How it works:
- •Analyze the phase to identify gray areas (UI, UX, behavior, etc.)
- •Present gray areas — user selects which to discuss
- •Deep-dive each selected area until satisfied
- •Create CONTEXT.md with decisions that guide research and planning
Output: {phase}-CONTEXT.md — decisions clear enough that downstream agents can act without asking the user again
</objective>
<execution_context> @{{PLATFORM_ROOT}}/get-shit-done/workflows/discuss-phase.md @{{PLATFORM_ROOT}}/get-shit-done/templates/context.md </execution_context>
<context> Phase number: $ARGUMENTS (required)Load project state: @.planning/STATE.md
Load roadmap: @.planning/ROADMAP.md </context>
<process> <step name="validate_phase"> Validate phase number (error if missing or not in roadmap).- •Check if phase argument provided
- •Parse phase number (handle both integer and decimal: "5", "5.1")
- •Load ROADMAP.md
- •Search for phase in roadmap phases list
- •If not found: display error with available phases, exit
- •Extract phase goal and description </step>
- •Find phase directory: .planning/phases/{phase}-*/
- •Look for {phase}-*-CONTEXT.md files
- •If exists:
- •Display current content
- •Offer: "Update / View only / Skip"
- •If Update: proceed with discussion
- •If View: display full file and exit
- •If Skip: exit
- •If doesn't exist: proceed to analysis </step>
Domain-aware analysis: Gray areas depend on what's being built. Based on phase goal, identify:
- •Something users SEE → layout, density, interactions, states, visual hierarchy
- •Something users CALL → responses, errors, auth, versioning, rate limiting
- •Something users RUN → output format, flags, modes, error handling
- •Something users READ → structure, tone, depth, flow
- •Something being ORGANIZED → criteria, grouping, naming, exceptions
Generate 3-4 phase-specific gray areas, not generic categories.
Examples:
- •Phase: "Build task dashboard" → Gray areas: "Task grouping", "Urgency indicators", "Empty states", "Interaction feedback"
- •Phase: "Add authentication" → Gray areas: "Session duration", "Password requirements", "2FA approach", "Error messaging"
- •Phase: "Create reports" → Gray areas: "Report formatting", "Date range defaults", "Export formats", "Performance data depth"
Critical: Scope guardrail
- •Phase boundary from ROADMAP.md is FIXED
- •Discussion clarifies HOW to implement, not WHETHER to add more
- •If user suggests new capabilities: "That's its own phase. I'll note it for later."
- •Capture deferred ideas in separate section — don't lose them, don't act on them </step>
- •List all generated gray areas (3-4)
- •For each: brief description of what decisions need to be made
- •Ask: "Which areas do you want to discuss? (select 1 or more)"
- •NO skip/none option — at least one area must be discussed
- •User can select multiple or all
- •Record selected areas for deep-dive </step>
Probing approach:
- •Start with 4 context-specific questions for the area
- •Listen to responses, ask follow-up based on answers
- •After 4 questions: "More questions about [area], or move to next?"
- •If more: ask 4 more, check again
- •If next: move to next selected area
- •After all areas: "Ready to create context?"
Question quality:
- •Ask about SPECIFIC implementation choices, not general preferences
- •Focus on user-observable behavior, not technical internals
- •Avoid "how should we..." — instead "what do you expect when..."
- •Dig into edge cases: "What if X happens? What should user see?"
Do NOT ask about (Claude handles these):
- •Technical implementation details
- •Architecture choices (libraries, patterns)
- •Performance optimization strategies
- •Testing approaches
- •Scope expansion beyond phase boundary </step>
Use template from templates/context.md as base structure.
Sections to populate:
- •
Essential Features
- •Must-have features user specified
- •Core functionality that defines phase completion
- •User-observable outcomes that MUST exist
- •
Technical Boundaries
- •Locked decisions: libraries, patterns, architecture
- •Constraints from discussion (e.g., "must use JWT", "no external APIs")
- •Technology choices user specified
- •
Scope Limits
- •Explicitly out of scope items
- •Features deferred to future phases
- •Boundaries user confirmed
- •
Open Questions
- •Things to investigate during research
- •Unclear areas that need research findings
- •Technical unknowns that research should answer
Synthesis rules:
- •Write in clear, actionable language
- •Use bullet points, not paragraphs
- •Be specific: "Use JWT with 1-hour expiration" not "Handle authentication"
- •Capture decisions, not discussion history
- •Each item should guide downstream agents without additional user input </step>
Frontmatter:
---
phase: {phase}
discussed: {ISO timestamp}
areas: [{list of discussed areas}]
decisions_count: {number of decisions captured}
---
Body: Use synthesized sections from previous step
File naming:
- •Find next available number: {phase}-{NN}-CONTEXT.md
- •Typically: {phase}-01-CONTEXT.md (first artifact in phase)
- •If multiple discussions: increment number
Example path:
.planning/phases/05-authentication/05-01-CONTEXT.md
</step>
git add .planning/phases/{phase}-*/{phase}-*-CONTEXT.md
git commit -m "docs(${phase}): capture context from discussion
Areas discussed: {list areas}
Decisions captured: {count}
"
If phase has no RESEARCH.md:
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
CONTEXT CAPTURED
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Discussed: {areas}
Decisions: {count} captured in CONTEXT.md
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
## ▶ Next Up
**Research phase** — investigate open questions and validate approach
{{COMMAND_PREFIX}}research-phase {phase}
<sub>/clear first → fresh context window</sub>
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
**Also available:**
- {{COMMAND_PREFIX}}plan-phase {phase} — skip research, plan directly (if confident)
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
If phase already has RESEARCH.md:
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
CONTEXT UPDATED
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Updated decisions based on discussion.
Research may need refresh if decisions changed significantly.
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
## ▶ Next Up
**Plan phase** — create execution plans with updated context
{{COMMAND_PREFIX}}plan-phase {phase}
<sub>/clear first → fresh context window</sub>
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
**Also available:**
- {{COMMAND_PREFIX}}research-phase {phase} --refresh — re-research with new context
- cat .planning/phases/{phase_dir}/*-CONTEXT.md — review decisions
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
<anti_patterns>
- •Don't ask about technical implementation (Claude decides)
- •Don't let scope creep — phase boundary is fixed
- •Don't ask generic questions — phase-specific gray areas
- •Don't accept "whatever you think" — push for concrete decisions
- •Don't write vague context — be specific and actionable </anti_patterns>
<success_criteria>
- • Phase validated and exists in roadmap
- • Existing CONTEXT.md handling (update/view/skip)
- • Gray areas identified through intelligent analysis
- • User chose which areas to discuss (at least one)
- • Each selected area explored until satisfied
- • Scope creep redirected to deferred ideas
- • CONTEXT.md created with specific, actionable decisions
- • File committed to git
- • User knows next steps (research or plan) </success_criteria>