tokenomics-bootstrap

name	tokenomics-bootstrap
description	Use when setting a project up with the tokenomics discipline: interviews the builder about their model tiers, limit shape, project gates, and backlog, then generates the project's model-effectiveness playbook from the template. Ships no default lanes and invents no queue items; offers (never forces) interop mode when an issue-tracker-first tracking convention like recursive-spine is detected.

Bootstrap a project with tokenomics

REQUIRED READING FIRST: reference/portable-method.md and reference/playbook-template.md (plugin root). Read both in full before asking the builder anything: the interview questions below assume you already know the four layers, the routing test, and the six playbook components.

Step 1: Interview (one question at a time)

Ask the builder these questions one at a time, in this order. Wait for each answer before asking the next. Do not batch them into a single message, and do not supply your own default for an unanswered question: proceed to Step 2 with whatever the builder actually gave you.

1. Which model tiers do you actually have access to, and what is the limit shape for each: a subscription window, per-token billing, time-boxed premium access, or some mix?
2. What are the project's green gates: the exact build/test/lint commands that must pass before anything is considered done?
3. Where do specs and design docs live in this project (the path the session protocol's "spec-first" rule will point to)?
4. Is there an existing backlog or issue list to seed the work queue, and what are the 1–3 biggest risks to the project right now? (This seeds the strategic frame: it is not a request for the full backlog contents, just what's live today.)
5. Where should the playbook live? Default is docs/model-effectiveness-playbook.md: ask if the builder wants it somewhere else, don't just assume the default.
6. Does this project orchestrate across tiers: are sub-agents available, or is a controller pattern in use (one session or model driving cheaper ones beneath it)? Or is it single-session-at-a-time? This sets whether Layer 4's dispatch contract applies here. Ask about orchestration only; interop is handled by the detection-gated offer below, never as an open-ended question.

Interop offer (question 7 — only when detected)

After question 6, check whether the repo carries an issue-tracker-first tracking convention — recursive-spine is the known instance: look for a tracking section naming the convention in CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md, or convention-stamped issue/PR templates under .github/. Then:

• Not detected: do not ask question 7 and do not mention interop at all. Standalone is the unmarked case.
• Detected: ask exactly one more question — an offer, never a default:

7. This repo has a tracking convention installed that owns work state (issues + milestones, never prose ledgers). Should the playbook be generated in interop mode — the work queue and gap register delegate to issues and filed debts, and the playbook keeps the strategic frame, lanes, spend ledger, done ledger, and standing constraints — or standalone, where the two overlap and the builder reconciles them manually?

If the builder declines or doesn't answer, generate standalone: interop is offered, never forced (reference/portable-method.md §The seam).

Step 2: Generate the playbook

Fill reference/playbook-template.md's placeholders using only what the builder said, and write the result to the target path from question 5.

Three hard rules govern generation:

• Ship no default lanes. Model routing must name exactly the tiers the builder said they have access to in question 1: if they have two tiers, write two lanes, not the template's three. Never invent a third lane "for completeness."
• Invent no queue items. If question 4 produced no backlog, the Now table gets its column headers and nothing else. An empty Now table is a valid, honest output, a plausible-looking placeholder row is not.
• Invent no answers. If any interview question went unanswered or the builder said "not sure," the corresponding playbook section states plainly that this was not established yet (e.g. "Not established: ask at next bootstrap pass"). It never receives a plausible-sounding default in its place.

Map the answers onto the template's sections directly:

• Question 1 → Model routing (lanes named for the tiers the builder actually has, plus each tier's limit shape).
• Question 2 → Session protocol rule 5 (existing project gates).
• Question 3 → Session protocol rule 3 (spec path).
• Question 4 → Strategic frame (the risks) and Work queue Now table (the backlog, if any) and Gap register (open findings, if any).
• Question 5 → the path the file is written to, and the pointer line in Step 3 below.
• Question 6 → Model routing (an orchestration note: whether sub-agents or a controller pattern are in use, which is what activates Layer 4's dispatch contract; if the project is single-session, say so plainly rather than leaving it blank).
• Question 7 (only if asked and accepted) → interop mode, per reference/portable-method.md §The seam. The Work queue section gets a delegation note naming where work state lives (the tracker's issues and milestones) and no item rows; the Gap register gets the same note pointing at filed debts; Model routing gains the annotation contract (issues carry a lane; closing records carry a spend line; the playbook stays canonical for spend). The Status block's "canonical for" line must say the playbook is not canonical for work state. If question 7 was never asked or was declined, none of this applies — generate the standalone playbook unchanged.

Copy the routing test into Model routing verbatim, exactly as it appears in reference/playbook-template.md (the same test reference/portable-method.md presents in expanded form):

Ask: "If this is done slightly wrong, is it expensive?" → flagship. Clear contract with tests → mid. Mechanical with automated verification → small.

Do not add project-specific commentary to the routing test itself: the test is generic by design.

Step 3: Close with the session-opening pointer

End the session by printing the exact pointer line the builder should use to open every future session, using the real path from question 5, e.g.:

Read docs/model-effectiveness-playbook.md, then start on the next unclaimed item in the work queue that matches your lane.

This is the one line that replaces repo re-exploration at the start of every session: make sure it's the last thing in your output, not buried mid-message.

Reporting

State plainly which questions were answered, which were left as "not established," and the exact path the playbook was written to. Report the interop outcome explicitly: not detected (question 7 never asked), offered and declined, or offered and accepted — a declined offer is a recorded answer, not a gap. Label the playbook as a fresh bootstrap output, not a finished strategic document: it is only as complete as the interview that produced it.