deep-elicit

name	deep-elicit
description	Comprehensive requirements elicitation through Socratic conversation, producing a product brief with problem, users, scope, and success criteria in ~10 minutes. Use when starting a new product, designing a system from scratch, planning a major redesign, or when the user says "I want to build", "new project", or "help me plan this product".
version	1.0.0
modes	["architect"]

Deep Elicit

Guide the human through comprehensive discovery of what they're building and why. Not a form to fill — a conversation that surfaces the important decisions.

Core Principle: The most expensive bugs are requirements bugs. Spending 10 minutes on elicitation saves days of rework. But spending 60 minutes loses the human's attention. Be thorough AND efficient.

When to Use

ARCHITECT mode, before architecture or planning. When:

• Building a new product or system from scratch
• Major platform redesign or migration
• The scope is large enough that getting the design wrong is costly

Do NOT use when:

• BUILD mode (use quick-elicit instead — faster, less thorough)
• The human has already written a detailed brief (accept it, validate it)

Process

Round 1: Problem Space (3 minutes)

Start with the WHY, not the WHAT. Ask:

1. "What problem are you solving? Who has this problem?" Get the core pain point and who feels it. "I want to build a task app" is not enough — "My team loses track of client deliverables across 5 projects" is better.

2. "What happens if this problem isn't solved? What are people doing now?" Understand urgency and current alternatives. This grounds the conversation in reality — are people using spreadsheets? A competitor? Nothing?

3. "What does success look like in 3 months?" Concrete, measurable. Not "users love it" but "50 active teams managing projects, 80% weekly retention."

Draft and show:

PROBLEM BRIEF:
  Problem: [specific pain point]
  Who: [target users — be specific]
  Current alternative: [what they do today]
  Success: [measurable 3-month goal]

"Does this capture the real problem? Anything to adjust?"

Premise challenge (after Problem Brief is confirmed):

Before moving to Round 2, surface 2-3 implicit premises in the user's framing. Present as brief observations:

Before we scope this — I see a few assumptions worth examining:

1. [Premise]: [one sentence stating the assumption]
   → [one sentence describing why it might be wrong]

2. [Premise]: [one sentence stating the assumption]
   → [one sentence describing why it might be wrong]

3. [Premise]: [one sentence stating the assumption]
   → [one sentence describing why it might be wrong]

Do these hold, or should we adjust our framing?

deep-elicit can challenge 2-3 premises (vs. quick-elicit's 1-2) because the architect workflow operates at higher stakes and the user expects a more thorough examination.

What counts as a premise: The framing of the problem itself, the assumed solution category, the assumed scope, the assumed user, the assumed timeline. NOT technical choices — those come in Round 2/3.

Record the framing decision in the brief's Vision section and prepend to .sage/decisions.md:

### YYYY-MM-DD — Framing: [initiative]
[Chose framing]. Pain: [pain]. Challenged: [premise names].
(deep-elicit Round 1)

Round 2: Scope and Priorities (3 minutes)

Now narrow from problem to solution:

4. "If you could only ship THREE features for launch, what are they?" Forces ruthless prioritization. Everything else is post-launch.

5. "What should this explicitly NOT do? What's tempting but out of scope?" Boundaries prevent scope creep. "We won't build a mobile app for v1" is a useful constraint.

6. "Are there constraints I should know? Budget, timeline, team size, compliance, existing systems to integrate with?" Non-functional requirements surface here — security, performance, scale, accessibility, regulatory.

Draft and show:

SCOPE:
  Must have (launch): [3 features]
  Won't have (v1): [explicit exclusions]
  Constraints: [non-functional requirements]

Round 3: Users and Flows (3 minutes)

7. "Walk me through the most important user flow, step by step." Get the happy path. "User signs up → creates a project → adds tasks → assigns to team → dashboard shows status." This becomes the architecture driver.

8. "Who else uses this besides the primary user? (admin, viewer, API consumer?)" Multiple user types = different permission models, different UI surfaces.

9. "What's the most complex or risky part of this?" The human usually knows where the dragons are. This is where architecture attention should focus.

Draft and show:

USERS:
  Primary: [who, what they do]
  Secondary: [other user types]

KEY FLOW:
  1. [step] → 2. [step] → 3. [step] → ...

HIGH RISK AREAS:
  - [identified complexity]

Output: Product Brief

Combine all rounds into .sage/work/<YYYYMMDD>-<slug>/brief.md:

# Product Brief: [name]

## Problem
[from Round 1]

## Users
[from Round 3]

## Success Criteria
[measurable, from Round 1]

## Scope
### Must Have (Launch)
[from Round 2]

### Won't Have (v1)
[from Round 2]

## Key User Flow
[from Round 3]

## Constraints
[from Round 2]

## High Risk Areas
[from Round 3]

Show the complete brief. Wait for approval. "Here's the product brief. This is the foundation for architecture and planning. Ready to proceed, or anything to adjust?"

Rules

MUST (violation = bad brief or lost trust):

• MUST NOT ask more than 10 questions total across all rounds.
• MUST NOT ask yes/no questions — they produce shallow answers.
• MUST draft output after each round so the human can course-correct early.
• MUST make success criteria measurable — "users love it" → "80% weekly retention."

SHOULD (violation = suboptimal elicitation):

• SHOULD ask ONE follow-up for specificity if the human gives vague answers, then move on.
• SHOULD note technology opinions as constraints — don't argue during elicitation.
• SHOULD flag scope issues early: "This sounds like it could take months. Want to identify a smaller first version we can ship sooner?"

MAY (context-dependent):

• MAY compress to fewer rounds if the human has clearly thought deeply about the problem.
• MAY skip Round 3 (users/flows) if the product is a developer tool with a single user type.

Failure Modes

• Human wants to skip to coding: "I understand the urgency. Let me ask 3 quick questions so we build the right thing. Takes 2 minutes." If they insist, respect it and switch to BUILD mode with quick-elicit.
• Requirements are genuinely unclear: That's OK. Note the unknowns explicitly in the brief. "TBD: authentication approach — depends on whether SSO is required." Better to acknowledge uncertainty than to guess.
• Conflicting requirements surface: Don't resolve them. Present: "These two requirements conflict: [X] and [Y]. Which takes priority?"
• Scope is enormous: Suggest phased delivery. "This is a 6-month project. Let's define Phase 1 (what ships in 4 weeks) and Phase 2 (what comes after)."