Files
msd-core/get-shit-done/workflows/explore.md
Tom Boucher 73c1af5168 fix(#2543): replace legacy /gsd-<cmd> syntax with /gsd:<cmd> across all source files (#2595)
Commands are now installed as commands/gsd/<name>.md and invoked as
/gsd:<name> in Claude Code. The old hyphen form /gsd-<name> was still
hardcoded in hundreds of places across workflows, references, templates,
lib modules, and command files — causing "Unknown command" errors
whenever GSD suggested a command to the user.

Replace all /gsd-<cmd> occurrences where <cmd> is a known command name
(derived at runtime from commands/gsd/*.md) using a targeted Node.js
script. Agent names, tool names (gsd-sdk, gsd-tools), directory names,
and path fragments are not touched.

Adds regression test tests/bug-2543-gsd-slash-namespace.test.cjs that
enforces zero legacy occurrences going forward. Removes inverted
tests/stale-colon-refs.test.cjs (bug #1748) which enforced the now-obsolete
hyphen form; the new bug-2543 test supersedes it. Updates 5 assertion
tests that hardcoded the old hyphen form to accept the new colon form.

Closes #2543

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-04-22 12:04:25 -04:00

5.4 KiB

Socratic ideation workflow. Guides the developer through exploring an idea via probing questions, offers mid-conversation research when useful, then routes crystallized outputs to GSD artifacts.

<required_reading> Read all files referenced by the invoking prompt's execution_context before starting.

@/.claude/get-shit-done/references/questioning.md @/.claude/get-shit-done/references/domain-probes.md </required_reading>

<available_agent_types> Valid GSD subagent types (use exact names — do not fall back to 'general-purpose'):

  • gsd-phase-researcher — Researches specific questions and returns concise findings </available_agent_types>

Step 1: Open the conversation

If a topic was provided, acknowledge it and begin exploring:

## Explore: {topic}

Let's think through this together. I'll ask questions to help clarify the idea
before we commit to any artifacts.

If no topic, ask:

## Explore

What's on your mind? This could be a feature idea, an architectural question,
a problem you're trying to solve, or something you're not sure about yet.

Step 2: Socratic conversation (2-5 exchanges)

Guide the conversation using principles from questioning.md and domain-probes.md:

  • Ask one question at a time (never a list of questions)
  • Questions should probe: constraints, tradeoffs, users, scope, dependencies, risks
  • Use domain-specific probes contextually when the topic touches a known domain
  • Listen for signals: "or" / "versus" / "tradeoff" indicate competing priorities worth exploring
  • Reflect back what you hear to confirm understanding before moving forward

Conversation should feel natural, not formulaic. Avoid rigid sequences. Follow the developer's energy — if they're excited about one aspect, go deeper there.

Step 3: Mid-conversation research offer (after 2-3 exchanges)

If the conversation surfaces factual questions, technology comparisons, or unknowns that research could resolve, offer:

This touches on [specific question]. Want me to do a quick research pass before we continue?
This would take ~30 seconds and might surface useful context.

[Yes, research this] / [No, let's keep exploring]

If yes, spawn a research agent:

Task(
  prompt="Quick research: {specific_question}. Return 3-5 key findings, no more than 200 words.",
  subagent_type="gsd-phase-researcher"
)

Share findings and continue the conversation.

If the topic doesn't warrant research, skip this step entirely. Don't force it.

Step 4: Crystallize outputs (after 3-6 exchanges)

When the conversation reaches natural conclusions or the developer signals readiness, propose outputs. Analyze the conversation to identify what was discussed and suggest up to 4 outputs from:

Type Destination When to suggest
Note .planning/notes/{slug}.md Observations, context, decisions worth remembering
Todo .planning/todos/pending/{slug}.md Concrete actionable tasks identified
Seed .planning/seeds/{slug}.md Forward-looking ideas with trigger conditions
Research question .planning/research/questions.md (append) Open questions that need deeper investigation
Requirement REQUIREMENTS.md (append) Clear requirements that emerged from discussion
New phase ROADMAP.md (append) Scope large enough to warrant its own phase
Spike /gsd:spike (invoke) Feasibility uncertainty surfaced — "will this API work?", "can we do X?"
Sketch /gsd:sketch (invoke) Design direction unclear — "what should this look like?", "how should this feel?"

Present suggestions:

Based on our conversation, I'd suggest capturing:

1. **Note:** "Authentication strategy decisions" — your reasoning about JWT vs sessions
2. **Todo:** "Evaluate Passport.js vs custom middleware" — the comparison you want to do
3. **Seed:** "OAuth2 provider support" — trigger: when user management phase starts

Create these? You can select specific ones or modify them.

[Create all] / [Let me pick] / [Skip — just exploring]

Never write artifacts without explicit user selection.

Step 5: Write selected outputs

For each selected output, write the file:

  • Notes: Create .planning/notes/{slug}.md with frontmatter (title, date, context)
  • Todos: Create .planning/todos/pending/{slug}.md with frontmatter (title, date, priority)
  • Seeds: Create .planning/seeds/{slug}.md with frontmatter (title, trigger_condition, planted_date)
  • Research questions: Append to .planning/research/questions.md
  • Requirements: Append to .planning/REQUIREMENTS.md with next available REQ ID
  • Phases: Use existing /gsd:add-phase command via SlashCommand

Commit if commit_docs is enabled:

gsd-sdk query commit "docs: capture exploration — {topic_slug}" {file_list}

Step 6: Close

## Exploration Complete

**Topic:** {topic}
**Outputs:** {count} artifact(s) created
{list of created files}

Continue exploring with `/gsd:explore` or start working with `/gsd:next`.

<success_criteria>

  • Socratic conversation follows questioning.md principles
  • Questions asked one at a time, not in batches
  • Research offered contextually (not forced)
  • Up to 4 outputs proposed from conversation
  • User explicitly selects which outputs to create
  • Files written to correct destinations
  • Commit respects commit_docs config </success_criteria>