Use when the user has a clear-enough task and wants it decomposed into batched worker sub-tasks before any code is written. Writes a task file under .hyperflow/tasks/ and auto-chains into /hyperflow:dispatch.
Trigger with /hyperflow:scope, "plan this", "decompose this task", "break this down", "write the task file".
Use when the user has a clear-enough task and wants it decomposed into batched worker sub-tasks before any code is written. Writes a task file under .hyperflow/tasks/ and auto-chains into /hyperflow:dispatch.
Trigger with /hyperflow:scope, "plan this", "decompose this task", "break this down", "write the task file".
Decompose, don't build. Read-only with respect to source code. The only writes are to .hyperflow/tasks/, .hyperflow/memory/, and .hyperflow/specs/. When the task file is ready, hand off to dispatch (auto or with a gate, depending on chain mode).
This skill exercises Layer 0 (Project Analysis) for context, Layer 6 (Project Memory) for past-learning surfacing, and Layer 7 (Task Templates) for decomposition patterns. It also inherits the triage classification from /hyperflow:spec to size each batch correctly.
Iron Rules
Failure recovery (rule 14). Worker errors, malformed output, NEEDS_REVISION, and Reviewer errors follow the canonical policy in skills/hyperflow/failure-recovery.md. Retry → escalate → abort. Chain budget: 3 cumulative aborts.
Per-Step Agent Map (DOCTRINE rule 12 + 12.2)
Every substantive step dispatches at least one Agent per DOCTRINE rule 12. Trivial steps per §12.1 may be performed inline by the orchestrator. Non-trivial Steps decompose into ≥ 2 named sub-phases per DOCTRINE rule 12.2.
Step
Sub-phase
Worker tier
Thinking tier
Notes
0 — Chain mode
— (atomic)
—
—
AskUserQuestion only; 12.2.8-exempt
0.4 — Triage (Classifier + Reviewer)
— (atomic)
Classifier (Sonnet) [if not inherited]
Triage Reviewer (Sonnet) [if not inherited + P4 conditions not met]
Skipped entirely when chained from spec (spec's validated triage is canonical); on direct invocation, dispatches its own Classifier then Triage Reviewer; skips Triage Reviewer on P4 conditions; 12.2.8-exempt
Single Worker → Reviewer with no independent angles; 12.2.8-exempt
7 — Hand off
— (atomic)
—
—
Skill tool invocation; §12.1-exempt
Latency flags:--thorough disables P1 in Step 4 only (sequential Writer-internal section drafts instead of parallel). Step 2 sub-phases (also P1) are NOT affected — they stay parallel under all flag configurations because they are independent reads with no quality tradeoff. P3 (Steps 4 + 6 concurrent) is always on. See ../spec/references/latency-patterns.md for pattern definitions.
This is a structural gate per DOCTRINE rule 8. It MUST fire every time the skill is invoked directly. "No clarifying questions" / "auto-pilot" / "always-on" / any other autonomy directive does NOT skip it. Defaulting to auto without asking is a doctrine violation.
Latency arg:--thorough (or depth=max) disables P1 in Step 4 only (sequential Writer-internal section drafts instead of parallel). The Step 2 parallel Searchers are NOT affected — they stay parallel under all flag configurations because they are independent reads with no quality tradeoff. P3 (Step 4 + Step 6 concurrent dispatch) stays on always. If the user passes --thorough, note it and apply to Step 4 dispatch only.
If invoked with a chain-mode=<auto|manual> arg (from /hyperflow:spec or a prior skill), skip this step — the previous chain-starter already asked.
Otherwise, before research, ask via AskUserQuestion. Per DOCTRINE rule 8, the recommended option goes first with (Recommended):
How should I advance through the chain after this phase?
Auto (Recommended) — chain forward through scope → dispatch with no gate.
Fewer interruptions, faster end-to-end.
Manual — pause between phases and ask before advancing.
More control, more confirmations.
Wait for the user's answer. Do not proceed without it. Save the chosen mode and propagate via args: "chain-mode=<mode>" when invoking dispatch.
If the agent cannot present AskUserQuestion as a popup, use the Codex fallback: print the same gate as a Hyperflow Question chat block with numbered options, then stop and wait for the user's answer. If no interactive channel is available at all, print an error and stop — never silently default.
Atomic-exempt: no parallel probe dimension exists. Two distinct paths depending on whether scope is chained from spec or invoked directly.
Path A — chained from /hyperflow:spec: spec already ran its own Classifier and Triage Reviewer and passed the validated triage JSON via chain args. Scope skips this step entirely — re-classifying a triage that spec already vetted is redundant and wasteful. Print:
Path B — invoked directly (no inherited triage in chain args): scope dispatches its own Classifier first, then (unless P4 conditions apply) validates it with the Triage Reviewer.
Dispatch Classifier — triaging request (Sonnet). The Classifier produces { types[], complexity, risk, scope, ambiguity, flow, personas[] } JSON mirroring spec Step 1's Classifier output. Persist and propagate forward via chain args as triage=<base64-json>.
P4 skip (DOCTRINE §13.P4): if ALL of the following hold — triage.complexity == low, triage.ambiguity < 0.2, triage.scope ∈ {0-file, 1-file}, triage.risk != high — skip the Triage Reviewer entirely and consume the Classifier output as-is. Print:
Then proceed to Step 0.5. The mis-classification cost at this confidence tier is bounded by the small-task token budget and falls below the ~2k token Reviewer cost.
If any P4 condition fails, dispatch the Triage Reviewer. The Reviewer validates the triage classification (inherited via chain args on Path A, or produced by the Classifier in step 1 on Path B) against:
The user's original request — does the classification reflect what they actually asked for?
.hyperflow/profile.md — does the classification match the codebase's tech stack, risk level, and known complexity patterns?
**Triage Reviewer** — validating classification against request and project profile
Verdict ∈ {PASS, RECLASSIFY, ESCALATE}:
PASS — consume triage as-is; proceed to Step 0.5.
RECLASSIFY — Reviewer returns a corrected classification with reasoning. Orchestrator uses the corrected version and prints one line: Triage reclassified: complexity high → medium · personas added: [security]. Then proceeds to Step 0.5 with the corrected triage.
ESCALATE — Reviewer cannot determine the correct classification; the ambiguity surfaces as a clarification question at Step 2.5 (post-research, per DOCTRINE rule 8 post-analysis clarification clause). Proceed to Step 0.5 with the original triage as a provisional fallback — mark it provisional=true so Step 3 Planner knows to treat complexity sizing conservatively.
Cost (Path B, non-P4): ~2k tokens for Classifier + ~2k for Triage Reviewer. Catches mis-classifications that would otherwise cascade into the wrong flow profile, wrong personas, and a botched batch graph — silently.
Step 0.5 — Operational Choices (auto-mode only · STRUCTURAL GATE · fires immediately after Step 0)
When the user picks Auto at Step 0 AND operational args (commit=, branch=, push=) were NOT already propagated from a prior chain-starter, fire ONE AskUserQuestion call with 3 questions covering every operational decision the chain needs. After this batch, the chain runs silently until the end-of-chain audit + deploy gates — the user is interrupted exactly twice at startup (chain-mode in Step 0, ops in Step 0.5) and then not again until done.
Skip this step when:
chain-mode=manual — manual users review every phase, so operational choices defer to per-phase gates
Operational args already propagated (commit=…, branch=…, push=… in chain args) — re-asking is an invented-gate violation per DOCTRINE rule 8
The 3-question batch:
Commit cadence?
Per-task (Recommended) — one commit per sub-task; cleanest bisectable history
Per-batch — one commit per batch; tidier branch graph, less granular
Per-task (deferred) — queue per-task commits on hyperflow/staging-<id> during chain;
flush all onto user's branch at end (atomic cumulative reveal;
crash-safe via manifest at .hyperflow/commits-queue/)
Single — one commit at end of chain; smallest log footprint
None — leave dirty working tree; you'll commit manually
Branch behaviour?
Create feat/<slug> (Recommended on main/master) — new feature branch
Stay on <current> — direct commits on the current branch
Push at end?
Ask at deploy gate (Recommended) — standard push confirmation after release.sh
Auto-push — push branch + tag without asking at end
Never — always hold local; user pushes manually
Recommended defaults adapt:
Commit: Per-task unless triage shows complexity=low AND sub-tasks<=2 (then Single is recommended)
Branch: Create if currently on main or master; Stay otherwise (already on a feature branch)
Push: Ask at deploy gate always — bumping to auto-push without explicit user consent violates DOCTRINE rule 8
Save chosen values and propagate via chain args: commit=<per-task|per-batch|per-task-deferred|single|none> branch=<new|current> push=<ask|auto|never>. Dispatch (Step 2) reads commit + branch; deploy (Step 6) reads push.
On Per-task (deferred): dispatch routes through scripts/queue-commit.sh after each sub-task PASS instead of git commit directly. Commits land on a private hyperflow/staging-<chain-id> branch with hooks enabled (no --no-verify, ever — per DOCTRINE rule 9) and original per-task file scope + messages preserved. At Step 4 wrap-up, scripts/flush-commits.sh fast-forward-merges staging onto the user's working branch — every queued commit lands in order with original SHAs preserved. Same N commits as Per-task immediate, just atomic at the end. Crash recovery: /hyperflow:flush re-runs the same flush against the persisted .hyperflow/commits-queue/manifest.json.
Step 1 — Route
Pure routing decision — no clarification questions here. Clarification fires at Step 2.5, AFTER research has analyzed the requirement against the codebase.
Pure design question (the user is asking should we? not how do we?) → suggest /hyperflow:spec instead and stop
Anything else → proceed to Step 2 (research first, then ask only about what research couldn't resolve)
Step 2 — Research (3 parallel sub-phases · P1)
All three sub-phases (2a, 2b, 2c) dispatch in a single message — they share the same upstream task description and have no inter-dependency. Sub-phase Reviewers are Sonnet. Read .hyperflow/profile.md, architecture.md, conventions.md, and .hyperflow/memory/index.md before dispatching to surface relevant past learnings. Step 2 output = union of sub-phase worker outputs + 3 sub-phase Reviewer verdicts, handed to Step 3.
Step 2a — Surface mapping
Dispatch in parallel (no dependency):
Searcher — glob discovery: enumerate all files touched by the task description
Searcher — import-graph traversal: trace dependency edges from entry points
Then dispatch **Reviewer** — verifying surface-mapping coverage over both Searcher outputs. If gaps remain, redispatch a Searcher targeting the gap.
Step 2b — Semantic indexing
Dispatch in parallel (no dependency on 2a):
Searcher — type-system probe: enumerate interfaces, types, and schemas relevant to the change
Then dispatch **Reviewer** — verifying semantic coverage over both Searcher outputs.
Step 2c — Convention scan
Single-angle justified: lint config and test pattern files have no independent probe dimension — both are read from fixed config paths. Single Worker per DOCTRINE 12.2.3 exception.
Searcher — test patterns and lint config: read test file naming, runner config, lint rules
Then dispatch **Reviewer** — verifying convention capture over the Searcher output.
P1 rationale: sub-phases 2a, 2b, 2c are independent siblings — no output feeds another. Firing all three in one message cuts wall-clock to the slowest sub-phase. See ../spec/references/latency-patterns.md §P1.
Note: --thorough does NOT affect Step 2. Sub-phases 2a/2b/2c stay parallel under all flag configurations because they are independent reads with no quality tradeoff. --thorough only disables P1 internal parallelism in Step 4.
Step 2.5 — Clarify (post-analysis · max 3)
Only the ambiguities that Step 2 research did NOT resolve become questions. Per DOCTRINE rule 8 (post-analysis clarification clause), clarification stages fire AFTER the orchestrator has read the relevant code and analyzed the requirement — never before.
If research fully grounded every assumption → skip this step entirely. No question for question's sake.
If ≥1 ambiguity remains (target file unclear, two equally plausible interfaces, a config the codebase doesn't reveal a precedent for) → fire AskUserQuestion, max 3 questions, each tied to a specific finding the Searchers surfaced.
Frame every question by citing what research found: "Searcher mapped both src/auth/middleware.ts and src/api/auth/route.ts — which is the intended target for the new guard?" — never "where should the new guard go?" in the abstract.
The 2-question floor from /hyperflow:spec does NOT apply to scope. Scope asks zero questions when research is conclusive; it asks 1-3 when genuine post-analysis ambiguity remains.
Step 2.6 — Operational Choices (MOVED to Step 0.5)
This step has been moved to Step 0.5 (immediately after Step 0 chain-mode) so operational decisions are batched with the only other startup question — the user is interrupted once at chain start, then the chain runs silently. Step 2.6 is preserved as a NUMBER for backward-reference only; it intentionally does nothing.
If propagation from a prior chain-starter failed and operational args are missing at this point in scope, fall through to Step 3 with default values (commit=per-task branch=new push=ask) rather than firing an invented mid-chain gate. The orchestrator MUST NOT fire AskUserQuestion here — Step 0.5 is the only correct location for this question batch.
Sub-phase 3a fires first — 3b and 3c depend on its output and then run concurrently. Step 3 output = union of sub-phase outputs + 3 sub-phase Reviewer verdicts, handed to Steps 4 and 6.
Single-angle justified: the batch graph is a canonical synthesis from research outputs — no independent angle exists to fan out across. Single Worker per DOCTRINE 12.2.3 exception.
Dispatch **Planner** — producing batch graph with the Step 2 aggregate (surface mapping + semantic index + conventions), triage classification, and applicable templates from task-templates.md (CRUD Feature, API Endpoint, UI Component, Database Migration, Refactor, Bug Fix — else bespoke).
After the Planner emits the batch graph, dispatch **Reviewer** — validating decomposition completeness and batch boundaries over the Planner's output. Reviewer checks: every research finding maps to at least one sub-task; no sub-task spans > 1 subsystem boundary without a split; batch ordering is topologically sound. Verdict ∈ {PASS, NEEDS_REVISION, ESCALATE}. On NEEDS_REVISION, redispatch the Planner with Reviewer feedback targeting the specific gaps (not the whole batch graph).
The Planner produces, for each sub-task:
Worker role — Implementer / Searcher / Writer
Files to read / modify / create
Dependencies — parallel vs sequential
Complexity estimate (drives review level cap downstream)
Oversize-split mandate (DOCTRINE Layer 3 · Thinking Lead — Planner). Before finalising the batch graph, the Planner runs a split checklist on every candidate sub-task. Any sub-task that triggers ANY of these signals MUST be split into 2+ smaller sub-tasks (each at complexity = low | medium):
one sub-task spans data-model + business-logic + UI + tests
Reviewability
a human reviewing the resulting commit would need > 10 minutes to grasp it
Split target: each resulting sub-task is (a) reviewable in under 10 minutes of human time, (b) fits comfortably in a single Worker prompt + reasonable response, (c) has a single coherent purpose nameable in one conventional-commit subject line. The Planner never keeps complexity = high after the checklist — high-complexity work is decomposed until every piece is low/medium.
Splitting is a cost optimisation, not just a quality one: three small sub-tasks dispatched to three Sonnet Workers in parallel cost less wall-clock AND less total tokens than one Worker chewing through an oversized brief (parallelism + focused prompts + fewer retries).
Step 3b — Complexity sizing (parallel with 3c · depends on 3a)
Dispatch in parallel:
Searcher — LOC estimation: estimate change volume per sub-task against the batch graph
Searcher — subsystem cross-cut check: verify each sub-task does not span > 1 subsystem boundary
Then dispatch **Reviewer** — validating complexity sizing over both Searcher outputs. If any sub-task exceeds oversize thresholds and was not already split in 3a, Reviewer returns NEEDS_REVISION and 3b re-dispatches targeting the gap (not the whole Step 3).
Step 3c — Acceptance criteria (parallel with 3b · depends on 3a)
Dispatch in parallel:
Writer — per-sub-task acceptance criteria: one concrete verifiable condition per sub-task
Writer — verification hooks: map each criterion to a test file path or smoke step
Then dispatch **Reviewer** — verifying acceptance criteria completeness over both Writer outputs. NEEDS_REVISION re-dispatches 3c only.
P3 — concurrent dispatch: Step 4 (task file) and Step 6 (memory) are independent after Step 3 completes. Dispatch both in the same message immediately after Step 3 returns. Wait for both before advancing to Step 5.
Mode resolution (one-time per chain). Before dispatching, run python3 $PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts/resolve-mode.py $PROJECT_ROOT --from-args "$CHAIN_ARGS" and propagate the result via chain args (mode=<default|lean|thorough>) to downstream skills. When mode=lean, Writers render the artefact-format minimum template for small tasks (triage.complexity == low AND projected sub-tasks ≤ 5) — status table + Goal + per-task lines + cost table only. The full rich template auto-restores when the task graduates past 5 sub-tasks or any sub-task has complexity != low. Persona stitching, memory injection, reviewer model + template, clarification gates, and security blocklist remain unchanged regardless of mode.
Sub-phase 4a fires first to anchor section numbering and the status block. Sub-phases 4b and 4c are independent of each other and run concurrently after 4a. A final per-Step Reviewer verifies the assembled task file vs the full design after all sub-phases complete.
Step 4a — Status + Goal + Why (sequential first)
Dispatch in parallel:
Writer — status block: emit Status table, branch, commit cadence
Writer — goal and why: draft the Goal one-liner and Why paragraph
Then dispatch **Reviewer** — verifying status/goal/why section over both Writers. These anchoring sections must land before 4b/4c can reference them.
Step 4b — Scope + Affected files (parallel with 4c · depends on 4a)
Writer — affected-file listing: Created / Modified / Skipped with one-line purpose per path
Then dispatch **Reviewer** — verifying scope coverage against Step 2 surface map over both Writers. NEEDS_REVISION re-dispatches 4b only.
Step 4c — Execution plan + Batches + Verification (parallel with 4b · depends on 4a)
Disable with --thorough (Writers draft sections in sequential passes instead of parallel).
Dispatch in parallel:
Writer — execution plan and batches: ASCII batch graph + per-batch task checklist with role, files, complexity
Writer — open questions and verification plan: any unresolved items + concrete smoke/test steps
Then dispatch **Reviewer** — verifying execution plan matches Step 3 batch graph over both Writers. NEEDS_REVISION re-dispatches 4c only.
Step 4 final verify. After all sub-phases complete, dispatch **Reviewer** — verifying assembled task file vs design to confirm every design requirement maps to at least one sub-task and no orphan sub-tasks exist. Writers write to .hyperflow/tasks/<task-slug>.md using the template below.
Task-file template — follows artefact-format.md. The Writer applies the full template by default; reduces to the fast variant only when triage classifies complexity=low AND sub-tasks<=2.
# <Name>
## Status
| Field | Value |
|------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Status | pending |
| Progress | `░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░` 0 / <total> sub-tasks (0%) |
| Branch | `<feat/slug or current branch>` |
| Commits | 0 since main · per-task cadence |
| Wall-clock | not started |
| Tokens | thinking 0k · worker 0k · total 0k |
## Goal
<one-line plain-English statement of what shipping this changes>
## Why
<one paragraph: what the user / system sees after this lands; the
single most important constraint the design honors>
## Scope at a glance
| Surface | Files | Created | Modified | Risk |
|---------------|------:|--------:|---------:|--------|
| <surface> | N | N | N | low |
| **Total** | **N**| **N**| **N**| |
## Affected files
**Created (N)**
- `<path>` — <one-line purpose>
**Modified (N)**
- `<path>` — <one-line change>
**Skipped (confirmed N)** *(omit section if N=0)*
- `<path>` — <reason it's not touched>
## Execution plan
Batch 1 — ( parallel)
T1 · T2 · T3 · T4
↓
Batch 2 — ( parallel · depends on Batch 1)
T5 · T6 · T7
↓
Batch 3 — ( sequential)
T8
↓
Batch N — Final integration review (1 sequential)
T
## Batches
### Batch 1 — <theme> (<parallel|sequential>)
- [ ] T1 — <Role> · <one-line task>
Read: `<file>` · Modify: `<file>` · Complexity: <low|medium|high>
- [ ] T2 — <Role> · <one-line task>
Create: `<file>` · Complexity: <low|medium|high>
### Batch 2 — <theme> (depends on Batch 1)
...
## Open questions
None. *(or numbered list if any remain)*
## Verification plan
1. <concrete test or smoke step>
2. <concrete test or smoke step>
## Estimated cost
| Tier | Agents | Tokens |
|-----------|-------:|---------:|
| Thinking | N | ~Nk |
| Worker | N | ~Nk |
| **Total** | **N** | **~Nk** |
The Status block is updated by dispatch after every sub-task PASS — see dispatch/SKILL.md Step 2. Progress bar uses 20 cells: █ for completed, ░ for pending; percentage rounded to whole number. Wall-clock starts on first worker dispatch; ETA computes once ≥ 3 sub-tasks are done (linear extrapolation from completed mean).
Step 5 — Output
Print the task file path and batch summary table:
Plan ready — .hyperflow/tasks/<slug>.md (3 batches, 7 sub-tasks)
Step 6 — Memory (P3 concurrent with Step 4)
Agents — Writer (Sonnet) ⇒ Reviewer (Opus).
P3 — concurrent dispatch: this step fires in parallel with Step 4 (see Step 4 above). Both Writers receive the Planner's output and are independent — the memory Writer does not need the task file to be written, and the task file Writer does not need memory to be updated. Both must complete before Step 5 output.
Dispatch Writer — appending decisions to .hyperflow/memory/decisions.md (in parallel with Step 4 Writer — P3). Skip trivial ones. For complex features (3+ files, multiple subsystems) the Writer also produces .hyperflow/specs/<feature-slug>.md referenced from the task file.
Dispatch **Reviewer** — checking memory entries to catch duplicates or contradictions with existing entries before they land in .hyperflow/memory/.
P3 rationale: the task file and memory entries both derive from the Planner's batch graph but do not depend on each other. Running them concurrently cuts one sequential Writer round-trip from the flow. See ../spec/references/latency-patterns.md §P3.
This step is trivial-inline per §12.1: one Skill tool invocation, no generation, no review needed. The orchestrator invokes the dispatch skill directly without an Agent dispatch wrapper.
If chain-mode=auto — immediately invoke Skill with skill: dispatch and args: "chain-mode=auto <task-slug>". Print:
Auto-chaining to /hyperflow:dispatch…
If chain-mode=manual — ask via AskUserQuestion: "Plan done. Continue to /hyperflow:dispatch?" → yes / no / stop. On yes, invoke Skill with skill: dispatch and args: "chain-mode=manual <task-slug>".
Anti-patterns
Writing implementation code
Modifying source files outside .hyperflow/ and .hyperflow/specs/
Skipping the research step
Single-batch plans for multi-file work
Omitting the verification plan
Pausing for "should I execute?" when chain-mode=auto — that was already answered at Step 0
Asking the chain-mode question again when a chain-mode=<…> arg was passed in
Overview
/hyperflow:scope decomposes a clear-enough task into a batched worker plan and writes it to .hyperflow/tasks/<slug>.md. Parallel Sonnet searchers map the affected surface, an Opus Planner produces the batch graph, and a Sonnet Writer emits the task file. Read-only with respect to source code — only .hyperflow/tasks/, .hyperflow/memory/, and .hyperflow/specs/ are written. On completion, auto-chains into /hyperflow:dispatch (or asks first if chain-mode=manual).
Prerequisites
A clear-enough description of what to build. If ambiguous, scope will redirect to /hyperflow:spec and stop.
.hyperflow/ cache (recommended — improves planning context). Run /hyperflow:scaffold first if missing.
Optional: prior /hyperflow:spec output passed via chain-mode arg propagates triage classification and recommended flow profile.
Step 3a Opus Planner produces batch graph; Sonnet Reviewer validates decomposition; 3b/3c (complexity sizing, acceptance criteria) in parallel after 3a.
Step 4 sub-phases (4a status/goal/why, then 4b scope/files ∥ 4c execution/verification) emit .hyperflow/tasks/<slug>.md; final Reviewer verifies plan vs design.
Append decisions to .hyperflow/memory/decisions.md (concurrent with Step 4 — P3).
Hand off to /hyperflow:dispatch (auto or via confirmation gate).
Output
Single output line plus the task file path:
Plan ready — .hyperflow/tasks/<slug>.md (N batches, M sub-tasks)
Auto-chaining to /hyperflow:dispatch...
The written task file follows the template in Step 4 — Goal, Context, Affected files, Batches (with [ ] checkboxes), Open questions, Verification plan, Estimated cost, Status block.
Error Handling
Failure
Behavior
Ambiguous request (would need design exploration)
Stop and suggest /hyperflow:spec. Print: This needs design exploration first. Try /hyperflow:spec and exit.
Searcher returns empty (no affected files found)
Reviewer flags missing scope; redispatch with broader query. Max 2 retries.
Planner produces single-batch plan for multi-file work
Reviewer rejects; redispatch Planner with feedback to split into parallel + sequential batches.
Task file write fails (path locked, disk full)
Abort with explicit error; do not auto-chain. User retries after fix.
chain-mode arg malformed
Refuse and re-ask via AskUserQuestion. Never silently default.
AskUserQuestion popup unavailable in Codex
Print the gate as a Hyperflow Question chat block and wait for the user's answer.
/hyperflow:scope add a rate-limit middleware: token bucket, per-IP, env-configurable
? How should I advance through the chain after this phase?
Auto (Recommended) — chain forward through scope → dispatch with no gate.
Manual — pause between phases and ask before advancing.
[user picks Auto]
Step 2a: Searcher — glob discovery · Searcher — import-graph traversal → **Reviewer**
Step 2b: Searcher — type-system probe · Searcher — symbol-graph probe → **Reviewer**
Step 2c: Searcher — test patterns and lint config → **Reviewer**
Step 3a: **Planner** — producing batch graph → **Reviewer** — validating decomposition completeness and batch boundaries
Step 3b: Searcher — LOC estimation · Searcher — subsystem cross-cut check → **Reviewer**
Step 3c: Writer — acceptance criteria · Writer — verification hooks → **Reviewer**
Step 4a: Writer — status block · Writer — goal and why → **Reviewer**
Step 4b: Writer — scope-at-a-glance · Writer — affected-file listing → **Reviewer**
Step 4c: Writer — execution plan and batches · Writer — open questions and verification → **Reviewer**
**Reviewer** — verifying assembled task file vs design
Writer — appending decisions to .hyperflow/memory/decisions.md
**Reviewer** — checking memory entries
Plan ready — .hyperflow/tasks/rate-limit-middleware.md (3 batches, 7 sub-tasks)
Auto-chaining to /hyperflow:dispatch...
Propagated from spec (no chain-mode prompt)
[Invoked from /hyperflow:spec with args: chain-mode=auto triage=<base64>]
Searcher — mapping affected files
...
Plan ready — .hyperflow/tasks/<slug>.md (2 batches, 4 sub-tasks)
Auto-chaining to /hyperflow:dispatch...
Bounce back to spec on ambiguity
/hyperflow:scope should we switch to event sourcing?
This needs design exploration first. Try /hyperflow:spec — it'll ask the
right questions before any decomposition happens.
