spec-phase

<objective> Clarify phase requirements through structured Socratic questioning with quantitative ambiguity scoring.

Position in workflow: spec-phase → discuss-phase → plan-phase → execute-phase → verify

How it works:

1. Load phase context (PROJECT.md, REQUIREMENTS.md, ROADMAP.md, STATE.md)
2. Scout the codebase — understand current state before asking questions
3. Run Socratic interview loop (up to 6 rounds, rotating perspectives)
4. Score ambiguity across 4 weighted dimensions after each round
5. Gate: ambiguity ≤ 0.20 AND all dimensions meet minimums → write SPEC.md
6. Commit SPEC.md — discuss-phase picks it up automatically on next run

Output: {phase_dir}/{padded_phase}-SPEC.md — falsifiable requirements that lock "what/why" before discuss-phase handles "how" </objective>

<execution_context> @${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/workflows/spec-phase.md @${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/templates/spec.md </execution_context> <context> Phase number: $ARGUMENTS (required)

Flags:

• --auto — Skip interactive questions; Claude selects recommended defaults and writes SPEC.md
• --text — Use plain-text numbered lists instead of TUI menus (required for /rc remote sessions)

Context files are resolved in-workflow using init phase-op. </context>

<process> Execute the spec-phase workflow from @${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/workflows/spec-phase.md end-to-end.

MANDATORY: Read the workflow file BEFORE taking any action. Do not improvise from the objective summary above. </process>

<success_criteria> - Codebase scouted for current state before questioning begins - All 4 ambiguity dimensions scored after each interview round - Gate passed: ambiguity ≤ 0.20 AND all dimension minimums met - SPEC.md written with falsifiable requirements, explicit boundaries, and acceptance criteria - SPEC.md committed atomically - User knows they can now run /gsd:discuss-phase which will load SPEC.md automatically </success_criteria>