msd-core/get-shit-done/workflows/list-phase-assumptions.md

Surface Claude's assumptions about a phase before planning, enabling users to correct misconceptions early.

Key difference from discuss-phase: This is ANALYSIS of what Claude thinks, not INTAKE of what user knows. No file output - purely conversational to prompt discussion.

Phase number: $ARGUMENTS (required)

If argument missing:

Error: Phase number required.

Usage: /gsd:discuss-phase <phase-number> --assumptions
Example: /gsd:discuss-phase 3 --assumptions

Exit workflow.

If argument provided: Validate phase exists in roadmap:

cat .planning/ROADMAP.md | grep -i "Phase ${PHASE}"

If phase not found:

Error: Phase ${PHASE} not found in roadmap.

Available phases:
[list phases from roadmap]

Exit workflow.

If phase found: Parse phase details from roadmap:

• Phase number
• Phase name
• Phase description/goal
• Any scope details mentioned

Continue to analyze_phase.

Based on roadmap description and project context, identify assumptions across five areas:

1. Technical Approach: What libraries, frameworks, patterns, or tools would Claude use?

• "I'd use X library because..."
• "I'd follow Y pattern because..."
• "I'd structure this as Z because..."

2. Implementation Order: What would Claude build first, second, third?

• "I'd start with X because it's foundational"
• "Then Y because it depends on X"
• "Finally Z because..."

3. Scope Boundaries: What's included vs excluded in Claude's interpretation?

• "This phase includes: A, B, C"
• "This phase does NOT include: D, E, F"
• "Boundary ambiguities: G could go either way"

4. Risk Areas: Where does Claude expect complexity or challenges?

• "The tricky part is X because..."
• "Potential issues: Y, Z"
• "I'd watch out for..."

5. Dependencies: What does Claude assume exists or needs to be in place?

• "This assumes X from previous phases"
• "External dependencies: Y, Z"
• "This will be consumed by..."

Be honest about uncertainty. Mark assumptions with confidence levels:

• "Fairly confident: ..." (clear from roadmap)
• "Assuming: ..." (reasonable inference)
• "Unclear: ..." (could go multiple ways)

Present assumptions in a clear, scannable format:

## My Assumptions for Phase ${PHASE}: ${PHASE_NAME}

### Technical Approach
[List assumptions about how to implement]

### Implementation Order
[List assumptions about sequencing]

### Scope Boundaries
**In scope:** [what's included]
**Out of scope:** [what's excluded]
**Ambiguous:** [what could go either way]

### Risk Areas
[List anticipated challenges]

### Dependencies
**From prior phases:** [what's needed]
**External:** [third-party needs]
**Feeds into:** [what future phases need from this]

---

**What do you think?**

Are these assumptions accurate? Let me know:
- What I got right
- What I got wrong
- What I'm missing

Wait for user response.

**If user provides corrections:**

Acknowledge the corrections:

Key corrections:
- [correction 1]
- [correction 2]

This changes my understanding significantly. [Summarize new understanding]

If user confirms assumptions:

Assumptions validated.

Continue to offer_next.

Present next steps:

What's next?
1. Discuss context (/gsd:discuss-phase ${PHASE}) - Let me ask you questions to build comprehensive context
2. Plan this phase (/gsd:plan-phase ${PHASE}) - Create detailed execution plans
3. Re-examine assumptions - I'll analyze again with your corrections
4. Done for now

Wait for user selection.

If "Discuss context": Note that CONTEXT.md will incorporate any corrections discussed here If "Plan this phase": Proceed knowing assumptions are understood If "Re-examine": Return to analyze_phase with updated understanding

<success_criteria>

• Phase number validated against roadmap
• Assumptions surfaced across five areas: technical approach, implementation order, scope, risks, dependencies
• Confidence levels marked where appropriate
• "What do you think?" prompt presented
• User feedback acknowledged
• Clear next steps offered </success_criteria>