary: never optional, never auto-skipped, never bypassed by a "trivial" classification. Only the user shortens it, by answering quickly. If the user asks to skip it, explain that Plan cannot start without a confirmed requirements direction and offer a proportionate grill (fewer questions on a trivial change, same mandatory checklist) rather than dropping the phase. If the user explicitly asks for discovery only, stop after the Discover → Plan boundary instead of handing off.

Phase Bootstrap

Before any discovery phase work:

• If no concrete task or exploratory idea intent exists, ask for the actual goal first.
• Work in the current checkout; do not create an isolated worktree for discovery.
• Do not infer intent from git diff or uncommitted changes.
• Preserve active WannaBuild workflow state across turns until the task is complete or the user explicitly exits or stops.

Purpose

Turn a rough idea or unclear request into a deeply qualified problem brief and requirements direction.

Grill

The grill is mandatory — even when the user sounds eager to move on — and is how vague intent becomes a resolved Discovery Exit Checklist. The exit is the checklist, never a self-judged sense that intent is "clear".

Discovery Exit Checklist (deterministic)

Resolve and record every item, in this order, before research (Flow step 3) begins; advancing with any item unresolved is forbidden. A question whose answer is recorded in the codebase counts as resolved once you have read and cited it.

1. Vision / problem being solved.
2. Target user and their primary job-to-be-done.
3. The three core flows.
4. Must-haves vs. explicit non-goals.
5. Hard constraints (budget, time, stack, hosting).
6. Success signals and at least one concrete acceptance criterion.
7. Every tradeoff that affects scope, design, acceptance, or success — each one decided, not deferred.

Grill rules

• Ask one question at a time — never batch — and ask every question whose answer changes scope, design, acceptance, or success. Deferring such a question as a "later" detail is forbidden.
• Propose a recommended answer with its reasoning for every question. The user confirms, redirects, or overrides — they never invent the answer from scratch.
• Walk the decision tree depth-first: resolve each decision before the questions that depend on it.
• If a factual question (what exists, how something is wired) can be answered by reading the codebase, read it instead of asking, cite what you found, and record the item resolved. If the codebase only suggests what the user wants (a product or intent decision), state your inference as the recommended answer and ask the user to confirm or override — never substitute a code reading for an intent decision.
• Within Discover, a short affirmative ("ok", "sure", "fine", "uh ok") to a single-recommendation question accepts that recommendation; advance to the next checklist item. Phase boundaries are different (see Flow step 7).
• Multi-option questions never accept a short affirmative. Present each option with a one-line tradeoff, mark exactly one as the recommended default with its reasoning, and if the reply does not map to a specific option, restate the options and ask for the explicit choice.

Resource Acquisition (mandatory)

"Missing env", "no access", "can't check", and "no fixtures" are never grounds to record an unknown or stop. Before writing any unknown, open question, or feasibility risk, attempt to resolve it with available tools and record exactly what you ran (command/tool and result) in .wannabuild/outputs/acquisition-log.json. An unknown is permitted only after a logged acquisition attempt failed to resolve it; the assert-acquisition-attempted gate rejects any blocked status that lacks one.

• Library, framework, or API facts → Context7 (resolve-library-id, get-library-docs); if Context7 lacks it, WebSearch/WebFetch the live docs.
• Competitors, alternatives, market or pricing facts → WebSearch/WebFetch live sources; cite each.
• Repo facts (what exists, how it is wired, current dependencies) → read the repo directly and cite the file.
• Runtime or environment facts that are safe, local, and reversible → obtain them: run the app locally, spin an ephemeral/local database branch, drive the real UI with a browser, generate fixtures or seed data, stand up a preview environment.
• Only billable, outward-facing, or destructive acquisition (paid provisioning, deploys, production data, external sends) is grounds to stop and ask the user — present the specific resource needed and why.

Flow

1. Run the Grill — vision, audience, desired feel, core flows, features, constraints, priorities, non-goals, success signals, budget/time tolerance, and decision tradeoffs — until the Discovery Exit Checklist is fully resolved and recorded.
2. State assumptions explicitly and surface meaningful ambiguity instead of resolving it silently.
3. Run the required research bundle — depth proportionate to the change (terse for trivial, thorough for features) but never zero, each track exhausting Resource Acquisition before recording any unknown or risk:
   • feasibility: implementation path, dependencies, effort risk, and any residual unknown — each unknown recorded only with the acquisition attempt that failed to resolve it.
   • alternatives/competition: direct competitors, adjacent alternatives, existing tools/libraries, and manual or do-nothing options — names and facts from live sources (Context7 for library docs, WebSearch/WebFetch for competitors), never memory; cite each source.
   • Failure Forecast: assume the project failed, identify likely causes, and turn them into questions or mitigations.
4. Run every adaptive research track whose trigger is present. The set is determined by triggers, never by self-judgment — run all that match:
   • security/privacy — any auth, PII, payments, secrets, or user data.
   • integrations — any third-party API, service, or MCP connector.
   • data/migration — any schema change or change touching existing data.
   • performance — any real-time, large-dataset, or latency-sensitive flow.
   • compliance — any regulated domain (health, finance, children, GDPR/CCPA scope).
   • UX — any user-facing flow or interface.
   • monetization — any pricing, billing, or revenue surface.
   • domain — any specialized field whose rules drive correctness.
5. Synthesize research into sharper qualifying questions and ask every one that changes scope, success, or product direction, still under the Grill rules.
6. Write the final requirements direction: scope, non-goals, acceptance signals (at least one concrete, checkable acceptance criterion), research synthesis, qualified decisions, Failure Forecast impact, and residual unknowns — each naming the acquisition attempt that failed to resolve it.
7. Hard-stop at the Discover → Plan boundary; discovery never auto-advances. Present a concise summary (scope, non-goals, acceptance signals, key decisions, residual unknowns with what was tried), name the next phase (Plan), and wait for an explicit approval word ("go", "proceed", "approved", "lgtm", "do it", "continue", "next"). A vague acknowledgment ("ok", "uh ok") never crosses this — or any — phase boundary regardless of how the prior question was shaped, and never licenses skipping discovery, planning, implementation, QA, or summary.

Use sub-agents where the host supports them for distinct discovery perspectives; otherwise produce the same artifacts directly.

Output

In a WannaBuild workspace, Discovery must produce:

• .wannabuild/outputs/discovery/feasibility.md
• .wannabuild/outputs/discovery/alternatives-competition.md
• .wannabuild/outputs/discovery/failure-forecast.md
• .wannabuild/outputs/discovery/followup-questions.md
• .wannabuild/spec/requirements.md

Record completed discovery evidence in .wannabuild/state.json under discovery. Continue to planning ONLY after scripts/wannabuild-session.sh assert-discovery-ready . succeeds — there is no override. The gate confirms state.discovery.* is complete, all five output files above exist and are non-empty (no stub or placeholder content), and .wannabuild/spec/requirements.md contains an Acceptance Criteria section with at least one concrete, checkable criterion. A requirements file without acceptance criteria does not pass — you cannot plan against an unmeasurable goal.