interview

name	interview
description	Socratic interview to crystallize vague requirements
aliases	["socratic"]
mcp_tool	ouroboros_interview
mcp_args	{"initial_context":"$1","cwd":"$CWD"}

/ouroboros:interview

Socratic interview to crystallize vague requirements into clear specifications.

Required Skill Capabilities

• ask_user — ask human-judgment questions through the active runtime's user-question surface.
• inspect_code — answer repo-local factual questions from exact local files before asking the user.
• call_mcp — use Ouroboros MCP tools for persistent interview state and seed generation.
• run_lateral_review — invoke lateral thinking subagents before milestone turns and direct-answer synthesis.
• web_research — fetch current external facts only when the interview genuinely depends on them.
• run_shell — run bounded local commands for version checks and repository inspection.
• refine_answer — confirm structured interpretations of free-text answers before forwarding them.
• maintain_ledger — keep ambiguity, gates, and unresolved decisions visible in the main session.
• run_closure_gate — audit readiness locally even when MCP reports seed-ready.
• restate_goal — restate the goal and require explicit approval before seed generation.

Non-Skippable Gates

• Refine free-text answers that carry scope, constraints, or decisions.
• Maintain a visible ambiguity ledger in the main session.
• Treat MCP seed-ready as permission to audit closure, not as completion.
• Apply Seed Closer criteria before suggesting or running seed generation.
• Run the Restate gate before seed generation.
• Require explicit user approval before suggesting or running seed generation.

Usage

ooo interview [topic]
/ouroboros:interview [topic]

Trigger keywords: "interview me", "clarify requirements"

Instructions

When the user invokes this skill:

Step 0: Version Check (runs before interview)

Before starting the interview, check if a newer version is available:

# Fetch latest release tag from GitHub (timeout 3s to avoid blocking)
curl -s --max-time 3 https://api.github.com/repos/Q00/ouroboros/releases/latest | grep -o '"tag_name": "[^"]*"' | head -1

Compare the result with the current version in the active runtime's local plugin metadata (for Claude installs this is .claude-plugin/plugin.json).

• If a newer version exists, ask the user through the active runtime's ask_user capability:

  {
    "questions": [{
      "question": "Ouroboros <latest> is available (current: <local>). Update before starting?",
      "header": "Update",
      "options": [
        {"label": "Update now", "description": "Update plugin to latest version (restart required to apply)"},
        {"label": "Skip, start interview", "description": "Continue with current version"}
      ],
      "multiSelect": false
    }]
  }
  

  • If "Update now":
    • On Claude-plugin installs only:
      1. Run claude plugin marketplace update ouroboros via the active runtime's run_shell capability (refresh marketplace index). If this fails, tell the user "⚠️ Marketplace refresh failed, continuing…" and proceed.
      2. Run claude plugin update ouroboros@ouroboros via the active runtime's run_shell capability (update plugin/skills). If this fails, inform the user and stop — do NOT proceed to the package-manager step.
    • On non-Claude runtimes, skip Claude plugin commands and proceed directly to the package-manager step for ouroboros-ai; do not require Claude-only commands or tools.
    3. Detect the user's Python package manager and upgrade the MCP server:
       • Check which tool installed ouroboros-ai by running these in order:
         • uv tool list 2>/dev/null | grep "^ouroboros-ai " → if found, use uv tool upgrade ouroboros-ai
         • pipx list 2>/dev/null | grep "^ ouroboros-ai " → if found, use pipx upgrade ouroboros-ai
         • Otherwise, print: "Also upgrade the MCP server: pip install --upgrade ouroboros-ai" (do NOT run pip automatically)
    4. Tell the user: "Updated! Restart your session to apply, then run ooo interview again."
  • If "Skip": proceed immediately.
• If versions match, the check fails (network error, timeout, rate limit 403/429), or parsing fails/returns empty: silently skip and proceed.

Then choose the execution path:

Step 0.5: Load MCP Tools (Required before Path A/B decision)

The Ouroboros MCP tools are often registered as deferred tools that must be explicitly loaded before use. You MUST perform this step before deciding between Path A and Path B.

1. Use the active runtime's tool-discovery capability to find and load the interview MCP tool:

   tool discovery query: "+ouroboros interview"
   

   This searches for tools with "ouroboros" in the name related to "interview".

2. The tool will typically be named mcp__plugin_ouroboros_ouroboros__ouroboros_interview (with a plugin prefix). After runtime tool discovery returns, the tool becomes callable.

3. If the tool is callable — already exposed, or loaded by discovery — proceed to Path A. An empty discovery result for an already-exposed tool is expected, not a failure. Proceed to Path B only if the tool is genuinely absent (no Ouroboros MCP server).

IMPORTANT: Do NOT skip this step. Do NOT assume MCP tools are unavailable just because they don't appear in your immediate tool list. They are almost always available as deferred tools that need to be loaded first.

CRITICAL — deferred-schema guard (prevents "Invalid tool parameters"): This skill makes ouroboros_* MCP calls across multiple turns, and each turn runs in a fresh tool context. A deferred tool's schema loaded on one turn is NOT guaranteed to still be loaded on the next. If you call any ouroboros_* MCP tool while its schema is not loaded in the current turn, the runtime rejects the call with "Invalid tool parameters" before it ever reaches the server. Therefore: immediately before EVERY ouroboros_* MCP call in this skill, re-run the tool-discovery load query for the specific MCP tool you are about to call (idempotent — a no-op when the schema is already loaded) so the correct schema is guaranteed present for that call. Use "+ouroboros interview" before ouroboros_interview and "+ouroboros lateral" before ouroboros_lateral_think. If a load ever returns no matching tool (and the tool is not already callable — an empty load for an already-exposed tool is an expected no-op, not absence), switch to the documented fallback / Path B instead of retrying the failing call.

Path A: MCP Mode (Preferred)

If the ouroboros_interview MCP tool is available (loaded via runtime tool discovery above), use it for persistent, structured interviews.

Architecture: MCP is a pure question generator. You (the main session) are the answerer and router.

MCP (question generator) ←→ You (answerer + router) ←→ User (human judgment only)

Role split:

• MCP: Generates Socratic questions, manages interview state, scores ambiguity. Does NOT read code.
• You (main session): Receives MCP questions, answers them by reading code through the active runtime's inspect_code capability, or routes to the user when human judgment is needed.
• User: Only answers questions that require human decisions (goals, acceptance criteria, business logic, preferences).

Interview Flow

1. Start a new interview:

   Tool: ouroboros_interview
   Arguments:
     initial_context: <user's topic or idea>
     cwd: <current working directory>
     confused_terms: <optional explicit terms the user does not understand>
     references: <optional [{reference_id, label, origin, url?, excerpt?}]>
   

   Returns a session ID and the first question.

   confused_terms and references are structured adapter context, not requirements. They are queued on the start call and MUST NOT alter the first question. On later turns, glossary help is limited to explicitly confused terms and references are used only for contrast questions. Do not infer these arguments from vocabulary density or fetch referenced URLs/files.

2. For each question from MCP, apply the routing paths below:

   Parent-session question handoff: If an MCP response includes meta.status="parent_question_required" or meta.ask_user_directly=true, treat it as a normal interview continuation, not as an MCP/provider/tool failure. Do not tell the user MCP failed, do not expose reason_code, and do not retry the MCP question generator. Ask exactly one natural Socratic clarification question yourself, using the same routing judgement as any other interview turn. Save the exact user-facing question text. When the user answers, call:

   Tool: ouroboros_interview
   Arguments:
     session_id: <meta.session_id>
     answer: <user answer>
     last_question: <exact question you asked the user>
   

   last_question is required on this path so MCP can persist the real transcript even though the parent session generated the question.

   Question-first advisory fanout: If an MCP response includes meta.question_advisory_request, show the interview question to the user first, then use the advisory request as a parent-session assist layer. The advisory exists to help the human answer; it must not hide, replace, or delay the question itself.

   Run the advisory lanes through your runtime's native subagent mechanism when one exists. For Claude Code this is the Task/Agent tool; for Codex, explicitly start a native subagent workflow in natural language. Spawn one subagent per lane, pass that lane's payload prompt, wait for all agents, then synthesize. If the runtime has no parallel primitive, process payloads sequentially per dispatch_mode="sequential" and the request's sequential_fallback semantics. The standard lanes are:

   • code_context — inspect repo-local facts and reuse meta.code_investigation_request when present.
   • web_context — browse/search only when current external facts genuinely affect the answer.
   • ambiguity_contrarian — find hidden assumptions, vague terms, missing decisions, and risky defaults.
   • answer_simplifier — turn the question into 2-3 easy choices or one concise draft answer.
   • architecture_implications — check whether the answer changes ownership, interfaces, rollout, or system shape.

   Synthesize advisory results into a compact helper for the user: 2-3 answer options, one recommended draft, or a short "I found these ambiguities" note. Do not forward advisory output to ouroboros_interview until the user approves, edits, or explicitly asks you to auto-confirm a safe answer. When meta.question_advisory_subagents is present you MUST fan out: treat each entry as a spawn-ready advisory payload with title, agent, prompt, and context, and dispatch every payload through your host's native subagent mechanism (Claude Code → one Task/Agent call per payload in one parallel batch; Codex → explicitly spawn one Codex subagent per payload, wait for all results, then synthesize; runtimes without a parallel primitive → process payloads sequentially per dispatch_mode="sequential") instead of reconstructing prompts from prose. This is required regardless of dispatch mode: the payloads themselves are the spawn signal. Treat meta.question_advisory_host_action=spawn_subagents, when present, as a reinforcing cue for host-driven runtimes such as Codex or Claude Code, not as a prerequisite. The only time you skip spawning is when the host has no subagent primitive at all (then use sequential_fallback). Preserve the original question text while advisory children run.

   Submitting fan-out results back (re-entry): When the originating meta carries a fanout_id (e.g. meta.question_advisory_fanout_id, or a fanout_id in a lateral persona panel dispatch), after all advisory/persona subagents return, call ouroboros_submit_fanout_results with:

   • fanout_id: the stamped id from that meta,
   • correlation_key: the stamped result_correlation_key (context.lane_id, context.persona, or code_facts),
   • results: one { "key": <correlation value>, "content": <child output> } per subagent, where key is that child's correlation value (its lane id, persona, or code_facts). A complete set returns the correlated synthesis to continue with; a partial set returns status="partial" with missing_keys so you can resubmit the remaining lanes. Sequential hosts submit after processing payloads one-by-one — same tool, same contract. Continue the interview from the returned synthesis; keep the user-facing question visible throughout.

   Milestone lateral-review dispatch: If an MCP response includes meta.lateral_review_recommended=true, treat it as a required lightweight subagent review for that turn. The interview just crossed an ambiguity milestone such as initial -> progress, progress -> refined, or refined -> ready, which is exactly when hidden assumptions tend to matter.

   After showing the returned question to the user:

   • Tell the user briefly that a few perspectives are checking the question.
   • Call ouroboros_lateral_think with meta.lateral_review_tool_args when present. If only the legacy advisory fields are present, call it with personas=["researcher","contrarian","simplifier"], a problem context containing the current interview session/milestone/question, and a current approach describing the next interview-routing decision.
   • Fold only concrete, user-safe findings into the next answer or user question. Do not present every subagent note as a report.
   • If lateral tooling is unavailable, continue the interview and say the review could not be run; do not restart the interview.

   The MCP interview tool is still the question generator and source of persistent state. Lateral review is a main-session assist layer: it helps the user feel supported, but it does not by itself change requirements or mark the interview complete.

   Main-session direct-answer assistance: Use lateral review frequently when the main session would otherwise answer the MCP question directly or compress the user's free-text into a decision. This is the supported "deep research style" experience for interviews: the user should see that multiple perspectives are helping, while the final prompt stays easy to answer.

   Trigger a lightweight ouroboros_lateral_think call before continuing when any of these are true:

   • You are about to synthesize a product/UX/architecture answer from partial user input.
   • The question asks for tradeoffs, priorities, non-goals, risk, success criteria, or rollout strategy.
   • The factual code answer is lower confidence than an exact config/manifest match.
   • The user seems busy, uncertain, terse, or likely to benefit from selectable options instead of another open-ended question.

   Prefer personas=["researcher","contrarian","simplifier"] for this assist. Add architect when the answer changes system shape or ownership. Summarize the result as 2-3 concrete options or one recommended answer draft, then let the user approve, tweak, or switch to auto.

   PATH 1 — Code Answer (describe current state from codebase): When the question asks about existing tech stack, frameworks, dependencies, current patterns, architecture, or file structure:

   • Use the active runtime's inspect_code capability to find the factual answer
   • Description, not prescription: "The project uses JWT" is fact. "The new feature should also use JWT" is a DECISION — route to PATH 2.
   • Evaluate confidence and choose sub-path:

   PATH 1a — Auto-confirm (high-confidence factual, no user block): When ALL of the following are true:

   • The answer is found as an exact match in a manifest or config file (e.g., pyproject.toml, package.json, Dockerfile, go.mod, .env.example)
   • The answer is purely descriptive — it describes what exists, not what the new feature should do
   • There is no ambiguity — a single, clear answer (not multiple candidates)

   Then:

   • Send the answer to MCP immediately with [from-code][auto-confirmed] prefix
   • Display a brief notification to the user (do NOT block): "ℹ️ Auto-confirmed: Python 3.12, FastAPI framework (pyproject.toml)"
   • The user can correct at any time by saying "that's wrong" — re-send correction to MCP
   • Increment the auto-confirm counter (see Dialectic Rhythm Guard below)

   Examples of auto-confirmable facts:

   • Programming language (from pyproject.toml, package.json, go.mod)
   • Framework (from dependencies in manifest)
   • Python/Node version (from config files)
   • Package manager (from lock files present)
   • CI/CD tool (from .github/workflows/, Jenkinsfile, etc.)

   PATH 1b — Code Confirmation (medium/low confidence, user confirms): When the codebase has relevant information but confidence is not high enough for auto-confirm (inferred from patterns, multiple candidates, or no manifest match):

   • Present findings to user as a confirmation question through the active runtime's ask_user capability:

     {
       "questions": [{
         "question": "MCP asks: What auth method does the project use?\n\nI found: JWT-based auth in src/auth/jwt.py\n\nIs this correct?",
         "header": "Q<N> — Code Confirmation",
         "options": [
           {"label": "Yes, correct", "description": "Use this as the answer"},
           {"label": "No, let me correct", "description": "I'll provide the right answer"}
         ],
         "multiSelect": false
       }]
     }
     

   • Prefix answer with [from-code] when sending to MCP
   • If the user picks "Yes, correct", send the concise factual answer with [from-code] and do not apply the Refine gate. Increment the auto-confirm counter (see Dialectic Rhythm Guard below).
   • If the user picks "No, let me correct", immediately use the ask_user capability to collect the corrected answer as free text:

     {
       "questions": [{
         "question": "What should I send instead for this MCP question?\n\nMCP asks: What auth method does the project use?\n\nInclude any reasoning, constraints, or scope that should be preserved.",
         "header": "Q<N> — Correction"
       }]
     }
     

   • Route the correction text through the Refine gate before sending it to MCP. Send the multi-section payload with [from-user][refined] (the human is now the source of the corrected answer).
   • If the user supplies a correction directly without using the option, treat that free text the same way: Refine first, then send with [from-user][refined].
   • Reset the Dialectic Rhythm Guard counter to 0 because the corrected answer is direct user judgment, even though it was initiated from a code or research confirmation path.

   PATH 2 — Human Judgment (decisions only humans can make): When the question asks about goals, vision, acceptance criteria, business logic, preferences, tradeoffs, scope, or desired behavior for NEW features:

   • Present question directly to user through the active runtime's ask_user capability with suggested options
   • Prefix answer with [from-user] when sending to MCP

   PATH 3 — Code + Judgment (facts exist but interpretation needed): When code contains relevant facts BUT the question also requires judgment (e.g., "I see a saga pattern in orders/. Should payments use the same?"):

   • Use the active runtime's inspect_code capability to read relevant code first
   • Present BOTH the code findings AND the question to user
   • If any part of the question requires judgment, route the ENTIRE question to user
   • Prefix answer with [from-user] (human made the decision)

   PATH 4 — Research Interlude (external knowledge needed): When the question asks about third-party APIs, pricing models, library capabilities, version compatibility, security advisories, or industry standards that are NOT answerable from the local codebase:

   • Use the active runtime's web_research capability to gather external information
   • Present findings to user as a confirmation question through the active runtime's ask_user capability (same pattern as PATH 1, but with web sources instead of code):

     {
       "questions": [{
         "question": "MCP asks: What rate limits does the Stripe API have?\n\nI found: Stripe allows 100 read ops/sec and 25 write ops/sec in live mode.\n\nIs this correct?",
         "header": "Q<N> — Research Confirmation",
         "options": [
           {"label": "Yes, correct", "description": "Use this as the answer"},
           {"label": "No, let me correct", "description": "I'll provide the right answer"}
         ],
         "multiSelect": false
       }]
     }
     

   • Prefix answer with [from-research] when sending to MCP
   • If the user picks "Yes, correct", send the concise factual answer with [from-research] and do not apply the Refine gate. Increment the auto-confirm counter (see Dialectic Rhythm Guard below).
   • If the user picks "No, let me correct", immediately use the ask_user capability to collect the corrected answer as free text:

     {
       "questions": [{
         "question": "What should I send instead for this MCP question?\n\nMCP asks: What rate limits does the Stripe API have?\n\nInclude any source correction, reasoning, constraints, or scope that should be preserved.",
         "header": "Q<N> — Research Correction"
       }]
     }
     

   • Route the correction text through the Refine gate before sending it to MCP. Send the multi-section payload with [from-user][refined] (the human is now the source of the corrected answer).
   • If the user supplies a correction directly without using the option, treat that free text the same way: Refine first, then send with [from-user][refined].
   • Reset the Dialectic Rhythm Guard counter to 0 because the corrected answer is direct user judgment, even though it was initiated from a code or research confirmation path.
   • Facts, not decisions: "Stripe rate limit is 100 req/s" is research. "We should use Stripe" is a DECISION — route to PATH 2.

   When in doubt, use PATH 2. It's safer to ask the user than to guess.

3. Send the answer back to MCP:

   When the user explicitly introduces a new reference or asks what a domain term means, include the matching references or confused_terms argument on that call. Do not put product decisions into glossary/reference fields; keep those decisions in the user answer.

   Payload format — preserve the user's reasoning, do NOT compress to one line. MCP cannot read code, browse the web, or call tools. The text you send is the only context MCP has when generating the next question. A one-line answer collapses the user's reasoning, constraints, and scope decisions into a label, which degrades both the next question's quality and the ambiguity scoring. Send the user's full reasoning, structured.

   Single-line answers are OK only for PATH 1a auto-confirmed facts, PATH 1b / PATH 4 pre-built option confirmations where the factual answer is already explicit, and short PATH 2 answers that have no reasoning or constraints attached (e.g., "Yes" / "No" / "Python 3.12"). User corrections, free-text reasoning, constraints, or scope decisions must be sent as the multi-section payload below after the Refine gate.

   Tool: ouroboros_interview
   Arguments:
     session_id: <session ID>
     answer: |
       [from-user][refined]
       Decision: Stripe Billing.
   
       Reasoning:
       - Subscription is the core business model.
       - Stripe bundles invoice/dunning/tax — avoids building those.
   
       Constraints (user-stated):
       - 30% Korean MAU, KRW required.
       - Revenue recognition automation OUT OF SCOPE this quarter.
   
       Out of scope (user-stated):
       - Refund policy changes, tax-invoice issuance.
   
       Codebase context (main session verified):
       - src/billing/ does not exist yet.
       - src/payments/toss_adapter.py is one-shot KRW only.
   

   Short-answer cases (single-line OK):

   "[from-code][auto-confirmed] Python 3.12, FastAPI (pyproject.toml)"
   "[from-code] JWT-based auth in src/auth/jwt.py"
   "[from-research] Stripe allows 100 read ops/sec and 25 write ops/sec in live mode"
   "[from-user] Yes"
   

   Append [refined] to an existing valid prefix ([from-code], [from-user], or [from-research]) only when the answer has been through the Refine gate (see Step 4). MCP records the answer, generates the next question, and returns it.

4. Refine before forwarding (free-text answers only):

   When the user gives a free-text answer that carries reasoning, constraints, or scope decisions, do NOT forward it to MCP unmodified and do NOT compress it to a label. Structure it into the multi-section payload above, then ask the user a single ask_user capability to confirm nothing is lost:

   {
     "questions": [{
       "question": "I structured your answer as follows before sending it to MCP:\n\n<multi-section payload>\n\nIs anything missing or misrepresented?",
       "header": "Refine — preserve the structure of your answer",
       "options": [
         {"label": "Send as-is", "description": "The structure captures my answer faithfully"},
         {"label": "Add to Constraints", "description": "I want to add a constraint I forgot"},
         {"label": "Add to Out of scope", "description": "I want to mark something explicitly out of scope"},
         {"label": "Add context", "description": "I want to add reasoning, code context, or research context"},
         {"label": "Rewrite", "description": "Let me re-state the answer"}
       ],
       "multiSelect": false
     }]
   }
   

   The Refine gate replaces "compress to one line" with "preserve the user's reasoning, surface anything missing." It is skipped for:

   • PATH 1a auto-confirmed facts
   • PATH 1b / PATH 4 confirmation answers where the user picked a pre-built option (the structure is already explicit)
   • Short PATH 2 answers (e.g., "Yes" / single proper noun) with no reasoning attached

   Exception — Restate corrections never skip Refine, regardless of length. Any free-text follow-up collected by the Step 9 Restate gate ("Adjust wording" / "Missing scope") must go through Refine before being forwarded to MCP. Even a short correction like "Exclude retry scheduling from the seed." carries scope/boundary information that MCP needs in structured form during the reopen call, so the short-PATH-2 exemption above does NOT apply to Restate corrections. A single-line Restate correction that bypasses Refine would forward [from-user] instead of [from-user][refined] and would not trigger the last_question reopen, leaving MCP on stale pre-correction state when the seed is generated.

   Refine-passed answers count as direct user judgment — they reset the Dialectic Rhythm Guard counter to 0 (see below).

   If the user picks "Add to Constraints", "Add to Out of scope", "Add context", or "Rewrite", do not infer the missing text from the option label. Immediately use the ask_user capability for one follow-up to collect the exact text:

   {
     "questions": [{
       "question": "What text should I add or change before sending this to MCP?\n\nCurrent structured answer:\n\n<multi-section payload>",
       "header": "Refine — Missing Text"
     }]
   }
   

   Apply the follow-up text to the structured payload, then ask the Refine gate once more. Do not send the payload to MCP while the user is still telling you that required text is missing or the answer should be rewritten. If the second Refine response again says "Add to Constraints", "Add to Out of scope", "Add context", or "Rewrite", ask a targeted PATH 2 follow-up for the exact missing text and withhold the MCP answer until the user either supplies that text or explicitly accepts the structured payload. The Add context option is handled identically to the other three on the second pass — never infer omitted content from the option label, and prefer stopping over forwarding a payload the user has identified as incomplete.

5. Mark the answer as Refine-passed: Append [refined] to the prefix when sending the structured payload to MCP (e.g., [from-user][refined]). MCP treats refined answers as high-confidence ground truth for ambiguity scoring.

6. Keep a visible ambiguity ledger: Track independent ambiguity tracks (scope, constraints, outputs, verification). Do NOT let the interview collapse onto a single subtopic.

7. Repeat steps 2-6 until the user says "done" or MCP signals seed-ready.

8. Seed-ready Acceptance Guard (tri-panel fan-out): When MCP signals seed-ready, do NOT relay completion blindly. Before announcing completion or suggesting ooo seed, run the acceptance guard as a 3-lane fan-out instead of a single local check, so closure is pressure -tested from three independent perspectives:

   • closer — apply the canonical Seed Closer criteria from src/ouroboros/agents/seed-closer.md. This lane's verdict gates.
   • contrarian — challenge the interview's conclusions: hidden assumptions, overloaded terms, decisions the interview skipped.
   • gap_hunter — hunt for missing requirements, unlisted constraints, unhandled edge cases, and unverifiable acceptance criteria.

   Spawn one subagent per lane through your runtime's native subagent mechanism (Claude Code → one Task/Agent call per lane in one parallel batch; Codex → one native Codex subagent per lane; runtimes with no parallel primitive → process the lane payloads sequentially). Correlate results by context.lane_id. Run the check from the main session's perspective, including any code, research, or brownfield context MCP did not see.

   Synthesis (deterministic): the closer verdict gates — if it is not seed_ready, do not announce seed-ready. Additionally, any HIGH-severity contrarian or gap_hunter finding blocks closure and its question is appended to the blocking follow-ups. If closure is blocked, explicitly override the MCP signal: "MCP says seed-ready, but I am not accepting it yet because <gap>." Explain the gap briefly and ask the single highest-impact blocking follow-up question, routed through PATH 2 or PATH 3 as appropriate. When no parallel primitive exists, running only the closer lane is the backward-compatible single-pass fallback.

9. Restate gate (only after Seed-ready Acceptance Guard passes):

   Once the Acceptance Guard passes, do not jump straight to ooo seed. First restate the agreed goal as a single sentence and ask the user to confirm it captures the decision. This is the one place where compression to a single line is the goal — every other answer in the interview was sent to MCP in full multi-section form (see Step 3), and now we collapse the accumulated agreement into a one-line goal that another person could read and arrive at the same outcome.

   {
     "questions": [{
       "question": "Based on the answers we agreed on, here is a one-sentence restatement of the goal:\n\n  goal: <one-sentence restatement>\n\nIf someone else read only this line, would they arrive at the same outcome you have in mind?",
       "header": "Restate — one-line goal before seed",
       "options": [
         {"label": "Yes, generate seed", "description": "The line captures the goal; proceed to ooo seed"},
         {"label": "Adjust wording", "description": "The intent is right but I want to change words"},
         {"label": "Missing scope", "description": "A condition or boundary is missing from the line"}
       ],
       "multiSelect": false
     }]
   }
   

   Only after the user accepts the restated line do you suggest ooo seed. If the user picks "Adjust wording", immediately use the ask_user capability to collect the replacement wording:

   {
     "questions": [{
       "question": "How should the one-sentence goal be worded instead?\n\nCurrent line:\n  goal: <one-sentence restatement>",
       "header": "Restate — Wording"
     }]
   }
   

   If the user picks "Missing scope", immediately use the ask_user capability to collect the missing condition or boundary:

   {
     "questions": [{
       "question": "What scope, condition, or boundary is missing from the one-sentence goal?\n\nCurrent line:\n  goal: <one-sentence restatement>",
       "header": "Restate — Scope"
     }]
   }
   

   Treat the follow-up text as a real interview correction, not a local-only wording tweak. Route the follow-up text through the Refine gate before forwarding it. The Step 4 short-PATH-2 skip rule does NOT apply here, even if the correction is a single sentence — a bare reply like "Exclude retry scheduling from the seed." still encodes a boundary decision that must reach MCP as [from-user][refined] with the reopen last_question; sending it as [from-user] would leave MCP on the stale pre-correction state. Then build the same structured multi-section payload from Step 3 using the canonical five-section schema —

   • Decision: the corrected one-line goal verbatim.
   • Reasoning: why the wording/scope changed (carry over the user's correction text, do not paraphrase).
   • Constraints (user-stated): any constraint introduced or tightened by the correction.
   • Out of scope (user-stated): anything the correction marks as explicitly excluded.
   • Codebase context (main session verified): the file paths, configs, or facts the main session checked while preparing the restated goal, or omit the section entirely if no code reference is involved. Send that structured restate correction back to MCP with [from-user][refined], preserving the corrected goal line and the user's stated wording or missing scope. Because this is a post-seed-ready follow-up that MCP did not generate, call ouroboros_interview with both the structured answer and last_question set to the exact local Restate follow-up prompt you asked (for example, the "How should the one-sentence goal be worded instead?" or "What scope, condition, or boundary is missing?" question). Without last_question, the handler must reject the reopen rather than attach the correction to a stale MCP question. Then return to Step 7 so MCP can update its interview state and the Seed-ready Acceptance Guard can run again against the updated state. Do not proceed directly to ooo seed from the stale pre-correction MCP state.

   After MCP returns seed-ready again and the Acceptance Guard still passes, ask the Restate gate once more with the corrected goal line. Do not loop more than twice; if alignment is not reached, route back to PATH 2 with a targeted question instead of forcing a goal line.

10. Prefer stopping over over-interviewing: When the Restate gate passes, suggest ooo seed.

11. After completion, suggest the next step: ◆ Current state → next: ooo seed to crystallize these requirements into a specification

Dialectic Rhythm Guard

Track consecutive non-user answers (PATH 1a auto-confirms, PATH 1b code confirmations, and PATH 4 research confirmations). If 3 consecutive questions were answered without direct user judgment (PATH 1a, 1b, or PATH 4), the next question MUST be routed to PATH 2 (directly to user), even if it appears code- or research-answerable.

This preserves the Socratic dialectic rhythm — the interview is with the human, not the codebase or external docs. Auto-confirmed answers especially need this guard: if the AI answers too many questions on its own, the user loses awareness of what the AI is assuming about their project.

Reset the counter whenever user answers directly (PATH 2 or PATH 3), or when a PATH 1b / PATH 4 correction is routed through the Refine gate and sent as [from-user][refined]. Only accepted code/research confirmations advance the non-user streak.

Retry on Failure

If MCP returns is_error=true with meta.recoverable=true:

1. Tell user: "Question generation encountered an issue. Retrying..."
2. Call ouroboros_interview(session_id=...) to resume (max 2 retries). State (including any recorded answers) is persisted before the error, so resuming will not lose progress.
3. If still failing: "MCP is having trouble. Switching to direct interview mode." Then switch to Path B and continue from where you left off.

Special case — meta.reason == "initial_context_too_large": When the response carries this meta.reason (with meta.recoverable=true and is_error=false — the wire success/failure axis is intentionally not flipped, to keep existing callers like the auto driver working), the text body is a meta-directive asking you to re-send a shorter context — it is NOT an interview question. Do not route it through the active runtime's ask_user capability. Instead, produce a concise summary of the original initial_context (≤ meta.max_chars characters; covers goal, constraints, success criteria) and re-call ouroboros_interview with session_id=<from meta> and the summary as answer. The next response will contain the real first question.

Advantages of MCP mode: State persists to disk, ambiguity scoring, direct ooo seed integration via session ID. Code-enriched confirmation questions reduce user burden — only human-judgment questions require user input.

Path B: Plugin Fallback (No MCP Server)

If the MCP tool is NOT available, fall back to agent-based interview:

1. Read src/ouroboros/agents/socratic-interviewer.md and adopt that role
2. Pre-scan the codebase: Use the active runtime's inspect_code capability to check for config files (pyproject.toml, package.json, go.mod, etc.). If found, inspect key files and incorporate findings into your questions as confirmation-style ("I see X. Should I assume Y?") rather than open-ended discovery ("Do you have X?")
3. Ask clarifying questions based on the user's topic and codebase context
4. Present each question using the active runtime's ask_user capability with contextually relevant suggested answers (same format as Path A step 2)
5. Use the active runtime's inspect_code and web_research capabilities to explore further context if needed
6. Maintain the same ambiguity ledger and breadth-check behavior as in Path A:
   • Track multiple independent ambiguity threads
   • Revisit unresolved threads every few rounds
   • Do not let one detailed subtopic crowd out the rest of the original request
7. Apply the Refine gate (Path A Step 4) to free-text user answers before absorbing them into your running understanding. The structure preservation matters less here than in Path A (no MCP relay), but the "did I miss any reasoning, constraints, or scope?" check still surfaces gaps.
8. Prefer closure only after applying the Seed-ready Acceptance Guard above. Then apply the Restate gate (Path A Step 9): collapse the agreed answers into a one-sentence goal and confirm with the user before suggesting ooo seed. In fallback mode there is no MCP state to refresh, so if the user picks "Adjust wording" or "Missing scope", ask the same follow-up questions from Step 9, apply the correction directly to the local interview ledger and one-sentence goal, rerun the Seed-ready Acceptance Guard locally, and ask the Restate gate again with the corrected goal line. Do not try to "send it back to MCP" in Path B; the conversation context is the source of truth.
9. Continue until the user says "done"
10. Interview results live in conversation context (not persisted)
11. After completion, suggest the next step in ◆ Current state → next: format: ◆ Current state → next: ooo seed to crystallize these requirements into a specification

Interviewer Behavior

MCP (question generator) is ONLY a questioner:

• Always generates a question targeting the biggest source of ambiguity
• Preserves breadth across independent ambiguity tracks
• NEVER writes code, edits files, or runs commands

You (main session) are a Socratic facilitator:

• Read src/ouroboros/agents/socratic-interviewer.md to understand the interview methodology
• You CAN use the active runtime's inspect_code capability to scan the codebase for answering MCP questions
• For high-confidence factual questions (PATH 1a), auto-confirm and notify the user
• For all other questions, present to user as confirmation or direct question
• You NEVER make decisions on behalf of the user — auto-confirm is for FACTS only
• You are the final gate on MCP seed-ready signals: apply the canonical Seed Closer criteria before suggesting ooo seed
• The Dialectic Rhythm Guard prevents over-automation: after 3 consecutive non-user answers, the next question MUST go directly to the user

Example Session

User: ooo interview Add payment module to existing project

MCP Q1: "Is this a greenfield or brownfield project?"
→ PATH 1a: exact match in pyproject.toml + src/ directory
→ ℹ️ Auto-confirmed: Brownfield, Python 3.12 / FastAPI (pyproject.toml)
→ [from-code][auto-confirmed] sent to MCP (counter: 1)

MCP Q2: "What payment provider will you use?"
→ PATH 2: human decision — no code can answer this
→ User: "Stripe"
→ [from-user] sent to MCP (counter reset to 0)

MCP Q3: "What authentication method does the project use?"
→ PATH 1b: found src/auth/jwt.py but inferred (not manifest)
→ "I found JWT-based auth in src/auth/jwt.py. Is this correct?"
→ User: "Yes, correct"
→ [from-code] sent to MCP (counter: 1)

MCP Q4: "How should payment failures affect order state?"
→ PATH 2: design decision
→ User: "Saga pattern for rollback"
→ Refine gate structures the answer
→ User: "Add to Out of scope"
→ Follow-up asks for exact missing text
→ User: "Do not build automatic retry scheduling yet"
→ Refine gate runs once more, then [from-user][refined] sent to MCP (counter reset to 0)

MCP Q5: "What are the acceptance criteria for this feature?"
→ PATH 2: requires human judgment
→ User: "Successful Stripe charge, webhook handling, refund support"
→ Refine gate passes; [from-user][refined] sent to MCP

MCP signals seed-ready; Acceptance Guard passes
→ Restate: "Add Stripe payments with charges, webhooks, refunds, and failed-payment rollback."
→ User: "Missing scope"
→ Follow-up asks for exact missing scope
→ User: "Exclude retry scheduling from the seed."
→ Refine gate structures the restate correction
→ [from-user][refined] restate correction sent to MCP; return to Step 7/Seed-ready guard
→ MCP signals seed-ready again; Acceptance Guard still passes
→ Restate again: "Add Stripe payments with charges, webhooks, refunds, failed-payment rollback, and no retry scheduling."
→ User: "Yes, generate seed"

◆ Current state → next: `ooo seed` to crystallize these requirements into a specification

Next Steps

After interview completion, use ooo seed to generate the Seed specification.

RFC #1392 State Breadcrumb Footer

Your final response MUST end with exactly one breadcrumb footer line:

◆ <current state> → next: <recommended action>

Derive <current state> from live session state via ouroboros_session_status when that MCP projection is available; otherwise derive it from this skill's actual outcome. Never use a linear Step N of M footer because Ouroboros is an evolutionary loop. When the next action is genuinely a choice, list 2-3 honest options in the next: clause. The breadcrumb line must be the last line of the response.