interview

Pre-computed context

Current branch: !git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown" Recent commits: !git log --oneline -5 2>/dev/null || echo "no commits" Working tree status (empty = clean): !{ git status --porcelain 2>/dev/null || echo "(git status unavailable)"; } | head -10

Variables

Arguments: $ARGUMENTS

Purpose

Most rework comes from acting on assumptions the user never made and the agent never surfaced, an underspecified task, one missing the constraints needed to act safely. /planning:interview is the pipeline's underspecification resolver: a structured pass driving every load-bearing unknown to a decision OR capturing it as a named, explicit assumption, before exploration, planning, or execution start.

The pre-clarity stage. Upstream of exploration, research, and /planning:plan. /planning:plan presupposes a coherent task; /planning:interview produces one out of fuzzy intent. The contract it writes is the target every later stage aims at.

Supportive, not adversarial. /planning:devils-advocate attacks an existing artifact after the fact. /planning:interview walks alongside the user to extract a clear contract from the start.

Domain-routed. The interview loop is universal. It interviews any plan, decision, or idea. What the session produces depends on context: an engineering task in a code repo locks a PLAN.md Brief and can hand off to /planning:plan; a general decision drives to a shared understanding and ends there. The domain is inferred from the task's build surface. The problem itself decides, with repo and working directory as context that never suffices alone. Never asked, and it is orthogonal to the me/auto/lock action. Engineering machinery, codebase grounding, the Brief, ADR/glossary outputs, pipeline handoff, engages only when the context is engineering; the universal loop runs either way. A user can override the inference in prose ("this isn't a code task", "interview me on this decision").