lever-new

name	lever-new
description	Start a new lever — discuss the ask in chat, then capture intent (Goal, Success sketch, Context, Open questions) as §Brief. Hands off via /lever <id>.
metadata	{"author":"fmind","url":"https://github.com/fmind/agent-levers/tree/main/skills/lever-new"}

lever-new

Capture user intent — what to build, what success looks like — as the lever's inaugural §Brief. The brief is a contract about WHAT to build; the chain that follows (/lever <id> → plan → do → check → act) owns mechanism, work, and verification.

§Brief is the input to the chain. The chain reads it, investigates, builds the spec, executes, and verifies. The chat session before the brief lands is the human's last guaranteed touchpoint with the lever — capture enough that the chain can run end-to-end without pausing to re-ask.

Dialog first (hard rule). First-turn output is chat-only: clarifying questions, proposed enhancements, and a draft brief inline. Do not create .agents/levers/<id>-<slug>/, do not write LEVER.md, do not seed lever.yaml until the user explicitly agrees (typed acknowledgment, "looks good", edits incorporated). Files commit on the second turn at earliest. Brief is the cheapest place to improve intent.

1. Pre-flight (read-only)

First-turn pre-flight is reads only — no file writes, no directory creation. Read in order: AGENTS.md (and any nested ones), README.md, the user ask, any spec the ask points at (e.g., TASK.md, design doc, link).

Goal: know enough to ask sharp questions and sketch a draft. Stop when you can classify §2's ambiguities and propose a draft.

2. Discuss and propose

For each ambiguity, classify:

• User-only — irreducible, only the user can answer (business rules, scope boundaries, irreversible architectural choices, security posture, deadlines, new third-party dependencies). → escalate as a clarifying question in chat.
• Investigation-resolvable — the chain can answer it by reading the codebase or external docs (which file owns this, which test framework is wired, what the existing pattern looks like). → note for §Open questions; the chain resolves these without coming back.
• Conventional default — project context already dictates an answer (a rule in AGENTS.md §Conventions, a preset in package.json). → fold into §Context implicitly.

Bias toward asking when stakes are real; default only for low-stakes choices that align with explicit conventions. Re-attempt classifying every user-only question as investigation-resolvable or conventional-default before raising it — a user-only question that slips past the dialog forces the chain to pause and re-ask later. Cap user-only questions at 5 (10 for greenfield); if you'd need more, the brief is premature.

Propose enhancements. Look for sibling capabilities, parallel features, or edge cases the goal implies but the user didn't ask for. One enhancement question is fine; don't pad. Extend where extension is obvious ("you specified Google OAuth — want GitHub too?").

First-turn output. Reply in chat with: (a) clarifying questions, (b) proposed enhancements, (c) a draft brief inline (Goal, Success sketch, Context, Open questions). No file writes.

3. Commit on agreement

Files commit only after explicit agreement — typed acknowledgment, "looks good", "ship it", or edits incorporated.

Once agreement is reached:

1. Pick <id>: highest leading integer among existing .agents/levers/<n>-* directories, plus 1 (start at 1 if none exist).
2. Slug the title to lower snake_case, ≤ 40 chars (drop punctuation, collapse whitespace).
3. mkdir -p .agents/levers/<id>-<slug>/.

§Success sketch is informal — one to three bullets describing what a human would observe when this works, in plain English. Not acceptance criteria (those come from chain investigation), not mechanism — a north star anchoring the chain's downstream criteria. If you can't sketch it, the goal is still ambiguous; loop back to §2.

4. Write the artifacts

Two files in .agents/levers/<id>-<slug>/ — read both templates (siblings of this SKILL.md) before writing:

LEVER.md — match templates/LEVER.md. Initial state: title (# Lever — <id>-<slug>), §TL;DR (≤ 20 lines: state + intent + what to do or decide next), and §Brief (Goal, Context, Success sketch, Open questions). No frontmatter. Future sections (§Plan, §Do, §Check, §Act) appear when their step runs.

lever.yaml — match templates/lever.yaml. Seed:

lever_id: <id>
slug: <slug>
created_at: <ISO8601 UTC current timestamp>
updated_at: <same as created_at on first write>
step: plan # brief captured; the chain enters plan next
criteria: []
decisions: []
hints: []

budget is absent — plan adds it. pause is absent on the happy path; set only if a user-only question survives the dialog and lands unanswered (pause: ask) — rare. step: plan means the next invocation, /lever <id>, runs the chain autonomously through plan → do → check → act → done.

5. Hand off

Two outcomes:

• Advance — brief captured cleanly. Write step: plan, no pause. Closing: "Brief captured; lever.yaml + LEVER.md written. In a new session, run /lever <id> — the chain runs autonomously from there."
• Pause — a user-only question slipped past the dialog and only surfaced after files were written (irreducible business rule, external SLA, technical fork). Rare. Write step: plan, pause: ask; state the question and list options when there's a fork.

If the user abandons before agreement, stay in dialog and write nothing. To abandon after files are written, use /lever-status <id> cancel [<reason>].

lever-new never invokes /lever <id> itself. The two-session split is deliberate: brief-time is the only place the human is in the loop; chain execution is mechanical and reads from files.

Invariant: §Brief answers WHAT to build and why, names every signal a human would observe when this works, and lists every ambiguity the chain must resolve through investigation — so the chain investigates and executes, never re-debates intent or re-asks the human.