due-diligence

name	due-diligence
description	/due-diligence — validate a technology or architecture choice with the due-diligence workflow: codebase map + external research in parallel, antagonist + claim verification, and a cited adopt/build/defer verdict.
user_only	true
slash	due-diligence

Due Diligence — evidence before commitment

Drive the due-diligence workflow (plan M2): a codebase-mapper reads what our code already does about the question while a researcher gathers the external evidence; an antagonist steelmans the opposing case and a verifier checks the load-bearing claims; the synthesis is a verdict document that ends in adopt / build / defer with conditions. You scope the question, run it, and present the verdict — you do not research inline.

1. Scope the question

A DD run on a vague question wastes six subagent stages. Before running, sharpen it to the shape "should we <adopt X | build Y | change Z> for ?" —

• If the user named a technology but not the job, ask for the job ("evaluate Redis" → for what — cache, queue, session store?).
• If alternatives matter, name them in the question ("…vs keeping SQLite").
• Capture scope hints for the mapper in context: which project (registry name), which subsystems/dirs the decision touches, any ADR the user knows is relevant.

One clarifying exchange at most — then run with the best question you have.

2. Run the workflow

run_workflow("due-diligence", {"question": "<sharpened question>", "context": "<scope hints or omit>"})

Five subagent stages (two parallel pairs + synthesis) — tell the user it's running and that it reads their registered code as part of the evidence.

3. Present the verdict

Lead with the verdict block (adopt / build / defer + rationale + conditions + revisit trigger) — it is the deliverable; the evidence sections back it. Keep the antagonist's strongest surviving counterpoint visible even when the verdict goes the other way. If the verdict is defer, make the conditions actionable (what to prove, how). Offer the natural follow-ups: save the document to notes/memory, or — when the verdict implies a decision worth recording — draft the ADR (the adr-authoring skill has the house conventions).