escalate

name

escalate

description

Decide whether the current run needs a bounded external-reality pass before committing to a strategic call, then route it to web-check, deep-research-prompt, thesis-gtm, research-paper, or skip. Centralizes the escalation gate that thesis-gtm, power-map, build-vs-clone, domain-planner, wiki-forge, and readme-writing each restated. Use for "escalate", "/escalate", "do we need a Pro pass here", "should we Oracle this", "is this gated by external reality", "bounded Deep Research pass", or when a calling skill's plan/recommendation depends on facts outside the local repo and wiki.

Escalate

Single-purpose gate that decides whether the current decision is gated by current external reality (markets, competitive structure, regulation, live product behavior, public discourse) versus internal corpus (code, wiki, prior duels, repo history). When external reality dominates, route the question to the right research workflow. When it does not, return skip so the caller proceeds without burning a Pro run.

This skill exists because the same gate logic was duplicated nearly verbatim across at least six skills. They each said "if the answer depends on live external facts, escalate to GPT-5 Pro / Deep Research." That gate now lives here.

First Progress Marker (Required)

Start the first progress update with the exact prefix Using escalate.

Preferred format: Using escalate to <goal>. First I will <next concrete step>.

Do not change or omit that prefix.

When to Use

• Another skill is about to commit to a strategic recommendation (positioning, GTM call, build-vs-buy, plan acceptance, concept synthesis) and the recommendation rests on facts outside the repo
• The user explicitly asks "should we Oracle this", "do we need a Pro pass", or "/escalate"
• A wiki concept's claims about markets or competition haven't been validated against current external reality and the next step would lock them in

When NOT to Use

• The question can be answered from WebFetch / WebSearch in a handful of calls → just do that
• The question is about local code, repo history, or wiki content → answer it directly
• The user has already run a Pro pass on this exact question recently → cite the prior result
• Only a prompt-craft handoff is needed with no gating decision → call deep-research-prompt directly

Dependencies

• deep-research-prompt — owns prompt construction and Oracle execution once this skill routes there
• thesis-gtm — owns full GTM thesis validation when the unknown affects customer, buyer, category, positioning, pricing, distribution, or wedge
• research-paper — owns academic/source-grounded paper creation when the desired output is a paper rather than a strategic decision
• wiki (optional) — if the calling context is wiki-based, file the result back as a source via /wiki ingest after the run

The Gate

Score the decision on five signals. If 3+ are present, escalate. If fewer, return skip with the reason.

Signal	Present when
External-reality dominance	The decision turns on facts the repo and wiki cannot witness — current market structure, live regulation, recent public events, competitor product behavior
Stakes	The recommendation will be locked into a VISION, README, plan, or commit — not a throwaway exploration
Staleness	Existing internal evidence is older than ~3 months in a fast-moving domain, or no internal evidence exists
Asymmetry	A wrong answer is much more expensive than the cost of a Pro run (~$1–3 and a few minutes of latency)
Bounded scope	The question can be stated as a single concrete research prompt, not an open-ended fishing expedition

If bounded scope is missing, do NOT escalate — escalation requires a tight question. Push back on the caller and ask them to narrow first.

Caller Packet

Caller skills should pass a packet like this before they ask this skill to decide:

caller: domain-planner | power-map | build-vs-clone | wiki-forge | readme-writing | research-paper | thesis-gtm | other
decision_at_risk: "<what recommendation, artifact, plan, or claim changes if this fact is wrong>"
external_unknown: "<the current outside-world fact the repo/wiki cannot witness>"
internal_evidence_considered:
  - "<repo file, wiki concept, prior duel, local command, or web check already used>"
artifact_target: README | VISION | wiki | slice-plan | build-vs-buy-report | paper | one-shot
stakes: low | medium | high
freshness_need: static | current | live
bounded_question: "<single concrete research question, not a topic area>"
preferred_depth: web-check | deep | oracle

The caller owns the domain reason this matters. /escalate owns the route.

Route Policy

Return exactly one route:

Route	Use when
skip	The answer is internal, low-stakes, already answered recently, or has no downstream commit slot.
web-check	A few WebSearch/WebFetch calls can answer the bounded question. Do that directly instead of launching a Pro run.
deep-research-prompt	The question needs a bounded external-reality pass but is not a full GTM thesis.
thesis-gtm	The unknown changes customer, buyer/user split, category, positioning, pricing, distribution, competitive wedge, or README/VISION thesis.
research-paper	The caller is not already research-paper, and the desired artifact is a source-grounded paper or literature-style synthesis rather than a go/no-go decision.
too-broad	The caller gave a topic area, not a defensible bounded question. Ask the caller to narrow before research.

Never route caller: thesis-gtm back to thesis-gtm. Inside thesis-gtm, return deep-research-prompt, web-check, skip, or too-broad.

Caller-Aware Rules

Apply these overrides after scoring the five gate signals:

Caller	Forced route rules
domain-planner	Route to thesis-gtm --skip-vision when a slice changes ICP, GTM, wedge, target buyer, pricing, packaging, or customer promise. Route to deep-research-prompt for narrow vendor, regulation, API, platform, or ecosystem facts.
power-map	Route to thesis-gtm when the answer could change who the product sells to or whether the product thesis survives. Route to deep-research-prompt for dated evidence about contested intermediaries, regulation, consolidation, pricing, funding, or adoption.
build-vs-clone	Route to deep-research-prompt for current OSS/package/vendor landscape, maintainer momentum, pricing, funding, or ecosystem fit. Route to thesis-gtm only when the build-vs-buy result changes product positioning, target customer, or whether the thing should exist as a product.
wiki-forge	Route to deep-research-prompt to stress-test the duel synthesis against dated facts. Route to thesis-gtm when the forged concept is explicitly a GTM, market, distribution, positioning, or customer thesis.
readme-writing	Route to thesis-gtm before locking strong customer, category, market, GTM, or wedge claims. Route to deep-research-prompt for factual ecosystem comparisons, current install/API behavior, or adjacent-tool facts.
research-paper	If another caller needs a paper as the artifact, route to research-paper. If the caller is already research-paper, let it continue its own paper workflow and route only the final outside-world check to deep-research-prompt, thesis-gtm, web-check, skip, or too-broad.
thesis-gtm	Treat the user or caller as already requesting GTM validation. Return deep-research-prompt when the selected topic is bounded, novel, high-stakes, and externally gated; return too-broad, skip, or web-check otherwise.

Handoff Contract

When the gate fires, return a routing packet:

route: skip | web-check | deep-research-prompt | thesis-gtm | research-paper | too-broad
reason: "<why this route owns the decision>"
required_output: "<evidence or artifact needed before the caller can proceed>"
caller_continuation: "<where the original skill resumes after the routed pass>"
capture_destination: "<wiki note, plan field, README/VISION section, paper path, or one-shot summary>"

When routing to a research workflow:

1. Frame the question in one sentence the caller would defend in a duel
2. List the internal evidence already considered (repo files, wiki concepts, prior duels) so the Pro run doesn't restate what we already know
3. Specify the decision the answer feeds (which README section, which plan field, which VISION claim) — Pro runs without a downstream commit slot tend to drift
4. Hand off to the selected route. For deep-research-prompt, execute mode (oracle on PATH) is preferred over paste mode. Browser-mode Deep Research must go through that skill's verified composer flow (oracle renders the bundle; CDP selects and proves Pro + Deep research, then submits) — never a raw oracle --engine browser submission, which has shipped runs on the wrong model with Deep research off
5. On return, capture the result to the appropriate destination:
   • Wiki context → file as _sources/oracle/<topic>-<date>.md and trigger /wiki ingest
   • Plan/VISION context → quote the load-bearing claims inline with citations and link the full transcript
   • One-shot decision → summarize the answer in one paragraph for the caller

Output

• If escalating: the route packet, the framed prompt, the handoff destination, the capture destination, and a one-line "why this gate fired"
• If skipping: a one-line skip: <reason> and a pointer to whatever internal source already answers the question
• If too broad: a one-line too-broad: <missing bound> and the narrowest question that would make the route legal

Anti-Patterns

Problem	Fix
Escalating for tone-of-voice or style decisions	Those are taste calls; Pro runs add no signal. Skip.
Escalating without a downstream commit slot	If no VISION/README/plan field is waiting for the answer, the Pro run is exploration — fine for the user, not for an autonomous escalate call
Restating the prompt-construction logic from deep-research-prompt	Don't. That's deep-research-prompt's job. This skill is the gate, not the prompt builder
Absorbing caller workflows	Don't. thesis-gtm, power-map, wiki-forge, domain-planner, and readme-writing keep their own topic selection, grading, filing, and artifact updates.
Caller-aware logic becoming a stale registry	Keep route rules short, about ownership boundaries only. If a caller needs more than routing, that logic belongs in the caller skill.
Escalation loops	Never route thesis-gtm to itself. If a route would loop, return too-broad or ask the caller to supply the missing bounded question.
Re-escalating questions a recent Pro run already answered	Check _sources/oracle/ (or equivalent) first; cite and skip
Letting "external reality" creep to mean "anything not in this file"	The repo + wiki count as internal even when their content is large. External = the world outside the corpus

Relationship to Other Skills

• deep-research-prompt owns prompt construction and Pro / Oracle execution. /escalate is upstream of it: route first, then prompt.
• thesis-gtm owns GTM thesis validation. /escalate may route other skills to it, but must not duplicate its topic selection, grading, wiki filing, or VISION/README delta workflow.
• power-map, build-vs-clone, domain-planner, wiki-forge, readme-writing, research-paper — each previously inlined this gate. They should now call /escalate at the gating step and then resume their own downstream artifact workflow.
• wiki-duel runs an internal-corpus duel; if its synthesis depends on external reality, follow with /escalate.
• wiki-forge Phase 7b is the canonical case: forge produces a synthesis, then /escalate routes the final outside-world check before filing back if the concept makes claims about external reality.

Verification / Closeout Contract

Before returning, confirm:

1. The five gate signals were scored explicitly and the decision (skip, web-check, deep-research-prompt, thesis-gtm, research-paper, or too-broad) was justified against them, not asserted.
2. If routing to a research workflow: the framed prompt, the internal-evidence-already-considered list, and the downstream commit slot were all stated before handoff.
3. If skip: the reason was named and a pointer to the internal source that already answers the question was given (or "no answer needed" if the gate failed on stakes/scope).
4. If a Pro run executed: the result was captured to the documented destination (wiki source file, plan field, or one-paragraph summary) — not left dangling in the transcript.
5. The caller's downstream action is unblocked: either it has the external answer it needed, or it has a clear skip reason it can cite.
6. If this run was part of migrating a caller skill (thesis-gtm, power-map, build-vs-clone, domain-planner, wiki-forge, readme-writing) to depend on /escalate, run quick_validate.py on the caller's directory before considering the migration done.