bootstrap

name	bootstrap
description	Walk the user through executing the livespec bootstrap plan one sub-step at a time, with confirmation gates at every step and persistent state across sessions. Pass `--ff` to fast-forward through the current phase without per-sub-step gates (still halts on blocking drift and at phase boundaries). Invoked when the user types /livespec-bootstrap:bootstrap, /bootstrap, /livespec-bootstrap:bootstrap --ff, /bootstrap --ff, asks to "start the bootstrap", "continue the bootstrap", "resume bootstrap", "fast-forward the bootstrap", or asks where they are in the bootstrap process.
allowed-tools	Read, Write, Edit, Bash, TaskCreate, TaskUpdate, TaskList, AskUserQuestion

bootstrap

Throwaway skill that drives execution of the livespec bootstrap plan documented at brainstorming/approach-2-nlspec-based/PLAN_TO_BOOTSTRAP_SPECIFICATION_AND_REPO.md.

The plan is the oracle. This skill is a shallow state-machine driver: read state, find the current sub-step in the plan, present it, ask for confirmation, execute, update state, loop. The skill does NOT encode plan content — every invocation re-reads the plan, so plan corrections flow into execution naturally.

Fast-forward mode (--ff)

The skill accepts an optional --ff flag in its invocation arguments (e.g., /livespec-bootstrap:bootstrap --ff, /bootstrap --ff). Detect it by inspecting the args string for the literal token --ff (whitespace-delimited). The flag is per-invocation: it is NOT persisted to STATUS.md and does NOT carry across invocations. Each phase requires re-passing --ff if the user wants to fast-forward it again — phase advancement always ends fast-forward by definition.

When --ff is active:

• Skip the main-loop step 3 gate (the standard "Proceed with the next sub-step?" AskUserQuestion). After step 2's status line, proceed directly to step 4.
• Condense step 2's status paragraph to a single line per sub-step (e.g., "Phase N sub-step M: ") so progress is visible without the full present-state prose. Open issues count is still mentioned if non-zero, but is not framed as a question.
• Keep all safety scans. Step 1's consistency scan and step 4's cascading-impact scan still run unchanged. --ff suppresses gating questions, not correctness checks.
• Stop and prompt the user only on:
  • Blocking drift detected by either scan (route through the halt-on-blocking sub-flow normally — these gates are NOT suppressible by --ff).
  • Genuine ambiguity that requires user judgment — a real architectural decision, not a trivial wording or version-number choice the executor can pick sensibly and let the user correct later.
  • Destructive operations the user has not pre-authorized (git push --force, git reset --hard, rm -r, branch -D, commit --amend, etc.).
  • Phase-boundary advancement — step 5's gates (5a drift review, 5b exit-criterion check, 5c advance gate) ALWAYS run and ALWAYS gate the user, regardless of --ff. --ff fast-forwards within a phase; it never authorizes advancing to the next phase.
• Continue committing per the established pattern — don't change the audit-trail shape just because gating is suppressed. Each sub-step's normal commit cadence still applies.
• Resume in --ff mode after a forced stop. When the executor stops for blocking drift or genuine ambiguity and the user resolves it, continue in --ff mode for the remainder of the phase. The flag persists across intra-invocation gates; it is dropped only by phase advancement (which ends fast-forward by definition) or by an explicit "Pause for now" choice (which ends the invocation).

When --ff is not active, the standard per-sub-step gate at step 3 applies — every sub-step requires explicit user confirmation.

Loop on every invocation

1. Read state

1. Read bootstrap/STATUS.md.

   • If missing: this is the first invocation. Initialize a fresh STATUS.md with current_phase: 0, current_sub_step: 1, last_completed_exit_criterion: none, next_action: "freeze brainstorming/ at current PROPOSAL.md state with the Phase 0 header note", last_updated: <UTC>, last_commit: <current HEAD sha from git rev-parse HEAD>.

2. Read bootstrap/open-issues.md to count unresolved entries.

3. Read bootstrap/decisions.md only if the user asks to review.

4. Open the relevant phase section of brainstorming/approach-2-nlspec-based/PLAN_TO_BOOTSTRAP_SPECIFICATION_AND_REPO.md based on current_phase. Do NOT read the entire plan; load only the section for the current phase plus, when at a phase boundary, the next phase. Use Read with offset and limit to scope the load.

5. Consistency scan (mandatory). After loading the phase section, scan it for any term that appears in: (a) bootstrap/open-issues.md entries (open or resolved), (b) bootstrap/decisions.md entries, (c) any session-established convention or interpretation from earlier turns of the current conversation. For each match, assess whether the plan-text is consistent with the recorded entry / convention. If ANY inconsistency is found, route per the §"Drift handling depends on which file is affected" rule in step 3:

   • PROPOSAL.md inconsistency: auto-log a blocking open-issues entry and route directly to the halt-on-blocking sub-flow (skip the main-loop gate of step 3).
   • Plan-only inconsistency: do NOT log to open-issues; route directly to the Case-B direct-fix gate (skip the main-loop gate of step 3, but DO present the Case-B AskUserQuestion). In either case, do NOT present "Proceed with the next sub-step" as an option until the drift is resolved.

6. Session-start sanity checks (mandatory; Guard Layer 2). After the consistency scan, run these three quick checks and halt-with-finding if any returns red. The goal is to catch prior-session drift on first turn, not after the user asks.

   • Branch ↔ phase alignment. Run git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD. If STATUS.md's is , the active branch SHOULD match (or for cleanup-shaped sessions, or a / branch when the session is explicitly not Phase work). Mismatch → halt and surface to the user: Route through the "Report an issue first" gate to give the user the merge-and-cut-fresh / accept-drift options.

2. Present current state

One short paragraph, complete sentences:

• "You're on Phase N. Last completed exit criterion: <X | 'none — not started yet'>. Current sub-step: . Next action: ."

If bootstrap/open-issues.md has unresolved entries, append:

• "There are M open issues logged from prior sessions; want to review them?"

Do not narrate internal deliberation. State results and decisions directly.

3. Gate with AskUserQuestion

Always ask, unless --ff is active (see §"Fast-forward mode (--ff)" above — when fast-forwarding, the executor proceeds directly to step 4 without presenting this gate, except for the blocking-drift / genuine-ambiguity / destructive-op routing exceptions enumerated there). Five mutually-exclusive options, single-select. Make "proceed" the first option (Recommended) per the standard convention:

Option	What it does
Proceed with the next sub-step (Recommended)	Execute the next sub-step described in the plan; mark progress in STATUS; loop back to step 1.
Pause for now	Update STATUS cleanly with current state; print a one-line "resume by invoking /bootstrap" message; stop.
Report an issue first	Capture severity + disposition + description via AskUserQuestion; append to bootstrap/open-issues.md. On blocking severity, route to the halt-on-blocking sub-flow described below; on non-blocking severity, loop back to step 2.
Record a decision first	Open AskUserQuestion to capture decision text + rationale; append to bootstrap/decisions.md; loop back to step 2.
Something else	Open-text input; act on free-form direction (e.g., "show me the open issues", "back up to the prior sub-step", "run the exit-criterion check without advancing", "skip to phase N", etc.).

When --ff is not active, never auto-proceed. The "proceed" branch is gated by the user's explicit selection in this question — never by inference from prior context. When --ff is active, "proceed" is the implicit default per §"Fast-forward mode (--ff)" and this gate is skipped entirely.

"Report an issue first" branch

When the user selects this option (or when step 1's consistency scan / step 4's cascading-impact scan auto-routes here):

One-finding-per-gate discipline (mandatory). When a sub-step's investigation surfaces multiple findings, separate the finding that blocks the current sub-step from incidental side observations. Only the blocking finding gates the user via the halt-on-blocking flow. Incidental findings (e.g., a license-label typo noticed while looking for a missing artifact, a wording slip noticed while checking for an architectural contradiction) get a brief decisions.md note OR a single-line follow-up to be swept by the eventual revision — they do NOT get peer-status open-issues entries and do NOT appear in the same AskUserQuestion as the real blocker. The "in the same file/repo/log" coincidence is not a reason to batch — only "load-bearing for the current decision" is. Cosmetic drift (label/typo with zero architectural implication, e.g., the spec says BSD-2 but the policy allows both BSD-2 and BSD-3) is never a blocker on its own; it rides along with whatever revision happens for substantive reasons, or lands as a small overlay reconciliation if no substantive revision is needed. Never bundle unrelated drifts into one AskUserQuestion or one open-issues batch.

Drift handling depends on which file is affected. PROPOSAL.md is versioned; the plan is not. Two cases, classified by the file the drift lives in:

Case A — PROPOSAL.md drift is auto-blocking. Any drift whose description references text in brainstorming/approach-2-nlspec-based/PROPOSAL.md is automatically severity blocking and disposition halt-and-revise-brainstorming. The executor MUST NOT present non-blocking-* severities or defer-to-spec-propose-change disposition for these entries — skip the severity / disposition AskUserQuestions and write those fields directly, then route to the halt-on-blocking sub-flow. Rationale: PROPOSAL.md is versioned via brainstorming/approach-2-nlspec-based/history/vNNN/PROPOSAL.md snapshots (v018+) and frozen at the latest vNNN. Any change MUST produce a new vNNN snapshot via the formal halt-and-revise walkthrough; there is no escape valve.

Case B — plan-only drift is fixed directly. When the detected drift is entirely within brainstorming/approach-2-nlspec-based/PLAN_TO_BOOTSTRAP_SPECIFICATION_AND_REPO.md and PROPOSAL.md is unaffected, the executor proposes a direct plan edit instead of routing to halt-and-revise. Rationale: the plan is NOT versioned (no history/vNNN/PLAN_*.md snapshots exist) and is throwaway scaffolding deleted at Phase 11. Plan corrections don't carry the audit-trail weight of PROPOSAL changes. Procedure:

1. Confirm PROPOSAL.md is unaffected: grep PROPOSAL.md for the relevant terms and confirm zero matches OR confirm any matches are consistent with both the current and proposed plan text. If PROPOSAL.md is also affected, route to Case A.
2. Show the user what was found: which lines, current text, and the proposed correction.
3. AskUserQuestion gate (always — the executor never edits the plan silently). Three options:
   • Apply the plan correction (Recommended when PROPOSAL.md is genuinely unaffected and the correction is well-scoped).
   • Halt and discuss first — pause without editing; user wants to think through implications before committing.
   • Reclassify as PROPOSAL drift — if on review the correction would actually require a PROPOSAL.md change, route to Case A.
4. On "Apply": apply the edits via Edit; record a decisions.md entry naming the drift, the proposed fix, and the user's gate confirmation; commit with a Conventional Commits subject (typically chore: ... since plan-text edits are not user-facing features or fixes; chore!: if the change is breaking). Post-v034 the commit-msg replay hook rejects non-Conventional subjects; legacy phase-N: ... framing is no longer accepted. Do NOT write to open-issues.md — that file is for PROPOSAL-blocking entries only. Loop back to main step 1.

Plan drift entries never enter open-issues.md under this rule. If a single drift touches BOTH plan and PROPOSAL.md, route to Case A — the halt-and-revise walkthrough's plan-text-edits step covers the paired plan changes.

For all other drift kinds:

1. Open AskUserQuestion to capture severity:
   • blocking — executor cannot satisfy the current phase's exit criterion, OR continuing would knowingly produce wrong output.
   • non-blocking-pre-phase-6 — drift discovered before the seed, and the drift is NOT in PROPOSAL.md text (PROPOSAL drift is auto-blocking per Case A above; plan-only drift never enters open-issues at all per Case B); executor can carry an interpretation forward; codification happens via post-Phase-6 propose-change against SPECIFICATION/.
   • non-blocking-post-phase-6 — drift discovered after the seed; codification can happen immediately via the dogfooded propose- change mechanism.
2. Open AskUserQuestion to capture disposition (intent): halt-and-revise-brainstorming, defer-to-spec-propose-change, or resolved-in-session.
3. Capture description text via AskUserQuestion's free-text input.
4. Append the entry to bootstrap/open-issues.md with **Status:** open per the format below.

On blocking severity, do NOT return to the main loop. Enter the halt-on-blocking sub-flow:

• Print: "This issue is flagged blocking. The bootstrap will not advance until it is resolved."
• AskUserQuestion: "How do you want to proceed?" — options:
  1. Open the halt-and-revise walkthrough (Recommended; required for any blocking PROPOSAL.md drift). Routes to the §"Halt-and-revise walkthrough (pre-Phase-6)" sub-flow below.
  2. Open the propose-change walkthrough (only valid when current_phase >= 6 and the change targets a SPECIFICATION/ tree). Routes to the §"Propose-change walkthrough (post-Phase-6)" sub-flow below.
  3. Downgrade severity — user reconsiders and decides the issue isn't blocking after all. Capture the reconsideration rationale to bootstrap/decisions.md; mutate the open-issues entry's severity field; resume the main loop at step 2. NOT VALID for PROPOSAL.md drift entries — those have no non-blocking severity by rule. If a PROPOSAL drift entry is in error (the contradiction was misread), supersede the entry by appending a new entry that points back at it, rather than downgrading. (Plan-only drift never lands in open-issues at all per Case B, so this option is moot for plan drift.)
  4. Pause for now — clean STATUS update; print resume message; stop. The blocking entry remains open and will gate advancement until resolved on a later invocation.

On non-blocking severity, append the entry and return to step 2 of the main loop. The entry will surface again at phase exit (step 5a's drift-review checkpoint).

4. Execute the sub-step

Only when the user selects "proceed":

1. Use the appropriate tool for the sub-step:
   • File creation / edits: Write or Edit. For substantial new content, show the user the content via a brief preview before writing.
   • Shell commands: Bash. Show the command before invoking. If it's destructive (rm, git reset, git push --force, branch -D), gate with AskUserQuestion before running.
   • In-session work tracking: TaskCreate / TaskUpdate.
2. Cascading-impact scan (mandatory). If the executed sub-step established a convention, decision, interpretation, or any state that diverges from the plan's literal text — including any open-issues entry just written, any decisions.md entry just written, or any change to a working assumption agreed with the user — grep both brainstorming/approach-2-nlspec-based/PROPOSAL.md and brainstorming/approach-2-nlspec-based/PLAN_TO_BOOTSTRAP_SPECIFICATION_AND_REPO.md for terms relevant to the established change (the noun, path, tool name, file name, or concept at issue). For every match, assess whether the plan/PROPOSAL text is consistent with the established change. If ANY match is inconsistent, route per the §"Drift handling depends on which file is affected" rule in step 3 BEFORE returning to step 1:
   • PROPOSAL.md inconsistency: auto-log a blocking open-issues entry and route directly to the halt-on-blocking sub-flow.
   • Plan-only inconsistency: route directly to the Case-B direct-fix gate (no open-issues entry; user gates the fix). The bootstrap MUST NOT advance past a known PROPOSAL.md contradiction or unresolved plan contradiction. Skip this scan only when the executed sub-step was purely mechanical with no convention or interpretation established (e.g., a verbatim file move from the plan).
3. After successful execution (and after the cascading-impact scan is clean):
   • Update bootstrap/STATUS.md: increment current_sub_step (or advance current_phase only via the phase-boundary flow in step 5 below); update last_updated with the current UTC timestamp; update last_commit with the current HEAD sha if a commit landed.
   • Loop back to step 1.

5. At phase exit

When the next sub-step would advance past the last sub-step of the current phase, do NOT auto-advance. Phase boundaries always require two gates: drift review FIRST, then exit-criterion check, then advancement confirmation.

5a. Drift-review checkpoint (new)

Run BEFORE the exit-criterion check.

1. Read bootstrap/open-issues.md. Filter to entries whose phase header matches the current phase AND whose Status: field is open.

2. If zero unresolved entries: print "No drift logged for Phase N"; proceed to step 5b.

3. Otherwise: print a summary, grouped by severity:

   Drift discovered during Phase N (3 unresolved entries):
     blocking: 1
       - <timestamp>: <one-line description>
     non-blocking-pre-phase-6: 2
       - <timestamp>: <one-line description>
       - <timestamp>: <one-line description>
   

4. AskUserQuestion: "What now?" — options:

   • Open the halt-and-revise walkthrough for blocking entries (Recommended when any blocking entries exist; required if any remain unresolved after this gate).
   • Open the propose-change walkthrough to drain entries post-seed (only valid when current_phase >= 6).
   • Resolve a specific entry now — open AskUserQuestion to pick which entry; capture resolution text; mutate that entry's Status: to resolved and append a **Resolved:** <UTC> — <text> line; loop back to 5a (re-read, re-summarize).
   • Defer all remaining non-blocking entries to post-Phase-6 drain (only valid if zero blocking entries remain; mutates each non-blocking entry's disposition to defer-to-spec-propose-change if not already set).
   • Carry forward as-is (only valid if zero blocking entries remain AND no remaining entries reference PROPOSAL.md text; PROPOSAL drift can never be carried forward — by Case A of the §"Drift handling depends on which file is affected" rule it is auto-blocking and must be halt-and-revised in this session before phase exit; non-PROPOSAL entries persist; skill warns again at the next phase exit).

5. Gate condition. Do NOT proceed to 5b until zero blocking entries remain unresolved. If the user pauses or routes to a walkthrough that doesn't fully resolve them, the skill remains parked at this checkpoint on next invocation.

5b. Exit-criterion check

1. Run the phase's exit-criterion check verbatim from the plan. Typically a just <target> invocation or a manual file- existence check. Capture the output.
2. Show the result to the user: pass / fail and any relevant output.

5c. Advance gate

AskUserQuestion: "Phase N exit criterion shows <pass | fail>. What now?" — options:

• Advance to Phase N+1 (Recommended, only if pass).
• Hold here (do not advance; allow more work in this phase).
• Re-run the check (loops back to 5b).
• Report the failure as a new issue (routes to step 3's "Report an issue first" branch; if user flags it blocking, the halt-on-blocking sub-flow takes over).

5d. Advance — phase advance is a 4-step transaction (Guard Layer 3)

Advancement is NOT a single STATUS edit + commit; it is a 4-step transaction that MUST land atomically. Skipping any step produces the cross-phase-PR drift that surfaced in PR #4 (phase-7-widen-sub-commands accumulated 175 commits because the Phase 7 → 8 advance happened without merging the prior PR or cutting a fresh branch). Each step is gated.

1. Verify the active PR for phase N is merged. Run gh pr list --base master --search "phase-<N>" --state merged. If no merged phase-N PR exists, surface to the user and gate: "Phase N has no merged PR. Advancement requires the prior phase's work to land on master first. Merge the active PR (or open one if absent) before advancing."

2. Verify master CI is green. Run gh run list --branch master --limit 1 --workflow CI --json conclusion. If conclusion is not success, halt — same posture as the step-1 session-start sanity check. Master green is a hard precondition for phase advancement; deferral-shaped red is not acceptable here.

3. Cut a fresh phase-<N+1>-<scope> branch from master HEAD. AskUserQuestion picker for the <scope> slug (kebab-case, ≤30 chars, summarizes the upcoming phase's headline work — e.g., phase-8-deferred-items-drain, phase-9-e2e-real-claude-test). Run git checkout master, git pull --ff-only origin master, then git checkout -b phase-<N+1>-<scope>.

4. Land the phase-advance STATUS commit on the new branch. Update STATUS to current_phase: N+1, current_sub_step: 1, last_completed_exit_criterion: phase N. Commit with a Conventional Commits subject like chore: phase N complete — advance to Phase N+1 (matches the Phase 5 → 6 precedent at PR #1's chore: phase 5 complete — D8 branch-protection activated; advance to Phase 6 and the Phase 6 → 7 precedent at chore: phase 6 complete — advance to Phase 7). The post-v034 commit-msg replay hook rejects the legacy phase-N: complete subject.

After step 4, the new branch is the working surface for Phase N+1. Open a fresh PR for it on first push (Layer 2's session-start sanity check will flag any branch/phase mismatch on the next invocation).

The four steps are an ATOMIC transaction conceptually — partial completion (e.g., merge prior PR but skip cutting fresh branch) is the failure mode this guard prevents. Loop back to step 1.

6. At Phase 10 exit

When Phase 10's exit criterion passes and the v1.0.0 tag lands, the bootstrap is functionally complete but Phase 11 (cleanup) is still ahead. Update STATUS to current_phase: 11, current_sub_step: 1, last_completed_exit_criterion: phase 10. Print "Phase 10 complete; v1.0.0 tag landed. Phase 11 (cleanup) is next." Loop back to step 1.

7. Phase 11 — Cleanup

Phase 11 is bookkeeping that removes the production-facing references to the bootstrap scaffolding. Sub-steps:

1. Remove the bootstrap plugin and its marketplace. Three removals, each gated by AskUserQuestion since these are committed files:

   • rm -r .claude/plugins/livespec-bootstrap (the plugin contents)
   • rmdir .claude/plugins (only if empty after the previous removal)
   • rm .claude-plugin/marketplace.json (the marketplace manifest at repo root)

   Do NOT remove .claude/skills/ (production plugin's symlink), .claude-plugin/plugin.json (production manifest), or .claude/settings.local.json (machine-local, gitignored).

   After committing, optionally suggest the user run in Claude Code:

   /plugin uninstall livespec-bootstrap@livespec-marketplace
   

   (cleans up the local installed-plugin state; not required for the cleanup to be complete, since the marketplace manifest is gone).

2. Remove the repo-root orientation file: rm AGENTS.md. The per-directory AGENTS.md files inside bootstrap/ and brainstorming/ stay — they describe directories that themselves stay.

3. Verify isolation. Run the grep from Plan Phase 11 step 3:

   grep -rn "bootstrap/\|brainstorming/" \
     .claude-plugin/ dev-tooling/ tests/ SPECIFICATION/ \
     pyproject.toml justfile lefthook.yml .mise.toml \
     .github/ NOTICES.md .vendor.jsonc 2>/dev/null \
     | grep -v _vendor
   

   Expected output: empty. If any output: route through the "Report an issue first" gate to file a blocking issue; the skill's halt-and-revise sub-flow handles the fix before the Phase 11 commit lands.

4. Commit and push. Suggested message: chore: phase 11 — remove bootstrap-skill symlink and root AGENTS.md (Conventional Commits per v034 D1; matches the prior chore: phase N complete advance pattern). Gate the push on AskUserQuestion confirmation.

5. Update STATUS one last time with the cleanup commit sha. Print the final "bootstrap complete; livespec is now self-governing via /livespec:* commands" message and stop.

The next invocation of /livespec-bootstrap:bootstrap after Phase 11 will fail to find the slash command (its symlink is gone). That is intentional — the production app uses /livespec:* slash commands for its own operations; the bootstrap scaffolding has finished its job.

Drift-correction sub-flows

These two sub-flows are entered from step 3's halt-on-blocking branch or step 5a's drift-review checkpoint. They are NOT invoked from the main-loop step 3 gate directly.

Halt-and-revise walkthrough (pre-Phase-6 path)

Drives a formal vNNN/ revision against PROPOSAL.md, mirroring the v018 → v022 process. Triggered when blocking drift requires PROPOSAL or plan-level changes that cannot be deferred.

1. Determine next vNNN:

   • ls brainstorming/approach-2-nlspec-based/history/ and parse vNNN directory names. Find max NNN; next vNNN = NNN + 1 (zero-padded to 3 digits).

2. Choose revision shape via AskUserQuestion:

   • Direct overlay (Recommended for narrow fixes) — author a single critique-fix-v<prev>-revision.md documenting the decisions; matches v022's pattern when changes are small and uncontested.
   • Full critique-and-revise — author both proposal-critique-v<prev>.md (the critique input) and proposal-critique-v<prev>-revision.md (the structured revision); matches v018-v021 pattern. Use when the change involves multiple architectural decisions that need explicit option-picker discussion.

3. Author revision file(s). Walk the user through the relevant sections via AskUserQuestion:

   • For overlay path: capture each decision (D1, D2, ...) with description, rationale, and source-doc impact list. Compose into critique-fix-v<prev>-revision.md and write it.
   • For full path: walk through the critique-and-revise iteration (load relevant PROPOSAL section, identify ambiguities via AskUserQuestion picker, accumulate decisions). Author both files when the user signals iteration complete.

4. Apply revision to PROPOSAL.md. Use Edit operations to apply the changes, one decision at a time. Show each Edit's old_string / new_string preview before invoking.

5. Snapshot. Create history/vNNN/ directory; copy current PROPOSAL.md to history/vNNN/PROPOSAL.md; move the revision file(s) authored in step 3 into history/vNNN/proposed_changes/.

6. Update plan. Surgical edits to brainstorming/approach-2-nlspec-based/PLAN_TO_BOOTSTRAP_SPECIFICATION_AND_REPO.md:

   • "Version basis" section: bump version label; add decision summary for vNNN.
   • Phase 0 step 1: bump byte-identity check's reference to vNNN.
   • Execution prompt block: bump the "Treat PROPOSAL.md vXXX as authoritative" line.
   • Apply any plan-level changes the revision implies (Phase edits, work-item-list updates, etc.).

7. Mark originating issue resolved. Edit the originating bootstrap/open-issues.md entry's to ; append line.

Propose-change walkthrough (post-Phase-6 path)

Drives a dogfooded propose-change/revise cycle against the seeded SPECIFICATION/. Only valid when STATUS shows current_phase >= 6. Triggered when blocking drift can be codified inside SPECIFICATION/ rather than requiring a PROPOSAL revision.

1. Choose target spec tree via AskUserQuestion:

   • Main spec: SPECIFICATION/
   • livespec template sub-spec: SPECIFICATION/templates/livespec/
   • minimal template sub-spec: SPECIFICATION/templates/minimal/
   • Other (free-text path; verify it's a spec tree)

2. Author propose-change content. Walk the user through composing the propose-change file:

   • Topic name (must be canonical per the propose-change rules)
   • Front-matter (target spec files, author, intent, etc.)
   • Body (proposal sections per PROPOSAL.md §"Proposed-change file format")

3. Invoke /livespec:propose-change. Use the Skill tool to invoke propose-change against the chosen spec tree:

   • Pass --spec-target <chosen path>
   • Pass the authored propose-change content
   • Confirm the propose-change file lands at <spec-target>/proposed_changes/<topic>.md

4. Invoke /livespec:revise. After confirming the propose-change is in place:

   • Use the Skill tool to invoke revise --spec-target <chosen path>
   • Walk the user through the per-proposal accept/reject decision via the revise sub-command's normal flow
   • Confirm a new <spec-target>/history/vNNN/ lands

5. Mark originating issue resolved. Edit the originating bootstrap/open-issues.md entry's Status: to resolved; append **Resolved:** <UTC> — codified via <spec-target>/ history/vNNN/<topic>.md line.

6. Resume. Update STATUS: refresh last_updated and last_commit (the propose-change/revise cycle should have produced its own commits via the dogfooded mechanism). Print "Propose-change cycle complete; resuming Phase N at sub-step M". Return to main-loop step 1.

State file formats

The skill is the only writer for these files. Never ask the user to hand-edit them.

bootstrap/STATUS.md (rewritten on every update)

# Bootstrap status

**Current phase:** N
**Current sub-step:** <verbatim text from plan>
**Last completed exit criterion:** <phase X | none — not started yet>
**Next action:** <one sentence>
**Last updated:** <UTC ISO 8601>
**Last commit:** <git HEAD sha or "none">

bootstrap/open-issues.md (append-only-with-status-mutation)

New entries are appended. Existing entries' bodies are written once; only the Status: field MAY be mutated in place, and a **Resolved:** ... line MAY be appended on resolution. Never rewrite or delete entries without explicit user direction.

Severity is one of: blocking, non-blocking-pre-phase-6, non-blocking-post-phase-6. Disposition (intent) is one of: halt-and-revise-brainstorming, defer-to-spec-propose-change, resolved-in-session. Status (lifecycle) is one of: open, resolved, superseded.

## <UTC ISO 8601> — phase N — <severity> — <disposition>

**Status:** open

**Description:** <description, 1-3 sentences>

When an entry is resolved (via the halt-and-revise walkthrough, the propose-change walkthrough, or step 5a's "Resolve a specific entry now" path), the skill mutates Status: to resolved and appends one line:

**Resolved:** <UTC ISO 8601> — <one-line resolution summary,
e.g., "codified in v023; see history/v023/...">

Filtering "unresolved entries for phase N" at step 5a means: phase header == N AND Status: open. Skill scans the file linearly; no SQL, no schema validator.

bootstrap/decisions.md (append-only)

Captures judgment calls the executor made during phase work that weren't pre-decided in the plan. Same append-only discipline.

## <UTC ISO 8601> — phase N sub-step M

**Decision:** <one line>

**Rationale:** <one paragraph>

Constraints

• The plan is the oracle. Never deviate from its phase content. If you discover the plan or PROPOSAL.md is wrong (literal text contradicts an established convention, the current repo state, a prior open-issues entry, or a session-established interpretation), resolution depends on which file is affected per the §"Drift handling depends on which file is affected" rule:
  • PROPOSAL.md drift: halt-and-revise is the only resolution path (PROPOSAL is versioned; any change requires a new vNNN snapshot). There is no defer-to-post-phase-6-spec-propose-change path: PROPOSAL.md has no SPECIFICATION/ analog.
  • Plan-only drift: fix the plan directly via the Case-B user-gated direct-fix flow. The plan is unversioned throwaway scaffolding deleted at Phase 11. NEVER modify the plan silently — always present the proposed fix to the user via AskUserQuestion before editing. The bootstrap MUST NOT advance past a known plan or PROPOSAL.md inconsistency. Step 1's consistency scan and step 4's cascading-impact scan are the executor's two mandatory detection hooks.
• Never skip phases. Sub-step ordering within a phase is the plan's authority.
• Never run destructive git commands (push --force, reset --hard, branch -D, commit --amend) without explicit user confirmation via AskUserQuestion.
• Never advance a phase without the user explicitly confirming via step 5's gate. The --ff flag does NOT authorize phase advancement; it fast-forwards only within the current phase.
• The --ff flag suppresses ONLY the per-sub-step proceed gate at step 3. It does NOT suppress: step 1's consistency scan, step 4's cascading-impact scan, blocking-drift halts, destructive-op confirmations, genuine-ambiguity questions, or any of step 5's phase-boundary gates. See §"Fast-forward mode (--ff)" for the full contract.
• This skill is throwaway. It lives at bootstrap/.claude-plugin/skills/bootstrap/ and is removed or archived at Phase 10 exit. Do not reference it from anything outside bootstrap/ (the production livespec plugin under .claude-plugin/ does not depend on this skill).
• Per the plan's session-handoff design: every invocation can pick up cleanly from STATUS.md without prior conversation context. Do not assume anything beyond what STATUS.md, the plan, and the two log files contain.