define-outcomes

name

define-outcomes

description

Interactive skill that helps users define desired outcomes for the next phase through Socratic grilling. Produces a PHASE_PLAN.md with concrete goals, scope boundaries, and success criteria. Uses grill-me + first-principle thinking to question priorities and foundations before committing to a plan. This is the recommended step before `/drive-outcomes`, especially when goals are still vague. Use when the user says "/define-outcomes", "define the outcomes", "clarify what we want", "what should the next phase achieve", "plan the next phase", or wants to decide what the next phase should accomplish before implementing.

Define Outcomes

Facilitates a structured discussion to define the outcomes for the next phase of work. Uses first-principle thinking to question the foundations of what's being proposed — and grill-me interviewing to walk the decision tree for scope and priorities — before committing to a plan. Produces a high-level plan document in markdown, consumed by /drive-outcomes for ODD-driven implementation.

Trigger

/define-outcomes

No arguments. This skill is conversational — it gathers context and discusses with the user.

Command-line Tools

• use fd instead of find
• use rg instead of grep

Process

Step 1: Gather Context

Automatically collect background before engaging the user:

1. Project memory:

   MEMORY_DIR="$HOME/.claude/projects/$(pwd | sd '/' '-')/memory"
   

   Read $MEMORY_DIR/MEMORY.md and every linked memory file.

2. Recent git history (last 10 commits on main):

   git log --oneline -10 main
   

3. Existing plan files (if any):

   fd -e md -e toml . plans/
   

   Read the most recent plan file to understand what was last planned.

4. Deferred improvements from prior review rounds:

   fd deferred.md notes/pr-reviews/
   

   Read all deferred.md files found — these are improvements the reviewer identified but the plan didn't commission, and they are candidates for this phase.

5. Execution reports (if any):

   fd -e md . execution_reports/
   

   Skim the most recent report to understand what was completed and what failed.

6. Project documentation:

   # Domain glossary (single-context repos)
   cat CONTEXT.md 2>/dev/null || echo "NO_CONTEXT_MD"
   
   # Domain glossary (multi-context repos)
   cat CONTEXT-MAP.md 2>/dev/null || echo "NO_CONTEXT_MAP"
   
   # Architecture Decision Records
   fd -e md . docs/adr/ 2>/dev/null | sort | while read f; do
     echo "=== $f ===" && cat "$f" && echo ""
   done
   

   Determine which structure applies (single context, multi-context, or neither). Read existing ADRs. These feed into the subagent prompt in Step 2.

Step 2: Grill Goals with First-Principle Thinking

Before accepting any goals, question the foundations of what's being proposed. Invoke a grill-me + first-principle subagent:

Agent: general-purpose (subagent, discardable context)

Task: Question the next phase goals using first-principle thinking and grill-me interviewing.

Context:

• Project memory: {MEMORY_CONTENTS}
• Recent git history: {GIT_LOG}
• Last plan: {LAST_PLAN_CONTENTS or "No prior plan"}
• Deferred improvements: {DEFERRED_CONTENTS or "None"}
• Execution report: {LAST_REPORT_SUMMARY or "None"}
• Domain glossary: {CONTEXT_MD_CONTENTS or "No CONTEXT.md — create lazily if terms are resolved"}
• Context map: {CONTEXT_MAP_CONTENTS or "No multi-context structure"}
• Existing ADRs: {ADR_SUMMARIES or "None"}

First-principle thinking — question the foundations:

• "WHY do we need this? What's the actual problem we're solving?"
• "Is this even the right approach? What alternatives exist that don't require code changes?"
• "What assumptions is this plan resting on? Verify each against the codebase."
• "Are we solving a real problem or a perceived one? What evidence exists?"
• "What would happen if we did nothing?"

Grill-me — question scope and priorities:

• "What's the highest-priority problem right now? Is this it?"
• "What deferred items should influence this decision?"
• "What downstream effects will these choices have?"
• Walk the decision tree for scope boundaries.

Documentation-aware grilling — refine domain language:

• If a CONTEXT.md exists, challenge the user's terminology against the existing glossary: "Your glossary defines 'cancellation' as X, but you seem to mean Y — which is it?"
• When the user uses vague or overloaded terms, propose a precise canonical term and confirm it.
• Cross-reference claims about how the system works against actual code (light exploration: "does the code actually function as you describe?"). If you find a contradiction, surface it.
• When a term is resolved, update CONTEXT.md inline using the format at {CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/define-outcomes/references/context-format.md. Do not batch — capture as they happen.
• Create CONTEXT.md lazily — only when the first term is resolved. If the repo has a CONTEXT-MAP.md, infer which context the current discussion relates to.
• Only include terms meaningful to domain experts. General programming concepts (error types, timeouts) do not belong.
• After goals are agreed, produce a summary of domain terms refined during this session.

After the user responds to your questions, propose candidate goals. For each goal:

• State what it achieves and why it's the right next step
• Estimate small, medium, or large effort
• Note dependencies on prior work or other goals

Also flag any deferred improvements now appropriate to incorporate.

Present the proposal to the user.

You are helping define the next phase of a Rust project.

<project_memory>
{{MEMORY_CONTENTS}}
</project_memory>

<recent_git_history>
{{GIT_LOG}}
</recent_git_history>

<last_plan>
{{LAST_PLAN_CONTENTS — or "No prior plan found"}}
</last_plan>

<deferred_improvements>
{{DEFERRED_CONTENTS — or "None"}}
</deferred_improvements>

<execution_report>
{{LAST_REPORT_SUMMARY — or "No prior execution report"}}
</execution_report>

<domain_glossary>
{{CONTEXT_MD_CONTENTS — or "No CONTEXT.md exists"}}
</domain_glossary>

<existing_adrs>
{{ADR_SUMMARIES — or "None"}}
</existing_adrs>

Propose candidate goals for the NEXT phase. For each goal:
- State what it achieves and why it's the right next step
- Estimate whether it is a small, medium, or large effort
- Note any dependencies on prior work or on other goals in this list

Also flag any deferred improvements that are now appropriate to incorporate.

Keep the list focused — 3 to 7 goals is ideal. Do not decompose into tasks.

Present the architect's proposal to the user.

Step 3: Iterate with the User

Discuss the proposed goals with the user. Typical questions to work through:

• Which goals are in scope for this phase vs. a later phase?
• Are there goals missing from the proposal?
• Are any deferred improvements now ready to absorb?
• What are the hard constraints (API stability, performance, deadline)?
• What should explicitly be out of scope for this phase?

Use the rust-development-pipeline:rust-architect agent for follow-up analysis as needed (e.g., if the user wants to explore a specific design direction).

There is no fixed number of rounds — continue until the user is satisfied with the scope.

Step 4: Write the Plan Document

Once the scope is agreed, produce a structured markdown plan document and save it to the path the user specifies (default: plans/phase-{N}/PHASE_PLAN.md):

# Phase {N}: {Phase Name}

**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD}
**Status:** Draft

## Goals

{Numbered list of agreed goals, each with a one-paragraph description of what it achieves and why now.}

## Scope Boundaries

**In scope:**
{Bulleted list of what this phase covers}

**Out of scope:**
{Bulleted list of what is explicitly deferred — prevents scope creep during implementation}

## Design Notes

{Key architectural decisions, constraints, and cautions raised during the discussion.}

## Deferred Items Absorbed

{List any deferred improvements from prior phases that this plan incorporates, with a note on where/how they fit. If none, write "None."}

## Domain Terms

{Terms refined or added to the CONTEXT.md glossary during goal discussion. Each entry: the bold term, its canonical definition, and the ambiguity it resolved. This section bridges the plan to the project glossary and informs /drive-outcomes' terminology validation. If no terms were refined, write "None — existing glossary is adequate."}

Commit the plan document:

git add plans/phase-{N}/PHASE_PLAN.md
git commit -m "plan(phase-{N}): initial phase plan — {Phase Name}"

Step 5: Handoff

Tell the user:

"Phase {N} plan saved to plans/phase-{N}/PHASE_PLAN.md. {If CONTEXT.md was created/updated: " Domain terms were refined — see CONTEXT.md and the Domain Terms section of the plan for the glossary changes."}

Next steps:

1. /define-outcomes plans/phase-{N}/PHASE_PLAN.md — or:
2. /drive-outcomes plans/phase-{N}/PHASE_PLAN.md — defines success criteria against real fixtures and implements.
3. For complex multi-group changes: /make-judgement notes/plans/<phase-slug>/TASKS.md — cross-group validation and fix instructions."

Boundaries

Will:

• Question goals using first-principle thinking and grill-me interviewing before goals are set
• Discuss scope, goals, and design decisions with the user before any plan is written
• Surface deferred improvements as explicit candidates
• Produce a structured plan document with clear scope boundaries
• Discover and refine domain terminology during goal-setting, updating CONTEXT.md inline

Will not:

• Decompose into tasks (that is /drive-outcomes's job)
• Make implementation decisions without user input