dev-inquiry

name	dev-inquiry
description	Developer inquiry skill for technical investigation, validation, and decision-making. Use when exploring unfamiliar technology, validating approaches with spikes, comparing options, or making architecture decisions. Covers the full thinking process from "I don't know" to confident decision.

Dev Inquiry

Feynman-style technical inquiry for developers. Understand before you decide. Validate before you build.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool." — Richard Feynman

Inquiry Modes

This skill supports four modes that often chain together:

Mode	When to Use	Trigger Phrases
Investigate	Understand something unfamiliar	"explore", "understand", "how does X work"
Spike	Validate approach before building	"spike", "validate", "prove this works"
Compare	Evaluate options for your context	"compare", "vs", "which is better"
Decide	Make a concrete choice	"should we", "decide", "recommend"

How to Use This Skill

1. Identify the mode from the user's request
2. Load the appropriate reference:
   • Investigation → Read references/investigation.md
   • Spike validation → Read references/spike.md
   • Comparison → Read references/scoring.md
   • Decision → Read references/scoring.md (uses comparison + decision framework)
3. Follow the workflow in that reference
4. Chain if needed — investigation often leads to spike, spike informs comparison

Mode Details

Investigate Mode

For understanding unfamiliar technology from first principles.

Process: Admit ignorance → Simplest experiment → Poke edges → Build mental model → Explain simply

Output: Mental model you can teach to someone else

Spike Mode

For validating technical feasibility before full implementation.

Process: Define scope (4-8 hours) → Write tests first → Implement minimal → Test with real data → Document pattern

Output: Proven pattern ready to replicate, or pivot decision

Compare Mode

For evaluating multiple options against your specific context.

Process: Define context → Choose criteria → Weight by importance → Score with evidence → Sanity check

Output: Weighted comparison matrix with evidence

Decide Mode

For making a concrete choice with documented reasoning.

Process: Ensure understanding (investigate if needed) → Compare options → State recommendation → Document tradeoffs → Assess reversibility

Output: Clear recommendation with rationale and risks

The Natural Flow

"Let's explore @Observable"
        ↓ Investigation
"Can I actually build nested observation?"
        ↓ Spike (validates understanding)
"@Observable vs @StateObject for my app"
        ↓ Comparison
"Should we adopt the new Observation framework?"
        ↓ Decision

Each mode builds on the previous. Don't decide before you understand. Don't compare before you investigate.

Quick Reference

Request	Mode	Reference
"Let's explore Swift macros"	Investigate	references/investigation.md
"I want to understand async/await"	Investigate	references/investigation.md
"Spike SwiftData before we commit"	Spike	references/spike.md
"Validate this architecture works"	Spike	references/spike.md
"Compare REST vs GraphQL"	Compare	references/scoring.md
"SwiftData vs CoreData?"	Compare	references/scoring.md
"Should we use Combine?"	Decide	references/scoring.md
"Recommend an approach"	Decide	references/scoring.md

Examples

For concrete examples across all modes, see references/examples.md.