align

name

align

description

Use before building any feature or change to interrogate intent until both you and the user are certain the context is right. Runs an extensive, multi-dimensional interview, then gates on an explicit confidence score and a context playback the user must confirm. Prevents building the wrong thing. Proactively invoke this (do NOT start building) whenever the user requests a non-trivial feature, change, or fix. Writes the agreed intent and criteria to .spine/journal.md.

align — reach mutual certainty before building

Most wasted work comes from building before intent is clear. This skill closes that gap with an extensive interview and a hard gate: you do not start building until you can state high confidence and the user has confirmed your playback of the context. Both parties must be certain the context is right.

Steps

1. Read the Spine (context.md, conventions.md, current journal.md) so questions are grounded in what already exists — never ask what the Spine already answers.
2. Interrogate every dimension. Work through interrogation.md: problem, outcome, users, scope in/out, constraints, prior art, integration, edge cases, non-functionals, risks. The goal isn't to ask all of them — it's to leave none silently assumed. For each: the Spine answers it, the user answers it, or you name your assumption and get a yes/no.
3. Ask in batches, iterate in rounds. Group related questions into a single round (multiple-choice where possible) rather than one slow question at a time — extensive, but not a slog. After each round, fold answers in and open the next round on what's still ambiguous. Keep going until you have zero open assumptions.
4. Score your confidence (0–100%). State, explicitly, how confident you are that you understand the intent well enough to build the right thing, and why. If it's below ~90%, you are not done — name exactly what's missing and run another round.
5. Play back the context. Once confidence is high, restate — in your own words, compactly — for the user to check:
   • the problem and why it matters,
   • the outcome / definition of done,
   • scope in and scope out,
   • key constraints and decisions made during the interview,
   • remaining unknowns / assumptions you're proceeding on (state them even at high confidence — honesty about the last 10% is the point).
6. Produce acceptance criteria as a checklist — each item observable and testable ("Given X, when Y, then Z").
7. Gate. You may proceed only when both hold: your confidence is high and the user confirms the playback is correct. If the user corrects anything, update and replay before continuing.
8. Write to the Spine. Update journal.md: set Current focus to this work, Next step to the first build action, append the acceptance criteria, and record the confidence level and any stated assumptions. Tag the work with a few labels (area + topic) so the path stays queryable.

Spine I/O

• Reads: context.md, conventions.md, journal.md.
• Writes: journal.md (focus, next step, acceptance criteria, confidence, assumptions).

Notes

• Do not start implementing here. This skill ends at confirmed criteria.
• Extensive ≠ exhausting. Batch, use multiple-choice, and skip what the Spine already settles — depth without dragging.
• A high confidence score with honestly-named unknowns beats a fake 100%. The playback exists so the user catches the assumption you got wrong.