ralph-pipeline-interactive

name	ralph-pipeline-interactive
description	Run the complete Ralphetamine pipeline interactively: PRD creation, multi-perspective Review Party gates, spec generation, premortem review, and run script generation. Pauses for user input at key decision points. Triggers on: /ralph-pipeline-interactive, interactive ralph pipeline, ralph guided pipeline.

Ralphetamine — Interactive Pipeline

Run the complete Ralphetamine pipeline from idea to execution-ready project in one session. Each phase builds on the previous, with user interaction at key decision points.

This orchestrates the entire Ralphetamine workflow interactively. It chains worktree isolation, PRD creation, spec generation, premortem review, and run script generation into a single guided session. For the fully autonomous version, use /ralphetamine:pipeline-full-auto.

Core Directive: Ralph Runtime Compatibility

1. Generate artifacts for ralph run only. Do not generate custom per-story loops that call claude directly.
2. Do not treat model prose as completion. Story completion is determined by Ralph's state/signal flow, not by freeform "done" text.
3. Normalize file paths to the worktree project root. All file paths are relative to the worktree working directory, not the original repo.
4. Queue must be runnable before Phase 5. .ralph/stories.txt must include at least one active N.M | Title entry.

---

Review Party Protocol

Three Review Party gates are embedded in the pipeline — multi-perspective evaluations where 3 specialist voices assess an artifact. The term "party" comes from BMAD's collaborative multi-agent format.

How It Works

Since the pipeline runs in a single Claude conversation, personas are simulated in-prompt — adopt each voice in sequence, then synthesize. Each persona gives 3-5 bullet points + a 1-sentence verdict (~300 words total per gate). This keeps reviews scannable and fast.

Skip Mechanism

Each gate independently asks "Ready for the [Name] Party review, or skip?" before running. The user can skip any individual gate without affecting the others. If skipped, proceed immediately to the next step.

Output Files

Gate reports are persisted to .ralph/reviews/:

• vision-party.md — Gate 1 (pre-PRD)
• requirements-party.md — Gate 2 (post-PRD)
• execution-party.md — Gate 3 (post-specs)

Create the .ralph/reviews/ directory if it doesn't exist.

---

Pipeline Overview

Phase	What Happens	User Input?
0. Worktree	Create an isolated git worktree for the feature	Yes — confirm feature slug
1. PRD	Get feature description + clarifying questions	Yes — clarifying questions
1b. Vision Party	Multi-perspective idea evaluation (Review Gate 1)	Yes — review findings
1c. Generate PRD	Generate the PRD from validated idea	No
1d. Requirements Party	Multi-perspective PRD evaluation (Review Gate 2)	Yes — review findings
2. Commit PRD	Commit the PRD to git	No
3. Specs	Convert PRD into epics, stories, batch queue	Yes — confirm breakdown
4. Commit Specs	Commit specs and stories.txt to git	No
5. Execution Coherence Party	Multi-perspective spec evaluation (Review Gate 3)	Yes — review findings
6. Premortem	Analyze plan for failure modes, fix issues	Yes — review findings
7. Commit Fixes	Commit all review fixes to git	No
8. Run Script	Generate run-ralph.sh for autonomous execution	No

Important: Complete each phase fully before moving to the next. Announce each phase transition clearly so the user knows where they are in the pipeline.

---

Phase 0: Worktree Setup

Create an isolated git worktree so all feature work happens on a dedicated branch, keeping the main branch clean.

Step 0.1: Derive Feature Slug

After getting the feature description (from the user's initial message or by asking), derive a kebab-case slug. For example:

• "Add user authentication" → user-authentication
• "Budget tracking dashboard" → budget-tracking-dashboard

Show the user the proposed slug and branch name:

Feature branch: ralph/feature-<slug>
Worktree path:  .ralph/worktrees/feature-<slug>

WAIT for the user to confirm or provide a different slug.

Step 0.2: Create the Worktree

Run the following steps using the Bash tool:

1. Clean stale state:

   rm -f .git/index.lock .git/HEAD.lock 2>/dev/null || true
   git worktree prune 2>/dev/null || true
   

2. Create the worktree:

   git worktree add .ralph/worktrees/feature-<slug> -b ralph/feature-<slug>
   

   If the branch or worktree already exists (from a previous run), clean up and retry:

   git worktree unlock .ralph/worktrees/feature-<slug> 2>/dev/null || true
   git worktree remove .ralph/worktrees/feature-<slug> --force 2>/dev/null || true
   rm -rf .ralph/worktrees/feature-<slug> 2>/dev/null || true
   git worktree prune 2>/dev/null || true
   git branch -D ralph/feature-<slug> 2>/dev/null || true
   git worktree add .ralph/worktrees/feature-<slug> -b ralph/feature-<slug>
   

3. Resolve the absolute worktree path and store it for all subsequent phases:

   WORKTREE_DIR="$(cd .ralph/worktrees/feature-<slug> && pwd)"
   

Step 0.3: Set Working Context

All subsequent phases (1-8) operate inside the worktree directory. When using the Bash tool, prefix commands with cd "$WORKTREE_DIR" && or use absolute paths within the worktree. When using Read/Write/Edit tools, use the absolute worktree path.

Create the .ralph/ directory and initialize ralph init inside the worktree if .ralph/config.json does not already exist:

cd "$WORKTREE_DIR" && ralph init

If the user's project has a CLAUDE.md or other config files in the repo root, they are already available in the worktree (it shares the same git content).

Announce: "Phase 0 complete — Worktree created at .ralph/worktrees/feature-<slug> on branch ralph/feature-<slug>. All work will happen in this isolated environment. Moving to Phase 1: PRD Creation."

---

Phase 1: PRD Creation

Generate a Product Requirements Document interactively.

Step 1.1: Get the Feature Description

Ask the user: "What feature or project do you want to build?"

If the user has already described the feature, proceed directly to clarifying questions.

Step 1.2: Ask Clarifying Questions

Ask 3-5 essential clarifying questions with lettered options. Focus on:

• Problem/Goal: What problem does this solve?
• Core Functionality: What are the key actions?
• Scope/Boundaries: What should it NOT do?
• Target Users: Who will use this?
• Technical Constraints: Any required tech stack, integrations, or platform requirements?

Format questions like this so users can respond "1A, 2C, 3B":

1. What is the primary goal?
   A. Option one
   B. Option two
   C. Option three
   D. Other: [please specify]

WAIT for the user to answer before continuing.

Step 1.3: Vision Party (Review Gate 1)

Ask the user: "Ready for the Vision Party review, or skip?"

WAIT for the user to respond. If they say "skip", proceed directly to Step 1.4.

If proceeding, evaluate the idea from three specialist perspectives before locking it into a PRD:

Voice	Focus	Key Questions
Visionary Analyst	Problem-space depth	Is this solving the root problem or a symptom? What's the 10x version? What would make this transformative rather than incremental?
User Advocate	Human-centered design	Who benefits most and how deeply? What's the emotional journey? What friction points in the user's current workflow are we missing?
Innovation Strategist	Opportunity space	What adjacent capabilities does this unlock? What's the bleeding-edge approach? What would a competitor ship that makes this obsolete?

Generate the report in this format and save to .ralph/reviews/vision-party.md:

## Vision Party Review

### Visionary Analyst
- [Bullet 1: problem depth assessment]
- [Bullet 2: leverage point identified]
- [Bullet 3: transformative potential or reframing]
Verdict: [One sentence summary]

### User Advocate
- [Bullet 1: who benefits and how deeply]
- [Bullet 2: friction/empathy gap identified]
- [Bullet 3: experience opportunity]
Verdict: [One sentence summary]

### Innovation Strategist
- [Bullet 1: adjacent capability unlocked]
- [Bullet 2: bleeding-edge approach or competitive angle]
- [Bullet 3: what would make this obsolete]
Verdict: [One sentence summary]

### Tensions & Synthesis
- [Where voices disagree and what it reveals]

### Recommended Adjustments
- [Specific, actionable changes to incorporate before PRD generation]

Present the report to the user. Ask: "Would you like to incorporate any of these insights before I generate the PRD, or proceed as-is?"

WAIT for the user to respond. If they request changes, note them for PRD generation. Then continue to Step 1.4.

Step 1.4: Generate the PRD

Based on answers (and any Vision Party insights incorporated), generate a structured PRD with these sections:

1. Introduction/Overview — Brief description and problem statement
2. Goals — Specific, measurable objectives
3. User Stories — Using format: "As a [user], I want [feature] so that [benefit]" with acceptance criteria
4. Functional Requirements — Numbered (FR-1, FR-2, ...), explicit and unambiguous
5. Non-Goals — What this will NOT include
6. Design Considerations — UI/UX requirements (if applicable)
7. Technical Considerations — Constraints, dependencies, integration points
8. Success Metrics — How success is measured
9. Open Questions — Remaining unknowns

Save to tasks/prd-[feature-name].md (kebab-case filename).

Step 1.5: Requirements Party (Review Gate 2)

Ask the user: "Ready for the Requirements Party review, or skip?"

WAIT for the user to respond. If they say "skip", proceed directly to Phase 2.

If proceeding, evaluate the PRD from three specialist perspectives:

Voice	Focus	Key Questions
Product Strategist	Requirements coherence	Do the functional requirements fully cover the goals? Are there contradictions? Is scope appropriate — not too narrow, not bloated? Do success metrics actually measure what matters?
Experience Designer	User story quality	Are user stories genuinely user-centric or just developer tasks in disguise? Does the UX flow feel natural? Are edge-case user journeys covered? Is there an emotional design thread?
Technical Architect	Feasibility & design	Are there implicit technical constraints the PRD doesn't acknowledge? Is the design consideration section realistic? Are there architectural decisions being deferred that will bite during implementation?

Generate the report in this format and save to .ralph/reviews/requirements-party.md:

## Requirements Party Review

### Product Strategist
- [Bullet 1: goal-requirement alignment check]
- [Bullet 2: scope calibration — too narrow or bloated?]
- [Bullet 3: success metrics assessment]
Verdict: [One sentence summary]

### Experience Designer
- [Bullet 1: user story authenticity — user-centric or developer tasks in disguise?]
- [Bullet 2: UX flow coherence]
- [Bullet 3: edge-case journeys or empathy gaps]
Verdict: [One sentence summary]

### Technical Architect
- [Bullet 1: implicit constraints not acknowledged]
- [Bullet 2: feasibility of design considerations]
- [Bullet 3: deferred decisions that will bite later]
Verdict: [One sentence summary]

### Cross-Cutting Concerns
- [Tensions between voices — where business needs conflict with technical reality or UX]

### Recommended PRD Revisions
- [Specific revisions to apply to the PRD before committing]

Present the report to the user. Ask: "Should I apply these revisions to the PRD, adjust specific items, or commit as-is?"

WAIT for the user to respond. If revisions are accepted, edit the PRD file in-place, then continue.

Announce: "Phase 1 complete — PRD saved to tasks/prd-[name].md. Moving to Phase 2: Commit."

---

Phase 2: Commit PRD

Commit the PRD to git so it's tracked before spec generation.

1. Stage: tasks/prd-*.md (the newly created PRD file)
2. Commit message: docs: add PRD for [feature-name]
3. If commit fails (no git repo), warn but continue.

Announce: "Phase 2 complete — PRD committed. Moving to Phase 3: Spec Generation."

---

Phase 3: Spec Generation

Convert the PRD into executable story specs. This follows the Ralphetamine spec conversion process.

Step 3.1: Analyze the PRD

Read the PRD and identify:

• Natural epic boundaries from section structure
• Individual stories within each epic
• Dependencies between stories

Step 3.2: Group into Epics and Stories

• Each epic gets a sequential number N (1, 2, 3, ...)
• Each story within an epic gets ID N.M (e.g., 1.1, 1.2, 2.1)
• Target 3-10 stories per epic
• Order epics by dependency: foundational work first (schema, config), then backend, then frontend, then polish

Step 3.3: Confirm with User

Show the proposed breakdown:

Epic 1: [Name]
  1.1 — [Story title]
  1.2 — [Story title]

Epic 2: [Name]
  2.1 — [Story title]
  2.2 — [Story title]
  ...

WAIT for the user to confirm or request changes.

Step 3.4: Create Spec Files

For each story, create specs/epic-{N}/story-{N.M}-{slug}.md with this format:

---
id: "N.M"
epic: N
title: "Short Descriptive Title"
status: pending
source_prd: "tasks/prd-<name>.md"
priority: critical|high|medium|low
estimation: small|medium|large
depends_on: []
---

# Story N.M — Short Descriptive Title

## User Story
As a [role], I want [capability] so that [benefit].

[1-2 sentences of additional context if needed.]

## Technical Context
[Brief description of the implementation approach, relevant architecture, or key technical decisions.]

## Acceptance Criteria

### AC1: [Criterion Name]
- **Given** [precondition]
- **When** [action]
- **Then** [expected result]

### AC2: [Criterion Name]
- **Given** [precondition]
- **When** [action]
- **Then** [expected result]

## Test Definition

### Unit Tests
- [Test case description]

### Integration/E2E Tests (if applicable)
- [Test scenario]

## Files to Create/Modify
- `path/to/file` — [what changes] (create|modify)

Story sizing rule: Each story must be completable in ONE Ralph iteration (one context window). If you can't describe the change in 2-3 sentences, split it.

Path normalization rule (critical):

• Every Files to Create/Modify path must be relative to the current project root.
• Never prepend the current project directory name.
• Example: when project root is skills/oss-prep/, use SKILL.md, not skills/oss-prep/SKILL.md.

If 5+ stories: Use parallel Task agents to write specs concurrently for speed. Generate a manifest first, spawn agents, then run a consistency review.

Step 3.5: Populate stories.txt

Write .ralph/stories.txt with batch annotations:

# Source: tasks/prd-<name>.md
# Generated: <ISO timestamp>
# Stories: 1.1, 1.2, ..., N.M

# Ralph Story Queue
# Format: ID | Title

# [batch:1] — foundational / independent
1.1 | Story Title
1.2 | Story Title

# [batch:2] — depends on batch 1
2.1 | Story Title

Step 3.6: Validate

Verify:

• Every story ID in stories.txt has a matching spec file
• No circular dependencies
• All spec files have valid YAML frontmatter
• Every Files to Create/Modify path is project-root-relative (no duplicated root prefix)
• .ralph/stories.txt has at least one active story line (N.M | Title)
• Report: "Created X specs across Y epics"

Announce: "Phase 3 complete — Specs generated. Moving to Phase 4: Commit Specs."

---

Phase 4: Commit Specs

Commit all generated spec artifacts to git.

1. Stage:
   • specs/ directory (all spec files)
   • .ralph/stories.txt
   • The PRD file (if frontmatter was updated)
2. Commit message: ralph: add specs for [feature-name] (N stories across M epics)
3. If commit fails, warn but continue.

Announce: "Phase 4 complete — Specs committed. Moving to Phase 5: Execution Coherence Review."

---

Phase 5: Execution Coherence Party (Review Gate 3)

Evaluate whether the story breakdown actually serves the vision. This is strategic evaluation — the premortem that follows in Phase 6 is tactical.

Ask the user: "Ready for the Execution Coherence Party review, or skip?"

WAIT for the user to respond. If they say "skip", proceed directly to Phase 6.

If proceeding, evaluate the specs from three specialist perspectives:

Voice	Focus	Key Questions
Systems Thinker	Holistic coherence	Do the stories compose into the intended whole, or has decomposition lost the narrative? Are there emergent behaviors from story interactions that nobody planned for? Is there a "golden thread" from vision → PRD → specs?
Developer Experience Advocate	Implementation quality	Will a developer (or Claude) reading each spec understand why, not just what? Is there enough context to make good judgment calls? Are the stories enjoyable to implement or drudgework?
Quality Strategist	Acceptance criteria & value	Do the acceptance criteria prove that value was delivered, or just that code was written? Are we testing behavior or implementation details? Would passing all tests mean a user would actually be satisfied?

Generate the report in this format and save to .ralph/reviews/execution-party.md:

## Execution Coherence Party Review

### Systems Thinker
- [Bullet 1: do stories compose into the intended whole?]
- [Bullet 2: emergent behaviors from story interactions]
- [Bullet 3: golden thread — vision → PRD → specs alignment]
Verdict: [One sentence summary]

### Developer Experience Advocate
- [Bullet 1: spec clarity — does each spec explain *why*, not just *what*?]
- [Bullet 2: context sufficiency for good judgment calls]
- [Bullet 3: implementation ergonomics — enjoyable or drudgework?]
Verdict: [One sentence summary]

### Quality Strategist
- [Bullet 1: do ACs prove value delivered, or just code written?]
- [Bullet 2: testing behavior vs implementation details]
- [Bullet 3: would passing all tests mean a user is satisfied?]
Verdict: [One sentence summary]

### Integration Concerns
- [Gaps between stories where value falls through the cracks]

### Recommended Spec Adjustments
- [Specific adjustments before the tactical premortem runs]

Present the report to the user. Ask: "Should I apply these adjustments, modify specific items, or proceed to the premortem?"

WAIT for the user to respond. If adjustments are accepted, edit spec files and stories.txt, re-run validation (Step 3.6 logic), recommit specs (ralph: execution review adjustments for [feature-name]), then continue.

Announce: "Phase 5 complete — Execution coherence review done. Moving to Phase 6: Premortem Review."

---

Phase 6: Premortem Review

Perform a structured premortem analysis on the generated specs and stories. The premortem imagines the project has already failed and works backward to identify what went wrong — catching issues before they happen.

Note: This is the tactical complement to Phase 5's strategic review. Phase 5 asked "are we building the right thing the right way?" — this phase asks "will the build actually work?"

Step 6.1: Read All Specs

Read every spec file in specs/ and the full stories.txt.

Step 6.2: Analyze for Failure Modes

Systematically check each category. For each issue found, note the story ID, the problem, and the severity (critical / warning).

Category 1: Story Sizing

• Is any story too large for a single Claude context window?
• Does any story touch more than 5-6 files?
• Does any story require understanding complex existing code that won't fit in context?
• Would a junior developer struggle to implement this in one sitting?

Category 2: Dependency & Ordering

• Are there implicit dependencies not captured in depends_on?
• Could a story fail because it assumes files/functions created by a same-batch story?
• Are batch assignments correct — can all stories in the same batch truly run in parallel?
• Is there a story that should be earlier (e.g., shared types, config, or utilities used by later stories)?

Category 3: Acceptance Criteria Quality

• Are any criteria vague or untestable? ("works correctly", "handles errors properly")
• Are there missing edge cases that would cause Ralph to produce incomplete code?
• Do all stories with tests define what to test specifically?
• Do stories that create APIs define the contract (routes, params, response shape)?

Category 4: Missing Stories

• Is there a setup/scaffolding story that should exist but doesn't?
• Are there missing integration stories that wire components together?
• Is there a missing "configuration" or "environment setup" story?
• Do UI stories have corresponding API/backend stories they depend on?

Category 5: Technical Risks

• Does any story require external services or APIs not mentioned in Technical Context?
• Are there stories that modify shared state (database schema, global config) that could break parallel execution?
• Are there merge conflict risks between parallel stories that touch the same files?
• Does the plan assume libraries/frameworks are already installed without a setup story?

Category 6: Test Coverage Gaps

• Are there stories with no test definitions at all?
• Are there integration points between epics that have no integration tests?
• Are there error/edge cases in the PRD's functional requirements that no story covers?

Step 6.3: Present Findings

Show the premortem report to the user, organized by severity:

## Premortem Report

### Critical Issues (must fix before running)
- [Story X.Y] Issue description — Recommended fix

### Warnings (should fix)
- [Story X.Y] Issue description — Recommended fix

### Observations (consider)
- [Story X.Y] Observation — Suggestion

If no issues are found, report: "Premortem clean — no issues detected."

WAIT for the user to review. Ask: "Should I apply all recommended fixes, or would you like to adjust any?"

Step 6.4: Apply Fixes

Based on user approval, modify the spec files and stories.txt:

• Oversized stories: Split into smaller stories, update IDs and depends_on references, regenerate stories.txt entries
• Missing dependencies: Add depends_on entries to affected specs
• Batch corrections: Move stories to correct batches in stories.txt
• Vague criteria: Rewrite acceptance criteria with specific, testable conditions
• Missing stories: Create new spec files for gaps identified, add to stories.txt
• Test gaps: Add test definitions to specs that lack them
• Ordering issues: Reorder stories.txt to reflect correct execution order

After applying fixes, re-run the validation from Step 3.6 to ensure consistency.

Announce: "Phase 6 complete — Premortem fixes applied. Moving to Phase 7: Commit Fixes."

---

Phase 7: Commit Fixes

Commit all review and premortem fixes to git.

1. Stage all modified files in specs/, .ralph/stories.txt, and .ralph/reviews/
2. Commit message: ralph: premortem fixes for [feature-name] (N issues resolved)
3. If no fixes were needed, skip this phase.

Announce: "Phase 7 complete — Fixes committed. Moving to Phase 8: Generate Run Script."

---

Phase 8: Generate Run Script

Create a run-ralph.sh script in the project root that launches Ralph's autonomous execution loop.

Script Requirements

The script should:

1. Be executable (chmod +x)
2. Invoke the native Ralph runner only (ralph run ...) and never call claude directly
3. Include preflight checks: ralph, jq, .ralph/config.json, .ralph/stories.txt, and non-empty active queue
4. Validate .ralph/config.json spec pattern includes both placeholders: {{epic}} and {{id}}
5. Auto-select mode:
   • sequential when specs mostly target one file
   • parallel when targets are distributed
   • allow override via RALPH_RUN_MODE=sequential|parallel|auto
6. Accept optional flags to pass through to Ralph (e.g., --no-dashboard, -t <timeout>)
7. Print a summary before starting: story count, batch count, target-file count, selected mode

Script Template

#!/usr/bin/env bash
# Run Ralphetamine autonomous implementation loop
# Generated by /ralph-pipeline-interactive on <date>
# PRD: tasks/prd-<name>.md
# Stories: <N> stories across <M> epics

set -euo pipefail

SCRIPT_DIR="$(cd "$(dirname "$0")" && pwd)"
cd "$SCRIPT_DIR"

# Preflight checks
command -v ralph >/dev/null 2>&1 || { echo "Error: ralph not found on PATH. Run install.sh first."; exit 1; }
command -v jq >/dev/null 2>&1 || { echo "Error: jq not found on PATH."; exit 1; }
[[ -f .ralph/config.json ]] || { echo "Error: .ralph/config.json not found."; exit 1; }
[[ -f .ralph/stories.txt ]] || { echo "Error: .ralph/stories.txt not found. Run spec generation first."; exit 1; }

active_stories=$(grep -cE '^[[:space:]]*[0-9]+(\.[0-9]+)+[[:space:]]*\|' .ralph/stories.txt || true)
if [[ "$active_stories" -eq 0 ]]; then
    echo "Error: .ralph/stories.txt has no active stories."
    echo "Regenerate the queue before running Ralph."
    exit 1
fi

spec_pattern=$(jq -r '.specs.pattern // ""' .ralph/config.json 2>/dev/null || echo "")
if [[ "$spec_pattern" != *"{{epic}}"* || "$spec_pattern" != *"{{id}}"* ]]; then
    echo "Error: invalid .ralph/config.json specs.pattern: $spec_pattern"
    echo "Expected: specs/epic-{{epic}}/story-{{id}}-*.md"
    exit 1
fi

# Count stories and batches
total_stories=$(grep -cE '^[[:space:]]*[0-9]+(\.[0-9]+)+[[:space:]]*\|' .ralph/stories.txt || true)
total_batches=$(grep -c '^[[:space:]]*# \[batch:' .ralph/stories.txt || true)

# Infer conflict risk from Files to Create/Modify sections.
target_count=$(
  {
    while IFS= read -r spec; do
      awk '
        /^## Files to Create\/Modify/ {in_files=1; next}
        /^## / {in_files=0}
        in_files && /^- `/ {
          line=$0
          sub(/^- `/, "", line)
          sub(/`.*/, "", line)
          gsub(/^[[:space:]]+|[[:space:]]+$/, "", line)
          if (length(line) > 0) print line
        }
      ' "$spec"
    done < <(find specs -type f -name 'story-*.md' 2>/dev/null)
  } | sort -u | sed '/^$/d' | wc -l | tr -d ' '
)

run_mode="${RALPH_RUN_MODE:-auto}"
if [[ "$run_mode" == "auto" ]]; then
    if [[ "${target_count:-0}" -le 1 ]]; then
        run_mode="sequential"
    else
        run_mode="parallel"
    fi
fi

echo "Ralphetamine — Autonomous Implementation"
echo "━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━"
echo "Stories: ${total_stories}"
echo "Batches: ${total_batches}"
echo "Targets: ${target_count:-0} unique file paths"
echo "Mode:    ${run_mode}"
echo ""
echo "Starting in 3 seconds... (Ctrl+C to cancel)"
sleep 3

# Prevent duplicate loops for the same project.
if [[ -f .ralph/.lock ]]; then
    lock_pid="$(cat .ralph/.lock 2>/dev/null || true)"
    if [[ -n "${lock_pid:-}" ]] && kill -0 "$lock_pid" 2>/dev/null; then
        echo "Ralph appears to already be running for this project (PID $lock_pid)."
        echo "Skipping duplicate launch."
        exit 0
    fi
fi

# Run Ralph
if [[ "$run_mode" == "parallel" ]]; then
    ralph run --parallel --no-interactive "$@"
else
    ralph run --no-interactive "$@"
fi

Save to run-ralph.sh in the project root and make it executable.

Step 8.2: Launch in iTerm2

After generating the script, automatically launch it in a new iTerm2 window so Ralph runs in its own dedicated terminal session inside the worktree.

Use the Bash tool to run this guarded launcher (checks for an active .ralph/.lock first, then launches):

PROJECT_DIR="$(pwd)"
lock_path="$PROJECT_DIR/.ralph/.lock"
if [[ -f "$lock_path" ]]; then
    lock_pid="$(cat "$lock_path" 2>/dev/null || true)"
fi

if [[ -n "${lock_pid:-}" ]] && kill -0 "$lock_pid" 2>/dev/null; then
    echo "Ralph already running for this project (PID $lock_pid). Skipping terminal launch."
else
    if ! osascript -e '
tell application "iTerm2"
    activate
    set newWindow to (create window with default profile)
    tell current session of newWindow
        write text "cd \"'"$WORKTREE_DIR"'\" && ./run-ralph.sh"
    end tell
end tell
'; then
        open -a Terminal.app "$PROJECT_DIR/run-ralph.sh"
    fi
fi

Where $WORKTREE_DIR is the absolute path to the worktree directory (resolved in Phase 0).

Fallback: If iTerm2 is not installed or the AppleScript fails, fall back to:

cd "$WORKTREE_DIR" && open -a Terminal.app "./run-ralph.sh"

If both fail, tell the user: "Could not auto-launch. Run ./run-ralph.sh from the worktree directory manually."

Announce: "Phase 8 complete — Ralph is now running in a new iTerm2 window (worktree: feature-<slug>)."

---

Pipeline Complete

After all phases, print the final summary:

Ralphetamine Pipeline Complete
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Worktree:   .ralph/worktrees/feature-<slug>
Branch:     ralph/feature-<slug>
PRD:        tasks/prd-[name].md
Reviews:    .ralph/reviews/ (vision, requirements, execution)
Specs:      N stories across M epics
Premortem:  X issues found, Y fixed
Run script: ./run-ralph.sh
Execution:  Launched in iTerm2 window

Ralph is running autonomously in an isolated worktree.
Check the iTerm2 window for progress.

When complete, merge back to your main branch:
  cd <project-root>
  git merge ralph/feature-<slug>
  git worktree remove .ralph/worktrees/feature-<slug>

→ Then update the changelog:
  # Update CHANGELOG.md and bump version

---

Error Recovery

If any phase fails:

1. Worktree creation fails: Check for stale locks (rm -f .git/index.lock), prune worktrees (git worktree prune), and retry. If the branch already exists, ask the user if they want to reuse it or start fresh.
2. PRD creation fails: Ask user to clarify their feature description and retry Phase 1.
3. Git commit fails: Warn and continue — files are on disk. The user can commit manually.
4. Spec generation fails: Show what was generated, ask user if they want to continue with partial specs or retry.
5. Review Party gate fails: Skip the gate and continue — reviews are optional enhancements, not blockers.
6. Premortem finds critical issues: Do NOT skip Phase 6.4 — always fix critical issues before generating the run script.
7. Run script creation fails: Provide the script content inline so the user can copy it manually.

---

Checklist

Before completing the pipeline:

• Worktree created and working context set
• PRD saved and committed (in worktree branch)
• Review Party reports saved to .ralph/reviews/ (for gates not skipped)
• All specs follow the standard format with YAML frontmatter
• stories.txt has correct batch annotations
• Execution coherence review completed or explicitly skipped
• Premortem review completed (even if no issues found)
• All review and premortem fixes committed
• run-ralph.sh is executable and has correct worktree path
• Final summary printed with merge instructions