list-phase-assumptions

<purpose> Surface Copilot's assumptions about a phase before planning, enabling users to correct misconceptions early. Key difference from discuss-phase: This is ANALYSIS of what Copilot thinks, not INTAKE of what user knows. No file output - purely conversational to prompt discussion. </purpose> <process> <step name="validate_phase" priority="first"> Phase number: $ARGUMENTS (required) **If argument missing:** ``` Error: Phase number required. Usage: /list-phase-assumptions.md [phase-number] Example: /list-phase-assumptions.md 3 ``` Exit workflow. **If argument provided:** Validate phase exists in roadmap: ```bash cat .gsd/ROADMAP.md | grep -i "Phase ${PHASE}" ``` **If phase not found:** ``` Error: Phase ${PHASE} not found in roadmap. Available phases: [list phases from roadmap] ``` Exit workflow. **If phase found:** Parse phase details from roadmap: - Phase number - Phase name - Phase description/goal - Any scope details mentioned Continue to analyze_phase. </step> <step name="analyze_phase"> Based on roadmap description and project context, identify assumptions across five areas: **1. Technical Approach:** What libraries, frameworks, patterns, or tools would Copilot use? - "I'd use X library because..." - "I'd follow Y pattern because..." - "I'd structure this as Z because..." **2. Implementation Order:** What would Copilot build first, second, third? - "I'd start with X because it's foundational" - "Then Y because it depends on X" - "Finally Z because..." **3. Scope Boundaries:** What's included vs excluded in Copilot's interpretation? - "This phase includes: A, B, C" - "This phase does NOT include: D, E, F" - "Boundary ambiguities: G could go either way" **4. Risk Areas:** Where does Copilot expect complexity or challenges? - "The tricky part is X because..." - "Potential issues: Y, Z" - "I'd watch out for..." **5. Dependencies:** What does Copilot assume exists or needs to be in place? - "This assumes X from previous phases" - "External dependencies: Y, Z" - "This will be consumed by..." Be honest about uncertainty. Mark assumptions with confidence levels: - "Fairly confident: ..." (clear from roadmap) - "Assuming: ..." (reasonable inference) - "Unclear: ..." (could go multiple ways) </step> <step name="present_assumptions"> Present assumptions in a clear, scannable format: ``` ## My Assumptions for Phase ${PHASE}: ${PHASE_NAME} ### Technical Approach [List assumptions about how to implement] ### Implementation Order [List assumptions about sequencing] ### Scope Boundaries **In scope:** [what's included] **Out of scope:** [what's excluded] **Ambiguous:** [what could go either way] ### Risk Areas [List anticipated challenges] ### Dependencies **From prior phases:** [what's needed] **External:** [third-party needs] **Feeds into:** [what future phases need from this] --- **What do you think?** Are these assumptions accurate? Let me know: - What I got right - What I got wrong - What I'm missing ``` Wait for user response. </step> <step name="gather_feedback"> **If user provides corrections:** Acknowledge the corrections: ``` Key corrections: - [correction 1] - [correction 2] This changes my understanding significantly. [Summarize new understanding] ``` **If user confirms assumptions:** ``` Assumptions validated. ``` Continue to offer_next. </step> <step name="offer_next"> Present next steps: ``` What's next? 1. Discuss context (/discuss-phase.md ${PHASE}) - Let me ask you questions to build comprehensive context 2. Plan this phase (/plan-phase.md ${PHASE}) - Create detailed execution plans 3. Re-examine assumptions - I'll analyze again with your corrections 4. Done for now ``` Wait for user selection. If "Discuss context": Note that CONTEXT.md will incorporate any corrections discussed here If "Plan this phase": Proceed knowing assumptions are understood If "Re-examine": Return to analyze_phase with updated understanding </step> </process> <success_criteria> - Phase number validated against roadmap - Assumptions surfaced across five areas: technical approach, implementation order, scope, risks, dependencies - Confidence levels marked where appropriate - "What do you think?" prompt presented - User feedback acknowledged - Clear next steps offered </success_criteria>