exploration-handoff

name	exploration-handoff
description	Interactive co-authoring skill for the narrow end of the exploration funnel. Synthesizes session briefs, BRDs, story sets, and prototype notes into a structured handoff package targeted at the correct downstream consumer (e.g., formal software specs, strategic roadmaps, or process documentation).
allowed-tools	Bash, Read, Write

Dashboard Intercept

Before doing anything else, silently check for exploration/exploration-dashboard.md.

• If the file EXISTS: Read it silently and check the **Status:** line.

  • If **Status:** Complete → the prior session has ended. Proceed with this skill's standalone flow as normal.
  • Otherwise → an active session is in progress. Stop immediately. Do not continue here. Announce to the user:

    "It looks like you have an active Exploration Session in progress. Let me take you back to your session dashboard so we can keep your progress on track." Return to the orchestrator. Use the Skill tool: skill: "exploration-workflow". After invoking it, stop generating output from this skill — do not continue below.

• If the file does NOT exist: Proceed with this skill's standalone flow as normal.

User has finished exploration and wants to produce a handoff package. User: I finished my exploration session, help me write the handoff package. Agent: [invokes exploration-handoff, synthesizes session artifacts into structured handoff] User wants to synthesize all exploration artifacts for a specific downstream consumer. User: Synthesize our session captures into a handoff for the engineering team. Agent: [invokes exploration-handoff, targets handoff at engineering/spec downstream] Starting a new session routes to exploration-session-brief, not this skill. User: Let's kick off a new exploration session. Agent: [invokes exploration-session-brief, NOT exploration-handoff]

Exploration Handoff (Interactive Co-Authoring)

Note: This skill runs fully interactively via Claude — no script needed. execute.py is a planned batch-mode convenience wrapper that hasn't been built yet, but the core skill works now. The handoff-preparer-agent provides an alternative agentic dispatch path.

When This Phase Is Required vs Optional

• Greenfield (Type 1): Always required — the handoff package is how the engineering team knows what to build.
• Brownfield (Type 2): Optional — if the same person/agent is doing both exploration and implementation, formal handoff may be unnecessary. The SME decides during session setup.
• Analysis/Docs (Type 3): Always required — the handoff IS the primary output of the session (requirements, process maps, analysis reports, stories, rules, workflow diagrams, or whatever the non-software deliverable is).
• Spike (Type 4): Optional — depends on whether findings need to be communicated to others.

If this phase was skipped during session setup, it will be marked - [~] in the dashboard and the orchestrator will not route here.

This skill provides a structured, 3-stage interactive workflow for synthesizing exploration artifacts into a concise Handoff Package.

Important Note for Agents: Do NOT passively run a bash script or dump a massive block of markdown. You must guide the user through the following 3 stages.

Stage 0: Scribe Activities (Automated Capture Before Synthesis)

First, read the dashboard **Session Type:** field. This determines what Stage 0 does.

Non-software sessions (session type contains "process", "strategic", "risk/compliance", or "legacy analysis"):

• Skip prototype-related captures.
• Check whether exploration/captures/ contains any of: problem-framing.md, brd-draft.md, workflow-diagram.md.
• If captures are missing, announce: "Before I package the handoff, let me capture the key outputs from our session." Then invoke business-requirements-capture using the Discovery Plan as input. Skip user-story-capture unless the SME specifically wants user stories as an output.
• Proceed to Stage 1.

Software sessions where Phase 3 ran (Greenfield, Brownfield — feature, website):

• Silently check for exploration/prototype/.

• If the prototype directory exists, run the following in sequence. Announce each briefly:

  "Capturing [activity name] first — this gives us the raw material for the handoff."

  1. Business Requirements Capture (invoke business-requirements-capture)

     • Extract business rules and functional requirements from Discovery Plan and prototype
     • Output: exploration/captures/business-requirements.md

  2. User Story Capture (invoke user-story-capture)

     • Translate validated prototype behaviours into user stories
     • Output: exploration/captures/user-stories.md

  3. Business Workflow Doc (invoke business-workflow-doc — only if the Discovery Plan describes a process flow with sequential steps or decision branches)

     • Output: exploration/captures/workflow-diagram.md

  Once complete, announce: "Requirements and stories captured. Now let's put together your handoff package."

Software sessions where Phase 3 was skipped (discovery-only, analysis, or spike with no build):

• Skip Stage 0 entirely. Proceed to Stage 1.

The Stage 0 outputs are now available as source artifacts for synthesis.

Stage 1: Context Gathering (Routing)

Before synthesizing anything, establish what you're working with and where it's going. Ask both questions in a single message:

1. Target audience: Who receives this handoff and what will they do with it?

   • Engineering team (internal AI harness) — feeding into Spec-Kitty, Superpowers, or similar AI-assisted engineering workflow
   • Engineering team (traditional SDLC) — a dev team who will scope, estimate, and build using standard project management
   • Executive or sponsor — making a go/no-go or budget decision
   • Operations or process team — implementing a process change or updating a workflow or policy
   • Architecture or platform team — planning a modernisation, replatforming, or migration
   • Security team — reviewing before deployment
   • Product or design team — scoping a discovery sprint or next prototype iteration
   • Other — describe briefly

2. Available artifacts: Which exploration documents exist? (Check exploration/ directory — list what you find.) Common sources: session brief, BRD draft, prototype notes, user story set, business-workflow diagrams.

After the user responds: read each artifact file they identify. If a file doesn't exist, note it explicitly and ask whether to proceed without it or pause until it's available. Do not invent content for missing artifacts.

Stage 1.5: Risk & Rigor Assessment (TierGate)

Before synthesis, perform a mandatory structured risk assessment. The result determines the delivery path — not every exploration routes to formal engineering.

Work through the following checklist with the SME. Ask each question and require a yes/no answer plus one sentence of evidence before moving on. Do not accept "maybe" or "it depends" — help the SME reach a concrete answer.

"Before we finalize the handoff, I need to ask you four quick questions to figure out what happens next. Answer yes or no for each:"

#	Question	SME Answer	Evidence (one sentence)
1	Does this handle personal information or sensitive data (names, emails, health, financial)?	yes / no
2	Will it be used by people outside your immediate team, or is it public-facing?	yes / no
3	Does it require access to production systems or high-privilege tools (admin, payment, auth)?	yes / no
4	Does it involve financial transactions or regulatory compliance?	yes / no
5	Does this system make or influence decisions about people — hiring, performance, access, eligibility — or could it reflect or amplify bias in historical data?	yes / no

Tier determination (based on filled checklist):

• All "no" → Tier 1 (Low Risk) — direct deployment, lightweight self-assessment
• Any "yes" on Q1 or Q2 → Tier 2 (Moderate Risk) — security review required before deployment
• "yes" on Q1 + Q2, or any "yes" on Q3 or Q4 → Tier 3 (High Risk) — mandatory formal engineering cycle
• Any "yes" on Q5 → Tier 2 minimum — an ethics review (fairness, bias, and people-impact assessment) is required in addition to any security review. Q5 alone does not trigger Tier 3, but combined with any "yes" on Q3 or Q4 it does.
• SME explicitly says the idea isn't viable → Throwaway / Fail Fast

Record the tier in the handoff package under a ## Risk Assessment section using this exact format:

## Risk Assessment

**Tier:** [1 / 2 / 3 / Throwaway]
**Checklist answers:**
- PII or sensitive data: [yes/no] — [evidence]
- External users or public-facing: [yes/no] — [evidence]
- High-privilege access: [yes/no] — [evidence]
- Financial or compliance: [yes/no] — [evidence]
- People decisions or bias risk: [yes/no] — [evidence]
**Rationale:** [one sentence from SME]
**Delivery Path:** [exact text: "Direct deployment" / "Security review before deployment" / "Ethics + security review before deployment" / "Formal engineering cycle (Opportunity 4)" / "Session closed — learning preserved"]

If any TierGate answer is missing or vague: insert [NEEDS HUMAN INPUT] in that row and do NOT finalize the handoff until resolved.

If the SME selects Throwaway: Skip synthesis (Stages 2–4). Instead, write a brief exploration/handoffs/handoff-package.md documenting: what was explored, what was learned, and why the idea was killed. This is the "fail fast and cheap" outcome — preserve the learning.

For Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects, note in the handoff package that a deeper risk and harm assessment may be required by the organization's security team. Reference: AI-Security-and-Safety-Lab/Mitigations/enterprise-governance-and-education/risk-and-harm-assessment/ for the full enterprise assessment workflow (taxonomy mapping, control selection, sign-off). The inline assessment here is a lightweight first pass — it determines the delivery path, not the full security posture.

For Q5 "yes" (people decisions or bias risk): Add a specific note to the handoff:

"This system makes or influences decisions about people. Before deployment, an ethics review is required in addition to any security review — specifically covering fairness, potential for bias in historical data, unintended use cases, and applicable legal constraints (e.g., labor law, anti-discrimination regulations). A security review alone is not sufficient."

Tier 3 hard stop: If Tier 3 is determined, do not finalize or write the handoff package silently. Follow the Tier 3 Hard Stop protocol in agents/handoff-preparer-agent.md — generate a tier3-risk-summary.md first, then include it as the opening section of the handoff package.

Stage 2: Synthesis and Iterative Refinement

Your job is to extract the signal relevant to the target audience — not to copy-paste source documents.

Signal = confirmed decisions, hard constraints, and questions that block the next phase. Noise = background context, rationale already obvious to the audience, and anything marked [UNCONFIRMED] in source documents.

1. Outline First: Propose a numbered list of items that must be communicated to this specific audience. For each item, state whether it is a confirmed decision, a constraint, or an open question. Ask the user: "Does this outline reflect what we confirmed? Anything missing or wrong?"
2. Curate: Apply changes. If the user promotes an [UNCONFIRMED] item, ask them to confirm it first before including it as fact.
3. Draft section by section: For each section, write a concise draft (3–6 sentences or a short list). Cite the source artifact for any major claim (e.g., "per session brief"). Ask: "Accurate? Anything to add or cut?" Apply edits before moving on.

Stage 3: Reader Testing (Consumer Validation)

Ensure the handoff gives the downstream consumer what they need to act:

1. Predict blockers: Based on the target audience type, predict exactly 3 questions they will ask after reading this document that are NOT answered by it. Use audience-specific framing:

   • Engineering (AI harness): spec questions ("What are the exact acceptance criteria for story X?", "What's the data model?")
   • Engineering (traditional SDLC): scoping questions ("How many story points is this?", "What are the external dependencies?", "Who is the product owner?")
   • Executive/sponsor: decision questions ("What's the fallback if this fails?", "What does it cost to build vs. not build?")
   • Operations/process team: ownership questions ("Who owns step 3?", "What's the escalation path?", "What training is needed?")
   • Architecture/platform team: technical questions ("What integrations must survive?", "What's the data migration path?")
   • Security team: risk questions ("What data is stored and where?", "Who has admin access?")
   • Product/design: scope questions ("What's explicitly out of scope?", "Which user type is primary?")

2. Surface gaps: Present the 3 questions: "If [audience] reads this, they'll immediately ask: [Q1], [Q2], [Q3]. Are these answered?"

3. Resolve: For each unanswered question, ask whether to (a) answer it inline, (b) add it to ## Unresolved Ambiguity for the execution phase to own, or (c) confirm it's intentionally out of scope.

Stage 4: Delivery Path Formatting

The formatting depends on both the Risk Tier from Stage 1.5 and the session type from the dashboard. Check both before formatting.

---

Step 4a — Detect the output type:

Read **Session Type:** from the dashboard (or infer from the artifacts). Apply the matching format:

Session type	Output format
Greenfield / Brownfield — feature / Website	Software handoff (see Tier-based formats below)
Brownfield — legacy analysis	Legacy analysis format (see below)
Analysis — process	Process change recommendation format (see below)
Analysis — strategic	Strategic recommendation format (see below)
Analysis — risk/compliance	Risk and compliance format (see below)
Spike	Summary of findings + decision recommendation

---

Tier 1 (Low Risk — Direct Deployment): Format as a lightweight deployment brief:

• What was built and what it does
• How to deploy or run it
• What to watch for in the first week
• Self-assessment checklist the BAE can complete independently

---

Tier 2 (Moderate Risk — Security Review): Format with a security-review-ready section:

• Data flows and what data is touched
• Access patterns and authentication/authorisation requirements
• Known risks and mitigations already in place
• Red team checklist: questions the security team will ask The primary consumer is the security team, not an engineering team.

---

Tier 3 (High Risk — Formal Engineering SDLC): This package goes to a development team. It must be complete enough for them to scope and begin a formal engineering project without needing to re-interview the SME.

Ask the user if they use a specific engineering harness:

1. Spec-Kitty / Superpowers → format for the AI engineering harness (spec.md, plan.md structure)
2. External / traditional dev team → use the SDLC package format below

Tier 3 — SDLC package (for an external or traditional dev team):

Produce a single handoff document containing all of the following sections. Mark any section that could not be filled from session artifacts as [NEEDS HUMAN INPUT]:

## 1. Executive Summary
[2-3 sentence problem statement and proposed solution — written for a PM or tech lead]

## 2. Business Context
[Why this matters, who asked for it, what happens if it isn't built]

## 3. User Stories
[Full story set from exploration — As a / I want / So that format with acceptance criteria]

## 4. Business Rules
[Numbered list of rules the system must enforce — sourced from BRD]

## 5. Process Flows
[Key workflows the system supports — reference workflow-diagram.md if it exists]

## 6. Functional Requirements
[Numbered list — what the system must do]

## 7. Non-Functional Requirements
[Performance, accessibility, security, compliance requirements]

## 8. Constraints
[Hard limits — technology choices already made, integrations required, data residency, etc.]

## 9. Prototype Notes
[What the SME validated, surprises found, corrections made — from prototype-notes.md]

## 10. Risk Assessment
[The completed TierGate checklist and rationale — verbatim from Stage 1.5]

## 11. Open Questions / Unresolved Ambiguity
[Decisions the engineering team must make before they can begin — consolidated from all captures]

## 12. Out of Scope
[Explicitly what this project does NOT cover]

After producing the package, ask the SME:

"Is there an AI engineering harness your team uses — like Spec-Kitty or Superpowers? If so, I can reformat this into the structure it expects."

---

Legacy Analysis Handoff (Brownfield — legacy analysis): The consumer is an architecture or engineering team planning modernisation. Format as:

## 1. System Overview
[What the system does, how old it is, what technology it runs on]

## 2. Current Capabilities
[What the system does well and must be preserved in any replacement]

## 3. Known Pain Points
[What it does poorly, what causes the most friction]

## 4. Integration Map
[What other systems it connects to and how]

## 5. Data and Storage
[What data it holds, estimated volume, sensitivity]

## 6. Modernisation Options Considered
[What approaches were discussed — rewrite, replatform, re-host, retire, replace]

## 7. Recommended Path
[The SME-approved recommendation — with rationale]

## 8. Open Questions for Architecture
[Decisions the engineering team needs to make before planning begins]

## 9. Risk Assessment
[From TierGate — verbatim]

---

Process Change Recommendation (Analysis — process): The consumer is the team or person responsible for changing the process. Format as:

## 1. Problem Summary
[What's broken, for whom, and what it costs them]

## 2. Root Cause
[From the Intervention Check — what's actually causing the problem]

## 3. Recommendation
[The specific change proposed — plain language, actionable]

## 4. How to Implement
[Step-by-step or role-by-role — who does what differently starting when]

## 5. What Success Looks Like
[How you'll know the change worked — measurable if possible]

## 6. Risks and Considerations
[What could go wrong, what resistance to expect, dependencies]

## 7. Related Software Needs (if any)
[If a technology component is also needed, describe it here — separate from the process change]

---

Strategic Recommendation (Analysis — strategic): The consumer is a decision maker or leadership team. Format as:

## 1. The Question
[The decision or strategic question that was explored]

## 2. Context
[Why this matters now, what triggered the exploration]

## 3. What We Know
[Confirmed facts and evidence from the session]

## 4. What We Don't Know
[Unresolved uncertainties that may affect the decision]

## 5. Options Considered
[The alternatives that were weighed]

## 6. Recommendation
[The preferred path — with rationale]

## 7. Next Steps
[Concrete actions, owners, and timing]

## 8. Open Questions
[What leadership or stakeholders need to decide]

---

Throwaway (Fail Fast): Already handled in Stage 1.5 — no further formatting needed.

Gotchas

• TierGate Q5 (bias/people decisions) does not trigger Tier 3 alone: Q5 "yes" → Tier 2 minimum, plus ethics review. Only combined with Q3 or Q4 "yes" does it escalate to Tier 3. Agents sometimes over-escalate Q5-only cases.
• Stage 0 runs twice if child skills also run it: business-requirements-capture and user-story-capture are invoked in Stage 0 but they also have their own session-type detection. Pass the session type explicitly in the invocation instruction to avoid double-questioning.
• Reader Testing question 3 is often skipped: Stage 3 says predict 3 questions — in practice agents predict 1–2 and move on. Enforce all 3 before asking the SME if they're answered.
• Throwaway path skips Anti-Hallucination Rules: When the SME selects Throwaway in Stage 1.5, the skill jumps to write a brief handoff. This brief still must not invent content — apply Anti-Hallucination Rules even for the throwaway path.
• Return to orchestrator after standalone use: If the dashboard does NOT exist (standalone use), the skill must not attempt to invoke exploration-workflow. Check for the dashboard before emitting the return signal.

Anti-Hallucination Rules

• Do NOT invent requirements or rules that were not present in the Stage 1 input sources.
• Maintain traceability: When stating a major constraint or rule, briefly mention which exploration source it came from.
• Be explicitly clear about what is a confirmed decision versus what is an optimistic assumption.

Final Output Destination

Write the approved markdown content to: exploration/handoffs/handoff-package.md (or a timestamped equivalent).

Completion — Return to Orchestrator

Once the handoff package is approved and written to exploration/handoffs/handoff-package.md:

1. Announce: "Your handoff package is complete — Phase 4 is done."

Output this machine-readable block so the orchestrator can parse phase completion:

## HANDOFF_BLOCK
PHASE: 4
STATUS: COMPLETE
OUTPUT: exploration/handoffs/handoff-package.md
RISK_TIER: [1 / 2 / 3 / Throwaway]
DELIVERY_PATH: [Direct deployment / Security review before deployment / Ethics + security review before deployment / Formal engineering cycle (Opportunity 4) / Session closed — learning preserved]
CONSOLIDATED_GAPS: [count of [NEEDS HUMAN INPUT] markers in handoff]

2. If operating within an active Exploration Session (i.e., exploration/exploration-dashboard.md exists and **Status:** is not Complete):
   1. Say to the user:

      "Returning to your session dashboard now."

   2. Return to the orchestrator. Use the Skill tool: skill: "exploration-workflow". After invoking it, stop generating output from this skill. If the Skill tool is not available in your harness, tell the user: "Please run /exploration-workflow to continue your session."

If operating standalone (no dashboard file, or **Status:** Complete), the skill is complete.