| name | due-diligence |
| description | /due-diligence — validate a technology or architecture choice with the due-diligence workflow: codebase map + external research in parallel, antagonist + claim verification, and a cited adopt/build/defer verdict. |
| user_only | true |
| slash | due-diligence |
Due Diligence — evidence before commitment
Drive the due-diligence workflow (plan M2): a codebase-mapper reads what our
code already does about the question while a researcher gathers the external
evidence; an antagonist steelmans the opposing case and a verifier checks the
load-bearing claims; the synthesis is a verdict document that ends in
adopt / build / defer with conditions. You scope the question, run it, and
present the verdict — you do not research inline.
1. Scope the question
A DD run on a vague question wastes six subagent stages. Before running,
sharpen it to the shape "should we <adopt X | build Y | change Z> for
?" —
- If the user named a technology but not the job, ask for the job ("evaluate
Redis" → for what — cache, queue, session store?).
- If alternatives matter, name them in the question ("…vs keeping SQLite").
- Capture scope hints for the mapper in
context: which project (registry
name), which subsystems/dirs the decision touches, any ADR the user knows
is relevant.
One clarifying exchange at most — then run with the best question you have.
2. Run the workflow
run_workflow("due-diligence", {"question": "<sharpened question>", "context": "<scope hints or omit>"})
Five subagent stages (two parallel pairs + synthesis) — tell the user it's
running and that it reads their registered code as part of the evidence.
3. Present the verdict
Lead with the verdict block (adopt / build / defer + rationale +
conditions + revisit trigger) — it is the deliverable; the evidence sections
back it. Keep the antagonist's strongest surviving counterpoint visible even
when the verdict goes the other way. If the verdict is defer, make the
conditions actionable (what to prove, how). Offer the natural follow-ups:
save the document to notes/memory, or — when the verdict implies a decision
worth recording — draft the ADR (the adr-authoring skill has the house
conventions).
