interview

name	interview
description	Socratic interview to crystallize vague requirements
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.
• 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 runtime tool discovery finds the tool → proceed to Path A. If runtime tool discovery returns no matching tools → proceed to Path B.

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.

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>
   

   Returns a session ID and the first question.

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.

   Milestone lateral-review advisory: If an MCP response includes meta.lateral_review_recommended=true, treat it as a non-blocking cue that the interview just crossed an ambiguity milestone such as initial -> progress, progress -> refined, or refined -> ready. The MCP tool is still only a question generator; it has not run lateral personas, blocked the interview, or changed requirements. Before answering the returned question, the main session may run ooo lateral / the ouroboros_lateral_think MCP surface to inspect hidden assumptions for the named meta.lateral_review_milestone, then fold only concrete, user-safe findings into the next answer or user question. If lateral tooling is unavailable or unnecessary, continue with the returned question; do not restart the interview.

   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:

   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: When MCP signals seed-ready, do NOT relay completion blindly. Before announcing completion or suggesting ooo seed, apply the canonical Seed Closer criteria from src/ouroboros/agents/seed-closer.md as the single source of truth for closure readiness. Run the check from the main session's perspective, including any code, research, or brownfield context MCP did not see.

   If any material decision remains unresolved, do not announce seed-ready. If the local challenge finds a material gap, 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 follow-up question, routed through PATH 2 or PATH 3 as appropriate.

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: 📍 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 📍 Next: format: 📍 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"

📍 Next: `ooo seed` to crystallize these requirements into a specification

Next Steps

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