joycraft-research

name	joycraft-research
description	Invoked by design/decompose or the human directly — produce objective codebase research by isolating question generation from fact-gathering

Research Codebase for a Feature

You are producing objective codebase research to inform a future spec or implementation. The key insight: the researching agent must never see the brief or ticket — only research questions. This prevents opinions from contaminating the facts.

Guard clause: If the user doesn't provide a brief path or inline description, ask: "What feature or change are you researching? Provide a brief path or describe it."

Step 0: Retrieve Before You Reason (PROTOCOL)

Before generating a single research question, run a bounded grep-first retrieval pass over the durable knowledge layer — a capped lookup, not a reading assignment:

1. Derive 3-6 search terms from the brief's (or inline description's) key concepts.
2. Grep, in priority order: docs/context/decision-log.md, docs/context/shipped.md, docs/discoveries/, remaining docs/context/*.md.
3. Read at most 5 files/rows total; if a term returns dozens of hits, read only the newest within the cap and say the result was truncated.
4. Empty or missing knowledge layer (fresh project): report "nothing to retrieve" in one line and proceed — never block.

Output contract: the research document MUST include a "Prior knowledge reused" section — a list citing each reused doc + row date/heading, or the explicit line "retrieval ran (terms: …), nothing relevant found."

Contradictions: if a retrieved decision or discovery contradicts the brief's direction, surface it explicitly in your handoff — never silently pick a side.

---

Phase 1: Generate Research Questions

Read the brief and identify which zones of the codebase are relevant. Generate 5-10 research questions that are:

• Objective and fact-seeking — "How does X work?" not "How should we build X?"
• Specific to the codebase
• Answerable by reading code

Output path:

• If a brief exists at docs/features/<slug>/brief.md, write to docs/features/<slug>/research.md (per-feature layout).
• If no brief exists (inline description only), write to docs/research/YYYY-MM-DD-feature-name.md (flat layout).

Write the questions to docs/features/<slug>/.questions-tmp.md. Do NOT include any content from the brief.

---

Phase 2: Deploy Research Subagent

Use the subagent tool with agent joycraft-researcher to perform the research. Pass ONLY the research questions — never the brief. Build the prompt from the questions file you just wrote.

Subagent prompt:

You are researching a codebase to answer specific questions. You have NO context about why these questions are being asked.

RULES:
- Answer each question with FACTS ONLY: file paths, function signatures, data flows, patterns, dependencies
- Do NOT recommend, suggest, or opine
- Do NOT speculate about what should be built
- If a question cannot be answered, say "No existing code found for this"
- Search the codebase and read files thoroughly
- Include code snippets only when essential evidence

QUESTIONS:
[INSERT_QUESTIONS_HERE]

OUTPUT FORMAT:

# Codebase Research

**Date:** [today]
**Questions answered:** [N/total]

---

## Q1: [question]
[Facts only]

## Q2: [question]
[Facts only]

Phase 3: Write the Research Document

Write the subagent's response to docs/features/<slug>/research.md, adding a "Prior knowledge reused" section at the top from Step 0's retrieval pass (or the line "retrieval ran (terms: …), nothing relevant found"). Delete the temporary questions file.

Update the Feature Brief

After writing the research document, update the parent brief with a back-reference:

1. Read docs/features/<slug>/brief.md
2. In the header blockquote (the > lines at the top), add or update: > **Research:** docs/features/<slug>/research.md
3. If a > **Research:** line already exists, replace it — do NOT add a duplicate
4. Write the brief back

Present:

Research complete: docs/features/<slug>/research.md

This document contains objective facts — no opinions or recommendations.

Recommended next step:
- /skill:joycraft-design — translate research findings into architectural decisions before building

If the scope is simple (< 5 files, well-understood area, no architectural decisions):
- /skill:joycraft-decompose — skip design and break directly into atomic specs

Other options:
- /skill:joycraft-new-feature — formalize into a full Feature Brief first
- Read the research and add corrections manually

Phase 4: Reconcile Brief with Findings

You've just written docs/features/<slug>/research.md. Before hand-off, the parent brief at docs/features/<slug>/brief.md may now disagree with what you discovered. Re-read it and check each of these sections:

Brief section	What to look for
Vision	Did your findings refine or contradict the framing?
Hard Constraints	Are any constraints now obsolete, missing, or refined?
Out of Scope	Did your findings push something in or out of scope?
Decomposition	Are spec counts, names, or dependencies still accurate?
Test Strategy	Do your findings change what or how to test?
Success Criteria	Are the criteria still observable and still match the goal?

For each section, choose one:

• Edit in place — small, mechanical updates: line-number corrections, clarifications, additions consistent with brief intent. No user approval needed.
• Diff + stop — non-trivial changes: counts flipping, decomposition restructure, scope changes, contradiction with original brief intent. Present a diff of the proposed change, STOP, and wait for user approval before continuing.

If you make changes, note them at the bottom of research.md under a "Brief updates" subsection. If the brief is already in sync, note: "Reconciliation checked, no changes required." If no parent brief exists (feature was described inline), note that and skip this step.

Why this step exists: the silent-drift gap. Without reconciliation, the brief and downstream artifacts diverge — and later decomposition is sized against the stale brief. This feature ("single-source-skills") hit exactly this: brief said "11 clean / 9 dirty" until the research re-audit forced a re-decomposition. Don't let it happen again.