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_num}-CONTEXT.md — decisions clear enough that downstream agents can act without asking the user again
<execution_context> @{{PLATFORM_ROOT}}/get-shit-done/workflows/discuss-phase.md @{{PLATFORM_ROOT}}/get-shit-done/templates/context.md </execution_context>
Context files are resolved in-workflow using init phase-op and roadmap/state tool calls.
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 — don't lose them, don't act on them
Domain-aware gray areas: Gray areas depend on what's being built. Analyze the phase goal:
- Something users SEE → layout, density, interactions, states
- Something users CALL → responses, errors, auth, versioning
- 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.
Probing depth:
- Ask 4 questions per area before checking
- "More questions about [area], or move to next?"
- If more → ask 4 more, check again
- After all areas → "Ready to create context?"
Do NOT ask about (Claude handles these):
- Technical implementation
- Architecture choices
- Performance concerns
- Scope expansion
<success_criteria>
- Gray areas identified through intelligent analysis
- User chose which areas to discuss
- Each selected area explored until satisfied
- Scope creep redirected to deferred ideas
- CONTEXT.md captures decisions, not vague vision
- User knows next steps </success_criteria>