caspar-kickoff

name	caspar-kickoff
description	Project kickoff — deep codebase + external research producing an evidence-backed kickoff doc, gap analysis, and MVP path before scoping. Use to start a fresh feature/project from an unclear problem, when the user wants research/options/an MVP recommendation before committing to scope or a plan. Do not trigger once scope is already defined (use /caspar:scope) or for a single targeted code question (use an analyst agent directly).
user-invocable	true

kickoff

Deep research entry point: investigate the codebase and external best practices, then hand off a written kickoff doc with a gap analysis and MVP path. Clear on WHAT to produce; the research method is yours.

Inputs

• $ARGUMENTS — the project/feature context (the current command arguments). If empty, ask the user for it before any tools.
• Any docs the user references — read them FULLY in main context (not via subagent): vision, constraints, decisions, open questions.

Working set (late-bound — read at runtime, never inline)

• Codebase, via read-only research agents (see Method).
• task_name derived from context (kebab-case); current git commit/branch for metadata + permalinks.

Method / guardrails

1. Acknowledge first. Open with a reply naming what we're exploring, the decision we're heading toward, and what success looks like. No tool calls in this first turn.

2. Decompose the project into research areas (components, dirs/files, patterns, data flows, code to extend); track them with TodoWrite.

3. Research in parallel, read-only — locator → analyzer-on-findings → breadth. Spawn follow-ups if a thread is shallow. Use Context7 MCP for central 3rd-party libs.

   Agent	Task	Required output
   @finder	relevant files, entry points, handlers, models	file paths by domain
   @analyst	data flow, dependencies, behavior, edge cases	file:line for ALL findings
   @patterns	similar impls, patterns to follow/avoid	code examples w/ file:line
   @web-research	best practices, prior art, pitfalls	findings WITH links

   Demand file:line evidence (codebase) and links (external). Returns come back as compressed in-thread summaries — no intermediate report files.

4. Wait for all agents before synthesizing; update TodoWrite as each lands.

5. Synthesize → gap → MVP → options. Connect findings across components with file:line throughout; gap analysis = current capabilities (file refs) vs required, split missing-vs-modify; MVP = core value + minimum slice + what to defer; give 2–3 options each with summary, key decisions, code to leverage (refs), new work, effort, trade-offs; surface decision points and open questions.

Outputs + DONE

Write the kickoff doc to docs/tasks/{task_name}/kickoff/{task_name}_kickoff.md (mkdir -p first; timestamp-suffix if the file exists). Save it before presenting the summary.

• YAML frontmatter: date, git_commit, branch, repo, topic, tags, status.
• Required sections, in order: Title · Metadata · Project Context · Research Summary · Detailed Codebase Findings (by area, file:line, snippets) · Code References (table) · Architecture Insights (patterns, conventions, constraints) · External Research (with links) · Gap Analysis · MVP Suggestion · Implementation Options (2–3, with trade-offs) · Decision Points · Open Questions · Related Resources.
• If on main/pushed, convert file refs to GitHub permalinks: https://github.com/{owner}/{repo}/blob/{commit}/{file}#L{line}.

DONE when: doc saved with every required section populated, all findings carry file:line (or external links), gap analysis and an MVP path are stated, and the saved summary + scoping questions have been presented to the user.

Handoff

Present a compact summary (vision · what exists w/ refs · architecture insights · external learnings · gap · MVP path) plus 1–3 scoping questions, each offering concrete options (e.g. "Option A leverages code:line vs Option B"). Then engage scoping: wait, ask follow-ups, and research answerable questions instead of asking them — do not move to planning until ambiguities resolve. Fold clarifications back into the doc under ## Scoping Clarifications [timestamp]; spawn more research if needed.

When resolved, offer the next step:

1. Proceed to scope → caspar-scope with FROM_KICKOFF=true, KICKOFF_DOC={path}, SKIP_EXPLORATION=true, + context summary.
2. Skip to planning → caspar-plan with the kickoff doc as context.

Escalate-If

• No project context supplied and none inferable → ask the user before researching.
• Research stays shallow / no file:line evidence after follow-ups → say so and present partial findings rather than fabricating depth.
• Scoping ambiguities can't be resolved by research → surface them as Open Questions; do not proceed to planning.