Use when the user is exploring a design idea, weighing approaches, or has an ambiguous request. Asks structured questions, proposes 2-3 approaches, walks the design section-by-section. On approval, auto-chains into /hyperflow:scope.
Trigger with /hyperflow:spec, "should I", "how should we", "what's the best way to", "design this", "explore the approach".
Installer avec Codex ou Claude Copiez ce prompt, collez-le dans Codex, Claude ou un autre assistant, puis laissez-le vérifier la page du skill et l'installer pour vous.
Une commande directe contourne le prompt de vérification. Examinez la source avant de l'exécuter.
Use when the user is exploring a design idea, weighing approaches, or has an ambiguous request. Asks structured questions, proposes 2-3 approaches, walks the design section-by-section. On approval, auto-chains into /hyperflow:scope.
Trigger with /hyperflow:spec, "should I", "how should we", "what's the best way to", "design this", "explore the approach".
allowed-tools
Write, AskUserQuestion
argument-hint
<design question or feature idea> [chain-mode=auto|manual] [--thorough | depth=max]
This phase is thinking, not building. No code until the user approves the design. On approval, the chain advances to scope → dispatch. The user picks the advancement mode at Step 0.
This skill drives Layer 0.5 (Task Triage) and Layer 4 (Brainstorming/Spec) from the doctrine. Multi-level review (L1–L5) runs later during /hyperflow:dispatch per the triage's chosen flow profile.
Iron Rules
Failure recovery (rule 14). Worker errors, malformed output, NEEDS_REVISION verdicts, and Reviewer errors across every dispatched agent (Classifier, Triage Reviewer, Searchers, Writers, Analyst, batched Reviewer) 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)
Every substantive step dispatches at least one Agent per DOCTRINE rule 12. Trivial steps per §12.1 may be performed inline by the orchestrator.
Step
Sub-phase
Worker tier
Thinking tier
Notes
0 — Chain mode
— (atomic)
—
—
AskUserQuestion only (exempt)
0.5 — Operational choices
— (atomic)
—
—
AskUserQuestion only (exempt)
1 — Triage
— (atomic)
—
Classifier (Opus) · Triage Reviewer (Sonnet)
Atomic per §12.2.8: single Worker → Reviewer pair, no independent angles. Reviewer verdicts: PASS / RECLASSIFY / ESCALATE (DOCTRINE rule 15). Skips on P4 conditions; see body
2 — Context Exploration
2a + 2b (P1 parallel)
Searcher ×2 per sub-phase [P3 concurrent with Step 1]
Reviewer (Sonnet) per sub-phase
P3: Steps 1+2 dispatched in same message; no coverage Reviewer at Step level (D4)
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. The agent MUST AskUserQuestion here — defaulting to auto without asking is a doctrine violation.
If invoked with a chain-mode=<auto|manual> arg (from a prior skill in the chain), skip this step — the previous chain-starter already asked.
Otherwise, before any research, triage, or analysis, ask via AskUserQuestion. Per DOCTRINE rule 8, the recommended option goes first with (Recommended):
How should I advance through the chain after each phase?
Auto (Recommended) — chain forward through spec → scope → dispatch with no gates.
Fewer interruptions, faster end-to-end.
Manual — pause between phases and ask before advancing.
More control, more confirmations.
Auto is the recommended default because most users invoking a chain-starter want momentum; Manual exists for high-risk or exploratory work. Wait for the user's answer. Do not proceed without it. Save the chosen mode and propagate via args: "chain-mode=<mode>".
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.
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, 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 — user is interrupted exactly twice at startup (chain-mode in Step 0, ops in Step 0.5), never again until done.
Skip when chain-mode=manual (per-phase pauses cover ops decisions) OR when operational args are already propagated (re-asking is an invented-gate violation).
The 3-question batch is identical to scope Step 0.5 — see scope/SKILL.md § Step 0.5 for the full question + option text + recommended-default logic + chain-arg propagation contract. Spec, scope, dispatch share one canonical definition; whoever fires first (typically spec when it's the chain entry point) owns the batch, the others see the args propagated and skip.
--thorough / depth=max flag: When passed, patterns P1, P2, and P4 are disabled and the original sequential flow runs (one Writer at a time, one Reviewer per section, all steps always run). P3 and P5 stay on — they carry no quality tradeoff. Record the flag at Step 0 and propagate it; every step below that references P1, P2, or P4 should check for this flag before applying the pattern.
P3 applies: Step 1 (Classifier triage) and Step 2 (Searcher context mapping) are independent — the Searcher does not need the triage output to begin. Dispatch both in a single message, then wait for both to return before advancing to the Reviewer.
If --thorough / depth=max: run Step 1 first (wait for it to complete), then Step 2 sequentially.
Step 1 — Triage (Layer 0.5)
Agents — Classifier (Opus, thinking-tier).
Dispatch **Classifier** — triaging request per task-triage.md. The Classifier produces { types[], complexity, risk, scope, ambiguity, flow, personas[] } JSON. The classification drives:
P4 gate — read ambiguity and complexity here; triage-driven skipping applies at Steps 3 and 6 (see below)
Spec depth at Step 4 — floor: 2 questions always:
ambiguity 0.0–0.5 → light: 2 questions
0.5–0.8 → standard: 3 questions
0.8–1.0 → deep: 4–5 questions
Flow profile for the downstream dispatch phase — fast, standard, deep, research, creative, or scientific (see flow-profiles.md)
Persona stitching for worker prompts later (full personas defined in DOCTRINE)
Persist the triage output and propagate it forward through chain-mode=<mode> triage=<base64-json> args. Print:
P4 skip (DOCTRINE §13.P4): before dispatching, check the Classifier's output. 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 2. 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 condition fails, dispatch the Triage Reviewer as below.
Immediately after the Classifier returns, dispatch **Triage Reviewer** — validating classification against request and project profile (Sonnet). The Reviewer reads:
The user's original request (does the classification reflect what they actually asked for?)
.hyperflow/profile.md (does the classification match the codebase's actual tech stack and conventions?)
Verdict ∈ {PASS, RECLASSIFY, ESCALATE}:
PASS — consume the Classifier's output as-is, proceed to Step 2.
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]
ESCALATE — Reviewer can't decide; the ambiguity is added to the Smart Questions queue for Step 4 (surfaced as the first question in that set).
On Reviewer error (tool failure, timeout): follow failure-recovery.md §5 — retry once, escalate tier, then abort with REVIEWER_ABORT: triage-reviewer. Do not consume unvalidated triage output.
Print before dispatch:
**Triage Reviewer** — validating classification against request and project profile
Step 2 — Context Exploration
Sub-phases 2a and 2b are dispatched in parallel (P1). Both sub-phases are independent and share no data dependency. Dispatch both in one message, wait for all Searchers to return, then run the per-sub-phase Reviewers, then advance.
No Step-level coverage Reviewer — downstream Writers flag MISSING CONTEXT: <subsystem> if anything was missed.
Fallback: If a downstream Writer flags MISSING CONTEXT: <subsystem>, the orchestrator redispatches the Searcher with the gap before continuing. This trades a small bad-case path penalty for a large good-case path win.
Step 2a — Codebase surface mapping
Agents — Searcher ×2 (Sonnet).
Dispatch in parallel:
Searcher — glob discovery: mapping file tree and entry points relevant to <idea>
Do not ask the user what you can find in the code. Trust the Searchers' output.
After both Searchers return: **Reviewer** — reviewing surface mapping coverage (Step 2a) (Sonnet · per-sub-phase). Verdict ∈ {PASS, NEEDS_REVISION, ESCALATE}. On NEEDS_REVISION: re-dispatch only Step 2a Searchers with the gap identified.
Step 2b — Convention and test pattern scan
Agents — Searcher ×2 (Sonnet).
Dispatch in parallel (concurrent with Step 2a):
Searcher — test pattern probe: finding existing test conventions, helpers, and fixture patterns
P4 gate: If triage.ambiguity < 0.6 AND triage.complexity != high, skip this step entirely — jump to Step 4. Nothing ambiguous to analyze; the 6-dimension brief adds no value. Border rounding rule: round up — if ambiguity is 0.59, treat as 0.6 and run this step. Favor running optional steps when on the fence.
If --thorough / depth=max: always run this step regardless of triage scores.
If not skipped: sub-phases 3a, 3b, and 3c are dispatched in parallel (P1). Each sub-phase fans out two Writer angles exploring different dimensions of the analysis. After all sub-phase Reviewers return, the Analyst (Opus) aggregates the dimension briefs into the unified 6-dim output that Step 4 consumes.
Step 3a — Intent and technical-fit analysis
Agents — Writer ×2 (Sonnet).
Dispatch in parallel:
Writer — user-intent analysis: what is the real underlying need and what success looks like
Writer — technical-fit analysis: how this fits the existing architecture and patterns from Step 2 context
After both Writers return: **Reviewer** — reviewing intent and fit analysis (Step 3a) (Sonnet · per-sub-phase). Verdict ∈ {PASS, NEEDS_REVISION, ESCALATE}. On NEEDS_REVISION: re-dispatch only Step 3a Writers.
Step 3b — Scope, constraints, and risks analysis
Agents — Writer ×2 (Sonnet). Dispatched in parallel with Steps 3a and 3c.
Dispatch in parallel:
Writer — scope and constraints analysis: minimum viable vs maximum scope, time/deps/perf/compatibility limits
Writer — risks analysis: what could go wrong, what is irreversible, failure modes
After both Writers return: **Reviewer** — reviewing scope, constraints, and risks analysis (Step 3b) (Sonnet · per-sub-phase). Verdict ∈ {PASS, NEEDS_REVISION, ESCALATE}. On NEEDS_REVISION: re-dispatch only Step 3b Writers.
Step 3c — Alternatives synthesis
Agents — Writer ×1 (Sonnet). Dispatched in parallel with Steps 3a and 3b.
Writer — alternatives synthesis: at least 3 distinct ways to solve this, with brief notes on each (sequential synthesis — no parallel angle: one canonical set of alternatives, not two independent perspectives)
After the Writer returns: **Reviewer** — reviewing alternatives completeness (Step 3c) (Sonnet · per-sub-phase). Verdict ∈ {PASS, NEEDS_REVISION, ESCALATE}. On NEEDS_REVISION: re-dispatch Step 3c Writer.
Step 3 aggregate — Analyst synthesis (sequential — depends on 3a + 3b + 3c all PASS)
**Analyst** — 6-dimension aggregation: consolidating sub-phase briefs into unified analysis (Opus · thinking-tier). The Analyst reads the 3a, 3b, and 3c Writer outputs and produces the final 6-dimension brief, flagging which dimensions have unknowns the user must resolve. Those unknowns become the Step 4 question set.
Before generating the question list, read .hyperflow/memory/project-decisions.md if it exists. This file holds structural answers recorded by prior chains in this project (e.g., "database: Postgres + Drizzle", "auth: session cookies, not JWT", "test framework: vitest").
For each candidate question from Step 3 (or triage + context if Step 3 was skipped):
If the answer is already in project-decisions.mdand it does not conflict with the current task's requirements → skip the question and print one line:
Skipping question '<question topic>' — already answered in project-decisions.md: <answer>
If the cached answer conflicts with what the current task requires (e.g., the project decided "no SSR" but this task specifically needs SSR) → surface it as a Smart Question anyway. Frame it as: "project-decisions.md says X — does this task change that?"
If project-decisions.md does not exist or has no matching entry → include the question normally.
The 2-question floor (below) still applies after skipping. If memoization eliminates all candidates above the floor, the floor questions still fire.
Use the AskUserQuestion tool. Never plain text questions. Ask about unknowns from Step 3 (or from triage + context if Step 3 was skipped).
Hard floor: every spec run asks at least 2 questions, regardless of how confident the triage was. The two minimum questions give the user a structural place to redirect before any decomposition runs. This floor is non-negotiable — P4's bounce-to-scope path (below) is the ONLY way to skip Step 4, and that path exits the spec phase entirely. Never skip or reduce below 2 inside the spec phase.
P4 bounce gate: If triage.ambiguity < 0.4 AND triage.complexity == low, do NOT run Step 4 — bounce directly to /hyperflow:scope. Print:
That's clear enough to skip the design phase. Auto-chaining to /hyperflow:scope...
Then invoke Skill with skill: scope immediately. This enforces the "bounces back to scope when clear" aspirational example as a hard rule.
Never stack more than 2 questions per AskUserQuestion call.
Multi-option lists (3+ options) MUST mark a recommended choice; binary lists (2 options) MUST NOT — per DOCTRINE rule 8 binary-gate clause. For multi-option questions, the Analyst's leading hypothesis from Step 3 (or the triage leading hypothesis if Step 3 was skipped) goes first with (Recommended); alternatives follow. The user can pick anything — the marker is guidance, not a default. Per-section approval gates at Step 7 (Approve / Revise) are binary — no marker.
Question categories (in order — pick the first N for depth N):
Intent clarification — confirm the real goal (always ask)
Constraint discovery — what must / must not happen (always ask)
Assumption challenging — "you said X, did you mean Y instead?"
Scope boundaries — what's IN vs OUT
Edge-case stance — how strict on the unhappy paths
If the request feels "completely clear" — ask anyway. The first two questions exist so the user can spot a misalignment the agent missed.
Example structure (DON'T omit the recommendation marker):
? Where should auth state live?
Server sessions (Recommended) — revocable, refreshable, fits this project's DB conventions
JWT stateless — simpler, no DB, harder to revoke
Post-collection memoization append
After the user answers the Step 4 questions, scan answers for structural decisions — choices about database, auth, testing, deployment, framework patterns, or any project-level default that future chains should not re-ask. For each structural answer:
Append it to .hyperflow/memory/project-decisions.md under the appropriate category heading. Create the file if it does not exist.
Do not append ephemeral or task-specific answers (e.g., "use a modal for this feature" is task-specific; "modal pattern via Radix Dialog" is structural if it establishes the project-wide modal approach).
This write is inline (orchestrator tool call) — trivial per §12.1. No Agent dispatch needed.
P3 applies: Step 5 (Synthesis Writer) and Step 6 (first sub-phase 6a Writers) both depend on Step 4 answers but not on each other. Dispatch Step 5 Writer and Step 6a Writers in a single message, then proceed through 6b (sequential on 6a output), then wait for everything to return before dispatching the batched Reviewer.
P2 applies: After Step 5 Writer and Step 6 sub-phases (6a + 6b) all return, dispatch ONE Reviewer using reviewer-prompt-batched.md to review both drafts in a single pass, returning per-draft verdicts.
If --thorough / depth=max: run Step 5 (Writer → Reviewer) sequentially, then Step 6 sub-phases sequentially (6a Writer → Reviewer, then 6b Writer → Reviewer).
Step 5 — Requirement Synthesis
Dispatch Writer — drafting requirement synthesis (concurrent with Step 6 Writer). The Writer produces a one-paragraph restatement: "So the goal is X, with constraints Y, excluding Z."
(Reviewed in the batched pass below.)
After the batched Reviewer approves, print the synthesis and ask for explicit confirmation via AskUserQuestion before moving on.
Step 6 — Propose 2–3 Approaches with Trade-offs (P4-skippable)
P4 gate: If triage.ambiguity < 0.6 AND triage.complexity != high, skip Step 6 — proceed to Step 7 with a default approach implied by the synthesis. No approach-selection gate fires; the orchestrator annotates the spec with "Approach: derived from synthesis (ambiguity low, single approach)".
If --thorough / depth=max: always run Step 6 regardless of triage scores.
If not skipped: sub-phases 6a and 6b run sequentially — 6b depends on the candidate approaches produced by 6a. Step 6 as a whole runs concurrently with Step 5 (P3).
Writer — lightweight-approach candidates: drafting 1–2 lower-complexity approaches for this problem
Writer — heavyweight-approach candidates: drafting 1–2 higher-complexity or more thorough approaches
Each Writer produces, for each approach: Name (short label) · What (1–2 sentence summary) · Pros · Cons · Fit (how well it matches goal/constraints).
After both Writers return: **Reviewer** — reviewing approach candidate coverage (Step 6a) (Sonnet · per-sub-phase). Verdict ∈ {PASS, NEEDS_REVISION, ESCALATE}. On NEEDS_REVISION: re-dispatch only Step 6a Writers.
Step 6b — Trade-off and fit evaluation (depends on Step 6a output)
Agents — Writer ×2 (Sonnet). Sequential after Step 6a PASS.
Dispatch in parallel:
Writer — fit analysis: scoring each 6a candidate against stated goals, constraints, and context from Step 2
Writer — risk analysis: surfacing failure modes and irreversible consequences per 6a candidate
After both Writers return: **Reviewer** — reviewing trade-off evaluation completeness (Step 6b) (Sonnet · per-sub-phase). Verdict ∈ {PASS, NEEDS_REVISION, ESCALATE}. On NEEDS_REVISION: re-dispatch only Step 6b Writers.
Batched Reviewer (P2): After Step 5 Writer AND Step 6 sub-phases (6a + 6b) have all returned, dispatch one **Reviewer** (Sonnet · per-batch tier) — batched review: synthesis + approaches (reviewer-prompt-batched.md, model: "<resolved-worker>"). Per the DOCTRINE tier split, per-batch reviewers default to Sonnet because the diff is small (one synthesis paragraph + 2–3 approach paragraphs). --thorough escalates to Opus. The Reviewer returns:
On NEEDS_FIX for either draft: re-dispatch only that Writer (or the failing Step 6 sub-phase); single Opus re-review of just that draft. The passing draft is accepted as-is.
After the batched Reviewer approves: present the synthesis and approaches to the user. Recommend one approach, but the choice is the user's. Ask via AskUserQuestion.
File-first artefact rule (DOCTRINE rule 8 file-first clause): every section Writer writes its draft directly to .hyperflow/specs/<slug>.draft.md — never returns the section content for the orchestrator to paste inline. The Reviewer reads sections from the file. The approval gate references the file path, not the content. Inline pasting of section text into chat is a doctrine violation — chat output is ephemeral and unscrollable; a file is reviewable, editable, and persistent across sessions.
P1 applies at sub-phase level: All 3 sub-phases share the same upstream input (the chosen approach) and have no inter-dependencies. Dispatch sub-phases 7a, 7b, and 7c in ONE parallel message. Each Writer writes its section into the file at a stable H2 anchor — the orchestrator pre-seeds the file with the 5 H2 headers before dispatching so Writers can use Edit with the heading as a unique anchor and avoid append-order races.
Mode resolution (one-time per chain). Before dispatching the 5 Writers, 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>). When mode=lean, Writers receive the lean Project Context block (paths to .hyperflow/memory/session-context.md etc., not inlined content) per worker-prompt.md's lean variant. Spec section content, the 2-question floor, section-approval gates, persona stitching, memory injection, reviewer model + template, and security blocklist remain unchanged regardless of mode.
Sub-phases 7a, 7b, and 7c group the 5 sections by concern — structural (architecture + data flow), decision (key decisions + edge cases), and file layout — so per-sub-phase Reviewers catch intra-group conflicts before the final batched pass.
Per-sub-phase Reviewers fire immediately after each sub-phase's Writers return (not gated on the other sub-phases finishing). This lets early sub-phases' misses surface before the final batched pass.
P2 applies: After all 3 sub-phases complete (all per-sub-phase Reviewers PASS), dispatch ONE final per-batch Reviewer (model: "<resolved-worker>" — Sonnet by default; Opus under --thorough) using reviewer-prompt-batched.md to read .hyperflow/specs/<slug>.draft.md and review all 5 sections in a single pass, returning per-section verdicts:
Cross-section coherence benefit: the batched Reviewer sees all sections simultaneously and catches conflicts that per-sub-phase passes miss (e.g., a contradiction between §1 Architecture and §5 File structure).
Step 7a — Structural sections (Architecture + Data flow)
Agents — Writer ×2 (Sonnet). Dispatched in parallel with Steps 7b and 7c.
Dispatch in parallel:
Writer — architecture section: drafting §1 Architecture at H2 anchor in .hyperflow/specs/<slug>.draft.md
Writer — data flow section: drafting §2 Data flow at H2 anchor in .hyperflow/specs/<slug>.draft.md
After both Writers return: **Reviewer** — reviewing architecture and data flow sections (Step 7a) (Sonnet · per-sub-phase). Verdict ∈ {PASS, NEEDS_REVISION, ESCALATE}. On NEEDS_REVISION: re-dispatch only the failing Writer within Step 7a.
Agents — Writer ×2 (Sonnet). Dispatched in parallel with Steps 7a and 7c.
Dispatch in parallel:
Writer — key decisions section: drafting §3 Key decisions at H2 anchor in .hyperflow/specs/<slug>.draft.md
Writer — edge cases section: drafting §4 Edge cases at H2 anchor in .hyperflow/specs/<slug>.draft.md
After both Writers return: **Reviewer** — reviewing key decisions and edge cases sections (Step 7b) (Sonnet · per-sub-phase). Verdict ∈ {PASS, NEEDS_REVISION, ESCALATE}. On NEEDS_REVISION: re-dispatch only the failing Writer within Step 7b.
Step 7c — File structure section
Agents — Writer ×1 (Sonnet). Dispatched in parallel with Steps 7a and 7b (sequential synthesis — no parallel angle: single canonical file-layout section).
Writer — file structure section: drafting §5 File structure at H2 anchor in .hyperflow/specs/<slug>.draft.md
After the Writer returns: **Reviewer** — reviewing file structure section (Step 7c) (Sonnet · per-sub-phase). Verdict ∈ {PASS, NEEDS_REVISION, ESCALATE}. On NEEDS_REVISION: re-dispatch Step 7c Writer.
On NEEDS_FIX from the final batched Reviewer: re-dispatch only the failed section's Writer with the Reviewer's feedback; that Writer rewrites only its own H2-anchored block in the draft file. Single per-batch tier re-review (Sonnet by default, same tier as the original batched review) of just that section. Do not redraft passing siblings.
Special case — 4+ sections NEEDS_FIX: likely the chosen approach itself is wrong. Bounce back to Step 6 and re-pick an approach rather than redrafting 4 sections individually.
Eligibility guard: this P1+P2 structure applies because all 5 sections share the same review-level cap. If a future flow assigns different review-level caps per section (e.g., one section requires L5 security review while others are L3), fall back to per-section reviewers for those sections.
If --thorough / depth=max: for each section sequentially — (1) dispatch Writer (still writes to file at the H2 anchor), (2) dispatch Reviewer (reads the file), (3) print one-line Section <N> ready — review at .hyperflow/specs/<slug>.draft.md + AskUserQuestion approve / revise, before moving to the next section.
Worker rate-limit handling — inline fallback BANNED: if a Writer fails (rate limit, timeout, runtime error), the orchestrator MUST retry the Writer (max 2 retries), then if still failing surface ESCALATE: section-<N> writer failed after 2 retries — chain paused, run /hyperflow:status to inspect. Drafting the section inline in chat as a "fallback" violates the file-first rule and produces an ungrounded section that downstream Writers/Reviewers will not see in the draft file.
After the batched Reviewer approves (or NEEDS_FIX sections are resolved), the orchestrator fires ONE combined AskUserQuestion. The gate body is a one-line section roster + the file path — NOT the section content:
? Design draft ready at .hyperflow/specs/<slug>.draft.md
§1 Architecture · §2 Data flow · §3 Key decisions · §4 Edge cases · §5 File structure
Review the file, then choose:
Approve all — finalize and chain to /hyperflow:scope
Revise §<N> — send the named section back to the Writer with your feedback (free-form)
Per-section revise is allowed — the user may mark individual sections for revision. Only the revised section's Writer loops back; the rest of the draft file is untouched.
Sections (always in this order):
Architecture — how components fit together
Data flow — what goes where
Key decisions — trade-offs made and why
Edge cases — what could go wrong
File structure — what gets created/modified
Step 8 — Spec Finalize
Agents — Writer (Sonnet) ⇒ Reviewer (Opus).
Kept sequential — this is the final sanity check before hand-off; no parallelism applies.
The draft already lives at .hyperflow/specs/<slug>.draft.md (written progressively in Step 7). This step finalizes it, formatting per artefact-format.md:
# <Feature name>
## Status
| Field | Value |
|----------|------------------------------------------------|
| Status | approved |
| Sections | 5 / 5 approved |
| Date | <YYYY-MM-DD> |
| Trigger | `<slash command or trigger phrase>` |
| Approach | <one-line approach name from Step 6> |
## TL;DR
<2–3 sentences in plain English: what the feature does + the single
most important design decision. The user should be able to read this
and decide if the design is on track without scrolling further.>
## Components
- **<name>** — <one-line role>
- **<name>** — <one-line role>
...
## 1. Architecture
<section content — written progressively by Step 7 Writers at this H2 anchor>
## 2. Data flow
<section content>
## 3. Key decisions
<numbered decisions with rationale>
**Trade-offs accepted:**
- <what the design says yes to and why>
**Trade-offs rejected:**
- <what the design said no to and why>
## 4. Edge cases
<numbered cases with Scenario / Behaviour / Fallback>
## 5. File structure
### 5.1 Files created
| Path | Purpose | Created by |
|---|---|---|
| `<path>` | <one-line> | <agent or milestone> |
### 5.2 Files modified
| Path | Purpose | Created by |
|---|---|---|
### 5.3 Runtime artefacts (not committed)
| Path | Purpose | Created by |
|---|---|---|
Finalize procedure:
Dispatch Writer — finalizing spec at .hyperflow/specs/<slug>.draft.md to:
Prepend the status block + TL;DR + Components sections (TL;DR derived from the approved synthesis from Step 5; Components derived from Section 1 architecture names).
Append Trade-offs accepted/rejected blocks at the end of Section 3 if not already there (the Writer extracts them from the Section 3 prose if Section-3 Writer didn't already separate them).
Rename: mv .hyperflow/specs/<slug>.draft.md .hyperflow/specs/<slug>.md (plain mv — .hyperflow/ is gitignored).
Dispatch **Reviewer** (Opus · final-pass tier) — final spec sanity check (model: "<resolved-thinking>" — always Opus, regardless of --thorough) to read the finalized file and verify: status block present and correct, TL;DR is 2–3 sentences in plain English (not a wall of text), every approved section is captured, the H2 ordering is right (1–5), Trade-offs blocks exist, no contradiction exists between sections. Opus tier is mandatory because this is the one Reviewer that sees the full spec and is the buck-stops-here pass before the spec leaves the design phase.
No inline summary fallback. Even for "simple" designs, the spec lives in a file. Chat-only summaries were a doctrine violation pattern from earlier versions; removed.
Step 9 — Hand off to /hyperflow:scope
Once the design is approved:
If chain-mode=auto — immediately invoke Skill with skill: scope and args: "chain-mode=auto <spec-ref>". Print:
Spec complete — design approved
Auto-chaining to /hyperflow:scope…
If chain-mode=manual — ask via AskUserQuestion: "Spec done. Continue to /hyperflow:scope?" → yes / no / stop. On yes, invoke Skill with skill: scope and args: "chain-mode=manual <spec-ref>". Print:
Spec complete — design approved
Awaiting your go-ahead for /hyperflow:scope…
In both modes, the scope skill decomposes the design into worker batches; dispatch then picks up the task file (respecting the same chain mode).
Anti-Patterns
Writing code during the spec phase
Asking more than 5 questions total (the Step 0 chain-mode question doesn't count)
Asking fewer than 2 questions — the floor is mandatory even when the request looks unambiguous
Stacking 3+ questions in one AskUserQuestion call
Skipping the alternatives step (always offer 2–3) unless P4 skip is in effect
Asking what's discoverable from the codebase
Adding features the user didn't request (YAGNI ruthlessly)
Pausing for "should I proceed to plan?" when chain-mode=auto — that was already answered at Step 0
Sequentializing siblings when they have no inter-dependency — Steps 1+2, Step 5 Writer + Step 6a Writers, Step 7 sub-phases 7a/7b/7c, and Step 3 sub-phases 3a/3b/3c are all independent within their groups; dispatching them one-at-a-time when P3/P1 apply is a latency violation
Using per-section reviewers when a single batched reviewer covers the same review-level cap — collapsing N Opus calls into 1 improves cross-section coherence and reduces latency; only fall back to per-section reviewers when siblings have different level caps
Wrapping a one-Skill-call hand-off (or any §12.1-trivial step) in an Agent dispatch — trivial steps (≤ 2 tool calls, no generation, no decisions, mechanically verifiable, orchestrator-natural) run inline; adding an Agent wrapper adds latency with no quality benefit
Memory Integration
After design approval:
Persist key decisions to .hyperflow/memory/decisions.md with tags
/hyperflow:spec is the design phase — thinking, not building. No code lands until the user approves the design section-by-section.
Opus Classifier and Step 2 Searchers run concurrently (P3). Step 2 decomposes into sub-phases 2a (surface mapping, Searcher ×2) and 2b (Convention and test pattern scan, Searcher ×2), each with a per-sub-phase Sonnet Reviewer. No Step-level coverage Reviewer — downstream Writers surface gaps via MISSING CONTEXT. Opus Analyst produces 6-dimension analysis from Step 3 sub-phases 3a/3b/3c (P4-skippable at ambiguity < 0.6 AND complexity != high). The orchestrator asks 2–5 AskUserQuestion calls (one at a time) to resolve ambiguities.
Step 6 approach proposals decompose into sub-phases 6a (approach candidates, Writer ×2) and 6b (trade-off evaluation, Writer ×2). Step 7 design sections decompose into sub-phases 7a (Architecture + Data flow), 7b (Key decisions + Edge cases), and 7c (File structure), all dispatched in parallel (P1), each with a per-sub-phase Sonnet Reviewer, then one final batched Reviewer (P2). On final approval, auto-chains into /hyperflow:scope → /hyperflow:dispatch.
Prerequisites
Project initialized via /hyperflow:scaffold (recommended — analyst uses .hyperflow/profile.md and friends).
An idea, feature request, or design question — anything ambiguous enough to need exploration. Clear-cut decompositions should skip straight to /hyperflow:scope.
AskUserQuestion available — required for the 2-5 spec questions + per-section approval gates. Headless / non-interactive mode is rejected at Step 0.
Step 3 sub-phases 3a + 3b + 3c in parallel (P4-skippable): dimension-pair Writers ×2 each + per-sub-phase Sonnet Reviewer. Analyst (Opus) aggregates into 6-dim brief.
If ambiguity < 0.4 AND complexity == low: bounce to scope directly. Otherwise: ask 2-5 AskUserQuestion calls, one at a time, with (Recommended) markers — floor of 2 always.
Step 5 Synthesis Writer (atomic) + Step 6 sub-phases 6a + 6b concurrently (P3). Step 6 sub-phases each dispatch Writer ×2 + per-sub-phase Sonnet Reviewer sequentially (6b depends on 6a). One final batched Reviewer covers Step 5 + Step 6 (P2). User confirms synthesis and picks approach.
Step 7 sub-phases 7a + 7b + 7c in parallel (P1): section Writers + per-sub-phase Sonnet Reviewers. One final batched Reviewer covers all 5 sections (P2). Present all 5 to user in one combined approval gate.
Step 8: Writer composes spec file at .hyperflow/specs/<slug>.md; Reviewer (Opus · final-pass tier) sanity check — atomic, no sub-phases.
Hand off to /hyperflow:scope (auto or with confirmation gate per chain mode).
Output
Two outputs:
The approved design — either inline in the conversation (trivial features) or saved to .hyperflow/specs/<slug>.md (3+ file features). Format: Architecture, Data flow, Key decisions, Edge cases, File structure — each as its own H2 section.
The hand-off line:
Spec complete — design approved
Auto-chaining to /hyperflow:scope... (chain-mode=auto)
Awaiting your go-ahead for /hyperflow:scope... (chain-mode=manual)
Error Handling
Failure
Behavior
AskUserQuestion unavailable (headless)
Refuse at Step 0; print error and exit. Spec requires interactive design exploration.
Loop back to Writer for that section with the user's feedback. Max 3 revise cycles per section before suggesting a different approach.
Searcher returns no relevant context
A downstream Writer flags MISSING CONTEXT: <subsystem>; orchestrator redispatches Searcher with the gap. After 2 retries, surface to user: design proceeds with caveat about thin context.
User picks none of the 2-3 proposed approaches
Writer drafts a 4th approach incorporating user's stated objection.
User answers an AskUserQuestion with "Other" + free-form text
Treat as a new constraint; integrate into the next section's draft.
Batched Reviewer returns NEEDS_FIX on 4+ of 5 sections
Likely the chosen approach is wrong. Bounce back to Step 6 and re-pick an approach rather than redrafting 4 sections.
Concurrent dispatch rate-limited (too many parallel Agent calls)
Cap parallel section drafts at 5 (already the natural limit); cap concurrent pre-conditions at 2. If the platform rate-limits further, degrade gracefully to sequential — quality unchanged, latency reverts to current.
Examples
Worked transcripts moved to examples.md so the SKILL body stays lean. The examples are illustrative — not load-bearing for behaviour. Read the companion file when you want to see end-to-end transcripts.
