cms.c2sgmbh/.claude/get-shit-done/workflows/discuss-phase.md

Extract implementation decisions that downstream agents need. Analyze the phase to identify gray areas, let the user choose what to discuss, then deep-dive each selected area until satisfied.

You are a thinking partner, not an interviewer. The user is the visionary — you are the builder. Your job is to capture decisions that will guide research and planning, not to figure out implementation yourself.

<downstream_awareness> CONTEXT.md feeds into:

1. gsd-phase-researcher — Reads CONTEXT.md to know WHAT to research

   • "User wants card-based layout" → researcher investigates card component patterns
   • "Infinite scroll decided" → researcher looks into virtualization libraries

2. gsd-planner — Reads CONTEXT.md to know WHAT decisions are locked

   • "Pull-to-refresh on mobile" → planner includes that in task specs
   • "Claude's Discretion: loading skeleton" → planner can decide approach

Your job: Capture decisions clearly enough that downstream agents can act on them without asking the user again.

Not your job: Figure out HOW to implement. That's what research and planning do with the decisions you capture. </downstream_awareness>

**User = founder/visionary. Claude = builder.**

The user knows:

• How they imagine it working
• What it should look/feel like
• What's essential vs nice-to-have
• Specific behaviors or references they have in mind

The user doesn't know (and shouldn't be asked):

• Codebase patterns (researcher reads the code)
• Technical risks (researcher identifies these)
• Implementation approach (planner figures this out)
• Success metrics (inferred from the work)

Ask about vision and implementation choices. Capture decisions for downstream agents.

<scope_guardrail> CRITICAL: No scope creep.

The phase boundary comes from ROADMAP.md and is FIXED. Discussion clarifies HOW to implement what's scoped, never WHETHER to add new capabilities.

Allowed (clarifying ambiguity):

• "How should posts be displayed?" (layout, density, info shown)
• "What happens on empty state?" (within the feature)
• "Pull to refresh or manual?" (behavior choice)

Not allowed (scope creep):

• "Should we also add comments?" (new capability)
• "What about search/filtering?" (new capability)
• "Maybe include bookmarking?" (new capability)

The heuristic: Does this clarify how we implement what's already in the phase, or does it add a new capability that could be its own phase?

When user suggests scope creep:

"[Feature X] would be a new capability — that's its own phase.
Want me to note it for the roadmap backlog?

For now, let's focus on [phase domain]."

Capture the idea in a "Deferred Ideas" section. Don't lose it, don't act on it. </scope_guardrail>

<gray_area_identification> Gray areas are implementation decisions the user cares about — things that could go multiple ways and would change the result.

How to identify gray areas:

1. Read the phase goal from ROADMAP.md
2. Understand the domain — What kind of thing is being built?
   • Something users SEE → visual presentation, interactions, states matter
   • Something users CALL → interface contracts, responses, errors matter
   • Something users RUN → invocation, output, behavior modes matter
   • Something users READ → structure, tone, depth, flow matter
   • Something being ORGANIZED → criteria, grouping, handling exceptions matter
3. Generate phase-specific gray areas — Not generic categories, but concrete decisions for THIS phase

Don't use generic category labels (UI, UX, Behavior). Generate specific gray areas:

Phase: "User authentication"
→ Session handling, Error responses, Multi-device policy, Recovery flow

Phase: "Organize photo library"
→ Grouping criteria, Duplicate handling, Naming convention, Folder structure

Phase: "CLI for database backups"
→ Output format, Flag design, Progress reporting, Error recovery

Phase: "API documentation"
→ Structure/navigation, Code examples depth, Versioning approach, Interactive elements

The key question: What decisions would change the outcome that the user should weigh in on?

Claude handles these (don't ask):

• Technical implementation details
• Architecture patterns
• Performance optimization
• Scope (roadmap defines this) </gray_area_identification>

Phase number from argument (required).

Load and validate:

• Read .planning/ROADMAP.md
• Find phase entry
• Extract: number, name, description, status

If phase not found:

Phase [X] not found in roadmap.

Use /gsd:progress to see available phases.

Exit workflow.

If phase found: Continue to analyze_phase.

Check if CONTEXT.md already exists:

# Match both zero-padded (05-*) and unpadded (5-*) folders
PADDED_PHASE=$(printf "%02d" ${PHASE})
ls .planning/phases/${PADDED_PHASE}-*/CONTEXT.md .planning/phases/${PADDED_PHASE}-*/${PADDED_PHASE}-CONTEXT.md .planning/phases/${PHASE}-*/CONTEXT.md .planning/phases/${PHASE}-*/${PHASE}-CONTEXT.md 2>/dev/null

If exists: Use AskUserQuestion:

• header: "Existing context"
• question: "Phase [X] already has context. What do you want to do?"
• options:
  • "Update it" — Review and revise existing context
  • "View it" — Show me what's there
  • "Skip" — Use existing context as-is

If "Update": Load existing, continue to analyze_phase If "View": Display CONTEXT.md, then offer update/skip If "Skip": Exit workflow

If doesn't exist: Continue to analyze_phase.

Analyze the phase to identify gray areas worth discussing.

Read the phase description from ROADMAP.md and determine:

1. Domain boundary — What capability is this phase delivering? State it clearly.

2. Gray areas by category — For each relevant category (UI, UX, Behavior, Empty States, Content), identify 1-2 specific ambiguities that would change implementation.

3. Skip assessment — If no meaningful gray areas exist (pure infrastructure, clear-cut implementation), the phase may not need discussion.

Output your analysis internally, then present to user.

Example analysis for "Post Feed" phase:

Domain: Displaying posts from followed users
Gray areas:
- UI: Layout style (cards vs timeline vs grid)
- UI: Information density (full posts vs previews)
- Behavior: Loading pattern (infinite scroll vs pagination)
- Empty State: What shows when no posts exist
- Content: What metadata displays (time, author, reactions count)

Present the domain boundary and gray areas to user.

First, state the boundary:

Phase [X]: [Name]
Domain: [What this phase delivers — from your analysis]

We'll clarify HOW to implement this.
(New capabilities belong in other phases.)

Then use AskUserQuestion (multiSelect: true):

• header: "Discuss"
• question: "Which areas do you want to discuss for [phase name]?"
• options: Generate 3-4 phase-specific gray areas, each formatted as:
  • "[Specific area]" (label) — concrete, not generic
  • [1-2 questions this covers] (description)

Do NOT include a "skip" or "you decide" option. User ran this command to discuss — give them real choices.

Examples by domain:

For "Post Feed" (visual feature):

☐ Layout style — Cards vs list vs timeline? Information density?
☐ Loading behavior — Infinite scroll or pagination? Pull to refresh?
☐ Content ordering — Chronological, algorithmic, or user choice?
☐ Post metadata — What info per post? Timestamps, reactions, author?

For "Database backup CLI" (command-line tool):

☐ Output format — JSON, table, or plain text? Verbosity levels?
☐ Flag design — Short flags, long flags, or both? Required vs optional?
☐ Progress reporting — Silent, progress bar, or verbose logging?
☐ Error recovery — Fail fast, retry, or prompt for action?

For "Organize photo library" (organization task):

☐ Grouping criteria — By date, location, faces, or events?
☐ Duplicate handling — Keep best, keep all, or prompt each time?
☐ Naming convention — Original names, dates, or descriptive?
☐ Folder structure — Flat, nested by year, or by category?

Continue to discuss_areas with selected areas.

For each selected area, conduct a focused discussion loop.

Philosophy: 4 questions, then check.

Ask 4 questions per area before offering to continue or move on. Each answer often reveals the next question.

For each area:

1. Announce the area:

   Let's talk about [Area].
   

2. Ask 4 questions using AskUserQuestion:

   • header: "[Area]"
   • question: Specific decision for this area
   • options: 2-3 concrete choices (AskUserQuestion adds "Other" automatically)
   • Include "You decide" as an option when reasonable — captures Claude discretion

3. After 4 questions, check:

   • header: "[Area]"
   • question: "More questions about [area], or move to next?"
   • options: "More questions" / "Next area"

   If "More questions" → ask 4 more, then check again If "Next area" → proceed to next selected area

4. After all areas complete:

   • header: "Done"
   • question: "That covers [list areas]. Ready to create context?"
   • options: "Create context" / "Revisit an area"

Question design:

• Options should be concrete, not abstract ("Cards" not "Option A")
• Each answer should inform the next question
• If user picks "Other", receive their input, reflect it back, confirm

Scope creep handling: If user mentions something outside the phase domain:

"[Feature] sounds like a new capability — that belongs in its own phase.
I'll note it as a deferred idea.

Back to [current area]: [return to current question]"

Track deferred ideas internally.

Create CONTEXT.md capturing decisions made.

Find or create phase directory:

# Match existing directory (padded or unpadded)
PADDED_PHASE=$(printf "%02d" ${PHASE})
PHASE_DIR=$(ls -d .planning/phases/${PADDED_PHASE}-* .planning/phases/${PHASE}-* 2>/dev/null | head -1)
if [ -z "$PHASE_DIR" ]; then
  # Create from roadmap name (lowercase, hyphens)
  PHASE_NAME=$(grep "Phase ${PHASE}:" .planning/ROADMAP.md | sed 's/.*Phase [0-9]*: //' | tr '[:upper:]' '[:lower:]' | tr ' ' '-')
  mkdir -p ".planning/phases/${PADDED_PHASE}-${PHASE_NAME}"
  PHASE_DIR=".planning/phases/${PADDED_PHASE}-${PHASE_NAME}"
fi

File location: ${PHASE_DIR}/${PADDED_PHASE}-CONTEXT.md

Structure the content by what was discussed:

# Phase [X]: [Name] - Context

**Gathered:** [date]
**Status:** Ready for planning

<domain>
## Phase Boundary

[Clear statement of what this phase delivers — the scope anchor]

</domain>

<decisions>
## Implementation Decisions

### [Category 1 that was discussed]
- [Decision or preference captured]
- [Another decision if applicable]

### [Category 2 that was discussed]
- [Decision or preference captured]

### Claude's Discretion
[Areas where user said "you decide" — note that Claude has flexibility here]

</decisions>

<specifics>
## Specific Ideas

[Any particular references, examples, or "I want it like X" moments from discussion]

[If none: "No specific requirements — open to standard approaches"]

</specifics>

<deferred>
## Deferred Ideas

[Ideas that came up but belong in other phases. Don't lose them.]

[If none: "None — discussion stayed within phase scope"]

</deferred>

---

*Phase: XX-name*
*Context gathered: [date]*

Write file.

Present summary and next steps:

Created: .planning/phases/${PADDED_PHASE}-${SLUG}/${PADDED_PHASE}-CONTEXT.md

## Decisions Captured

### [Category]
- [Key decision]

### [Category]
- [Key decision]

[If deferred ideas exist:]
## Noted for Later
- [Deferred idea] — future phase

---

## ▶ Next Up

**Phase ${PHASE}: [Name]** — [Goal from ROADMAP.md]

`/gsd:plan-phase ${PHASE}`

<sub>`/clear` first → fresh context window</sub>

---

**Also available:**
- `/gsd:plan-phase ${PHASE} --skip-research` — plan without research
- Review/edit CONTEXT.md before continuing

---

Commit phase context:

git add "${PHASE_DIR}/${PADDED_PHASE}-CONTEXT.md"
git commit -m "$(cat <<'EOF'
docs(${PADDED_PHASE}): capture phase context

Phase ${PADDED_PHASE}: ${PHASE_NAME}
- Implementation decisions documented
- Phase boundary established
EOF
)"

Confirm: "Committed: docs(${PADDED_PHASE}): capture phase context"

<success_criteria>

• Phase validated against roadmap
• Gray areas identified through intelligent analysis (not generic questions)
• User selected which areas to discuss
• Each selected area explored until user satisfied
• Scope creep redirected to deferred ideas
• CONTEXT.md captures actual decisions, not vague vision
• Deferred ideas preserved for future phases
• User knows next steps </success_criteria>