Discussing Phases

<user_command>/​kata:discuss-phase</​user_command>

<objective> Extract implementation decisions that downstream agents need — researcher and planner will use CONTEXT.md to know what to investigate and what choices are locked.

How it works:

1. Analyze the phase to identify gray areas (UI, UX, behavior, etc.)
2. Present gray areas — user selects which to discuss
3. Deep-dive each selected area until satisfied
4. 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> @./​references/​phase-discuss.md @./​references/​context-template.md </​execution_context>

<context> Phase number: $ARGUMENTS (required)

Load project state: @.planning/​STATE.md

Load roadmap: @.planning/​ROADMAP.md </​context>

<process> 1. Validate phase number (error if missing or not in roadmap) 2. Check if CONTEXT.md exists (offer update/​view/​skip if yes) 3. **Analyze phase** — Identify domain and generate phase-specific gray areas 4. **Present gray areas** — Multi-select: which to discuss? (NO skip option) 5. **Deep-dive each area** — 4 questions per area, then offer more/​next 6. **Write CONTEXT.md** — Sections match areas discussed 7. Offer next steps (research or plan)

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 </​process>

<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>