| name | shape |
| description | Shapes messy input into a bounded, reviewable Change under docs/changes/YYYYMMDD-slug/, validated by loaf change check. Runs a fog-routed narrowing protocol — gather context, an optional blindspot pass, grilling for known unknowns, reaction artifacts for unknown-knowns — decomposes Implementation Units ordered by likelihood-of-change, runs a critique gate, and offers an opt-in draft PR. Use when the user asks "shape this," "turn this into a Change," or an idea has accumulated enough constraints to bound. Recognizes journal entries, sparks, ideas, brainstorms, Linear issues, PR conversations, and plain conversation as input. Produces a Change, never a numbered spec or task file. Not for quick capture (use idea) or open-ended divergent thinking before scope exists (use brainstorm). |
Shape
Turn messy input into a bounded, reviewable Change.
Contents
- Critical Rules
- Verification
- Quick Reference
- Process
- Related Skills
- Topics
Input: $ARGUMENTS
Critical Rules
- Log invocation first —
loaf journal log "skill(shape): <input being shaped>" before doing anything else.
- Produces a Change, never a spec — the artifact is
docs/changes/YYYYMMDD-slug/change.md. No sequentially-numbered spec file, no task entity, no status-like frontmatter.
- The fog register routes, you don't guess — every named unknown carries a quadrant tag that dispatches it to exactly one technique (see Quick Reference). Technique-by-vibes is the failure mode this replaces.
- Blindspot pass precedes grilling, offered not imposed — run it when the territory is unfamiliar; skip it when the shaper is the domain expert. Never impose it as a mandatory step.
- Grill one question at a time, with a recommendation — via
AskUserQuestion (or one inline question per message on harnesses without it — same semantics). Never a form to fill in one pass. Order by architectural impact: questions whose answer would change the architecture go first, cosmetic questions last.
- Techniques return fog entries, not decisions — blindspot passes, grilling, and reaction artifacts hand back named unknowns and evidence for the human to adjudicate. Reconnaissance, not orders.
- Own the decomposition — decide Implementation Unit boundaries and granularity autonomously (absorbed from the retired breakdown step); ask only when two orderings carry genuinely different trade-offs.
- Order units by likelihood-of-change — data models, interfaces, and user-facing flows lead; mechanical work collapses at the bottom, so review attention lands on what's most likely to need changing.
- Surface misalignment, never silently adjust — when the idea conflicts with strategic docs, prior Changes, or the journal, tell the user and let them decide. Don't quietly reshape their idea.
- Critique before finalizing — run the Critique Gate as the last shaping step, before
loaf change check and the PR offer.
- Get approval before
loaf change init — don't scaffold the folder without explicit confirmation of scope.
- Log the outcome —
loaf journal log "decision(shape): <slug> shaped — N units, N open fog entries".
Verification
docs/changes/YYYYMMDD-slug/change.md exists with Problem, Hypothesis, Scope, Observable Workflow, and Rabbit Holes and No-Gos all non-empty (the Product Contract set loaf change check requires)- Every Open Questions entry carries a quadrant tag (
[KU], [UK], or [UU]) and a route
loaf change check reports zero violations; its executability report was read, not ignored- The Critique Gate ran, and its answers changed the document where they applied — not just spoken aloud
- No sequentially-numbered spec or task file, and no status-like frontmatter (
readiness, status, state), exists anywhere in the Change
Quick Reference
Fog register format
Open Questions entries take one of three forms:
- [KU] <the unknown> → <route: grilling | research spike | owner section>
- [UK] <the recognize-it-when-seen criterion> → reaction artifact in research/
- [UU] <the suspected blind area> → blindspot pass over <territory>
An entry resolves by becoming a Decision, a Planning Contract subsection, or a named follow-up — visible in the diff, never silently deleted. A [UU] that gets named becomes a [KU] or [UK] and re-routes through the table below.
Quadrant routing
| Tag | Meaning | Routes to |
|---|
[KU] known unknown | A question you can state precisely | Grilling (architecture-changing answers first) or a research spike |
[UK] unknown known | You'd recognize the right answer if you saw it, but can't state it yet | Reaction artifact — a variant or mock in research/, react and pick |
[UU] suspected blind spot | Unfamiliar territory; you don't yet know what you don't know | Blindspot pass |
No route names a skill invocation. Research re-interviews an already-scoped question and writes to .agents/reports/; brainstorm forces a strategic frame onto a Change-local question and sends resolutions to intake. Shape runs all three techniques itself, in-session, and writes evidence into the Change's own research/ — never .agents/reports/.
Defined terms
- Rabbit holes — tempting expansions of scope that would consume disproportionate effort for marginal value; name them so nobody wanders in unknowingly.
- No-gos — approaches explicitly forbidden for this Change, stated so they aren't silently reconsidered mid-implementation.
Source inputs recognized
Step 1 reads whatever $ARGUMENTS names, or asks. Recognized sources: a journal entry (cite by ID), a spark, an idea, a brainstorm document, a Linear issue, a PR conversation, a prior Change, or plain conversation with no artifact behind it yet.
Process
Step 1: Gather Context
Parse $ARGUMENTS against the source inputs above. Read the journal (loaf journal recent / search) for related history, and check for a prior Change touching the same area. When VISION.md, STRATEGY.md, and ARCHITECTURE.md exist, read them for strategic fit. Most consumer projects don't have them yet — when absent, shape against the journal, recent Changes, and the conversation instead, and say so in the Change's Source Inputs.
Step 2: Evaluate Strategic Fit
When strategic docs exist, check: does this advance the vision, serve the target personas, fit technical constraints, avoid conflicting with in-flight Changes? On misalignment, surface it to the user — never silently adjust the idea. The user decides whether to proceed, narrow scope, or defer to /reflect after this ships.
Step 3: Name the Change and Initialize
Once the shape of the work is nameable, confirm scope with the user, then:
loaf change init <slug>
This scaffolds docs/changes/YYYYMMDD-slug/change.md from the Change template and prints the branch to use — it does not switch branches. Create or switch to it yourself (git switch -c <slug>) before committing anything: branch-at-shaping, not deferred to implementation. A Change grows toward executability from here: the flat Product Contract sections (Problem, Hypothesis, Scope, Observable Workflow, Rabbit Holes and No-Gos) fill in as understanding solidifies through the steps below, not all at once. See references/cli-boundary.md for what init writes and how check reads it.
Step 4: Narrow the Unknowns
Offer the blindspot pass when the territory is unfamiliar (a new domain, an unfamiliar subsystem, a first collaboration) — skip it when the shaper is the expert. Its fog entries, and any others surfaced in interview, route by quadrant (Quick Reference above). Loop: grill [KU] entries, react to [UK] entries, run blindspot reconnaissance on [UU] entries until each gets a name and re-routes. Stop grilling when no unrouted [KU] entries remain or answers stop changing the contract. Entries still open at the end of the session are fine — each names its owner (a section, a spike, a follow-up).
Step 5: Decompose into Implementation Units
Absorbed from the retired breakdown step — see references/decomposition.md for the Right Size Test and per-unit verification discipline. Order units by likelihood-of-change; state real sequencing constraints in prose, never by list order alone.
Step 6: Fill the Planning Contract
Write the free-form ### subsections the work actually needs (approach, placement, risks, sequencing) inside the Planning Contract container. Its subsection names are yours; the container itself, plus Implementation Units, Verification Contract, and Definition of Done, is what loaf change check looks for. Durable Outputs stays forward-looking here — name what a final spec, ADR, or knowledge doc will need to capture, but don't write it now. Durable artifacts get created after implementation proves what's true, not during shaping.
Step 7: Run the Critique Gate
Before finalizing, challenge the draft — see references/critique-gate.md. Is scope still bounded, does every new command or state name its ceremony, is a status field creeping back in under another name, is the CLI/skill boundary drawn correctly, and could this be smaller and still deliver the Hypothesis?
Step 8: Validate
loaf change check
Read violations (always block — fix them) separately from the executability report (derived, informational unless --require-executable is passed — that flag is implement's preflight and CI's non-draft gate, not shape's business). See references/cli-boundary.md.
Step 9: Offer the Draft PR
Offer to push the branch and open a draft PR, using the PR template — opt-in, never automatic. loaf change check (with no --require-executable) plus gh pr list is the cross-branch index either way.
Step 10: Log the Outcome
loaf journal log "decision(shape): <slug> shaped — N units, N open fog entries".
Related Skills
- idea — Quick capture; feeds into
/shape once a concept has enough weight
- brainstorm — Open-ended divergent thinking before scope narrows enough to shape
- implement — Starts execution once a Change is implementation-ready
- reflect — Updates strategic docs after the shipped work proves what changed
Topics
