msd-core/get-shit-done/workflows/sketch.md

Explore design directions through throwaway HTML mockups before committing to implementation. Each sketch produces 2-3 variants for comparison. Saves artifacts to `.planning/sketches/`. Companion to `/gsd:sketch --wrap-up`.

Supports two modes:

• Idea mode (default) — user describes a design idea to sketch
• Frontier mode — no argument or "frontier" / "what should I sketch?" — analyzes existing sketch landscape and proposes consistency and frontier sketches

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

@/.claude/get-shit-done/references/sketch-theme-system.md @/.claude/get-shit-done/references/sketch-variant-patterns.md @/.claude/get-shit-done/references/sketch-interactivity.md @/.claude/get-shit-done/references/sketch-tooling.md </required_reading>

``` ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ GSD ► SKETCHING ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ```

Parse $ARGUMENTS for:

• --quick flag → set QUICK_MODE=true
• --text flag → set TEXT_MODE=true
• frontier or empty → set FRONTIER_MODE=true
• Remaining text → the design idea to sketch

Text mode: If TEXT_MODE is enabled, replace AskUserQuestion calls with plain-text numbered lists.

## Routing

• FRONTIER_MODE is true → Jump to frontier_mode
• Otherwise → Continue to setup_directory

## Frontier Mode — Propose What to Sketch Next

Load the Sketch Landscape

If no .planning/sketches/ directory exists, tell the user there's nothing to analyze and offer to start fresh with an idea instead.

Otherwise, load in this order:

a. MANIFEST.md — the design direction, reference points, and sketch table with winners.

b. Findings skills — glob ./.claude/skills/sketch-findings-*/SKILL.md and read any that exist, plus their references/*.md. These contain curated design decisions from prior wrap-ups.

c. All sketch READMEs — read .planning/sketches/*/README.md for design questions, winners, and tags.

Analyze for Consistency Sketches

Review winning variants across all sketches. Look for:

• Visual consistency gaps: Two sketches made independent design choices that haven't been tested together.
• State combinations: Individual states validated but not seen in sequence.
• Responsive gaps: Validated at one viewport but the real app needs multiple.
• Theme coherence: Individual components look good but haven't been composed into a full-page view.

If consistency risks exist, present them as concrete proposed sketches with names and design questions. If no meaningful gaps, say so and skip.

Analyze for Frontier Sketches

Think laterally about the design direction from MANIFEST.md and what's been explored:

• Unsketched screens: UI surfaces assumed but unexplored.
• Interaction patterns: Static layouts validated but transitions, loading, drag-and-drop need feeling.
• Edge case UI: 0 items, 1000 items, errors, slow connections.
• Alternative directions: Fresh takes on "fine but not great" sketches.
• Polish passes: Typography, spacing, micro-interactions, empty states.

Present frontier sketches as concrete proposals numbered from the highest existing sketch number.

Get Alignment and Execute

Present all consistency and frontier candidates, then ask which to run. When the user picks sketches, update .planning/sketches/MANIFEST.md and proceed directly to building them starting at build_sketches.

Create `.planning/sketches/` and themes directory if they don't exist:

mkdir -p .planning/sketches/themes

Check for existing sketches to determine numbering:

ls -d .planning/sketches/[0-9][0-9][0-9]-* 2>/dev/null | sort | tail -1

Check commit_docs config:

# SDK resolution: prefer local gsd-tools.cjs, fall back to global gsd-sdk (#3668)
GSD_TOOLS="${RUNTIME_DIR:-$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)}/get-shit-done/bin/gsd-tools.cjs"
if [ -f "$GSD_TOOLS" ]; then
  GSD_SDK="node $GSD_TOOLS"
elif command -v gsd-sdk >/dev/null 2>&1; then
  GSD_SDK="gsd-sdk"
else
  echo "ERROR: gsd-sdk not found on PATH and $GSD_TOOLS does not exist." >&2
  echo "Run: npx get-shit-done-cc@latest --claude --local" >&2
  exit 1
fi
COMMIT_DOCS=$($GSD_SDK query config-get commit_docs 2>/dev/null || echo "true")

**If `QUICK_MODE` is true:** Skip mood intake. Use whatever the user provided in `$ARGUMENTS` as the design direction. Jump to `load_spike_context`.

Otherwise:

Before sketching anything, explore the design intent through conversation. Ask one question at a time — using AskUserQuestion in normal mode, or a plain-text numbered list if TEXT_MODE is active.

Questions to cover (adapt to what the user has already shared):

1. Feel: "What should this feel like? Give me adjectives, emotions, or a vibe."
2. References: "What apps, sites, or products have a similar feel to what you're imagining?"
3. Core action: "What's the single most important thing a user does here?"

After each answer, briefly reflect what you heard and how it shapes your thinking.

When you have enough signal, ask: "I think I have a good sense of the direction. Ready for me to sketch, or want to keep discussing?"

Only proceed when the user says go.

## Load Spike Context

If spikes exist for this project, read them to ground the sketches in reality. Mockups are still pure HTML, but they should reflect what's actually been proven — real data shapes, real component names, real interaction patterns.

a. Glob for ./.claude/skills/spike-findings-*/SKILL.md and read any that exist, plus their references/*.md. These contain validated patterns and requirements.

b. Read .planning/spikes/MANIFEST.md if it exists — check the Requirements section for non-negotiable design constraints (e.g., "must support streaming", "must render markdown"). These requirements should be visible in the mockup even though the mockup doesn't implement them for real.

c. Read .planning/spikes/CONVENTIONS.md if it exists — the established stack informs what's buildable and what interaction patterns are idiomatic.

How spike context improves sketches:

• Use real field names and data shapes from spike findings instead of generic placeholders
• Show realistic UI states that match what the spikes proved (e.g., if streaming was validated, show a streaming message state)
• Reference real component names and patterns from the target stack
• Include interaction states that reflect what the spikes discovered (loading, error, reconnection states)

If no spikes exist, skip this step.

Break the idea into 2-5 design questions. Present as a table:

Sketch	Design question	Approach	Risk
001	Does a two-panel layout feel right?	Sidebar + main, variants: fixed/collapsible/floating	High — sets page structure
002	How should the form controls look?	Grouped cards, variants: stacked/inline/floating labels	Medium

Each sketch answers one specific visual question. Good sketches:

• "Does this layout feel right?" — build with real-ish content
• "How should these controls be grouped?" — build with actual labels and inputs
• "What does this interaction feel like?" — build the hover/click/transition
• "Does this color palette work?" — apply to actual UI, not a swatch grid

Bad sketches:

• "Design the whole app" — too broad
• "Set up the component library" — that's implementation
• "Pick a color palette" — apply it to UI instead

Present the table and get alignment before building.

## Research the Target Stack

Before sketching, ground the design in what's actually buildable. Sketches are HTML, but they should reflect real constraints of the target implementation.

a. Identify the target stack. Check for package.json, Cargo.toml, etc. If the user mentioned a framework (React, SwiftUI, Flutter, etc.), note it.

b. Check component/pattern availability. Use context7 (resolve-library-id → query-docs) or web search to answer:

• What layout primitives does the target framework provide?
• Are there existing component libraries in use? What components are available?
• What interaction patterns are idiomatic?

c. Note constraints that affect design:

• Platform conventions (iOS nav patterns, desktop menu bars, terminal grid constraints)
• Framework limitations (what's easy vs requires custom work)
• Existing design tokens or theme systems already in the project

d. Let research inform variants. At least one variant should follow the path of least resistance for the target stack.

Skip when unnecessary. Greenfield project with no stack, or user says "just explore visually." The point is grounding, not gatekeeping.

Create or update `.planning/sketches/MANIFEST.md`:

# Sketch Manifest

## Design Direction
[One paragraph capturing the mood/feel/direction from the intake conversation]

## Reference Points
[Apps/sites the user referenced]

## Sketches

| # | Name | Design Question | Winner | Tags |
|---|------|----------------|--------|------|

If MANIFEST.md already exists, append new sketches to the existing table.

If no theme exists yet at `.planning/sketches/themes/default.css`, create one based on the mood/direction from the intake step. See `sketch-theme-system.md` for the full template.

Adapt colors, fonts, spacing, and shapes to match the agreed aesthetic — don't use the defaults verbatim unless they match the mood.

Build each sketch in order.

For Each Sketch:

a. Find next available number. Format: three-digit zero-padded + hyphenated descriptive name.

b. Create the sketch directory: .planning/sketches/NNN-descriptive-name/

c. Build index.html with 2-3 variants:

First round — dramatic differences: 2-3 meaningfully different approaches. Subsequent rounds — refinements: Subtler variations within the chosen direction.

Each variant is a page/tab in the same HTML file. Include:

• Tab navigation to switch between variants (see sketch-variant-patterns.md)
• Clear labels: "Variant A: Sidebar Layout", "Variant B: Top Nav", etc.
• The sketch toolbar (see sketch-tooling.md)
• All interactive elements functional (see sketch-interactivity.md)
• Real-ish content, not lorem ipsum (use real field names from spike context if available)
• Link to ../themes/default.css for shared theme variables

All sketches are plain HTML with inline CSS and JS. No build step, no npm, no framework.

d. Write README.md:

---
sketch: NNN
name: descriptive-name
question: "What layout structure feels right for the dashboard?"
winner: null
tags: [layout, dashboard]
---

# Sketch NNN: Descriptive Name

## Design Question
[The specific visual question this sketch answers]

## How to View
open .planning/sketches/NNN-descriptive-name/index.html

## Variants
- **A: [name]** — [one-line description of this approach]
- **B: [name]** — [one-line description]
- **C: [name]** — [one-line description]

## What to Look For
[Specific things to pay attention to when comparing variants]

e. Present to the user with a checkpoint:

╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗ ║ CHECKPOINT: Verification Required ║ ╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝

Sketch {NNN}: {name}

Open: open .planning/sketches/NNN-name/index.html

Compare: {what to look for between variants}

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── → Which variant feels right? Or cherry-pick elements across variants. ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

f. Handle feedback:

• Pick a direction: mark winner, move to next sketch
• Cherry-pick elements: build synthesis as new variant, show again
• Want more exploration: build new variants

Iterate until satisfied.

g. Finalize:

1. Mark winning variant in README frontmatter (winner: "B")
2. Add ★ indicator to winning tab in HTML
3. Update .planning/sketches/MANIFEST.md

h. Commit (if COMMIT_DOCS is true):

$GSD_SDK query commit "docs(sketch-NNN): [winning direction] — [key visual insight]" --files .planning/sketches/NNN-descriptive-name/ .planning/sketches/MANIFEST.md

i. Report:

◆ Sketch NNN: {name}
  Winner: Variant {X} — {description}
  Insight: {key visual decision made}

After all sketches complete:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
 GSD ► SKETCH COMPLETE ✓
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

## Design Direction
{what we landed on overall}

## Key Decisions
{layout, palette, typography, spacing, interaction patterns}

## Open Questions
{anything unresolved or worth revisiting}

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

▶ Next Up

Package findings — wrap design decisions into a reusable skill

/gsd:sketch --wrap-up

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Also available:

• /gsd:sketch — sketch more (or run with no argument for frontier mode)
• /gsd:plan-phase — start building the real UI
• /gsd:spike — spike technical feasibility of a design pattern

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

<success_criteria>

• .planning/sketches/ created (auto-creates if needed, no project init required)
• Design direction explored conversationally before any code (unless --quick)
• Spike context loaded — real data shapes, requirements, and conventions inform mockups
• Target stack researched — component availability, constraints, idioms (unless greenfield/skipped)
• Each sketch has 2-3 variants for comparison (at least one follows path of least resistance)
• User can open and interact with sketches in a browser
• Winning variant selected and marked for each sketch
• All variants preserved (winner marked, not others deleted)
• MANIFEST.md is current
• Commits use docs(sketch-NNN): [winner] format
• Summary presented with next-step routing </success_criteria>