---
name: deep-interview
description: Socratic deep interview with mathematical ambiguity gating before execution
argument-hint: "[--quick|--standard|--deep] [--autoresearch] <idea or vague description>"
---

<Purpose>
Deep Interview is an intent-first Socratic clarification loop before planning or implementation. It turns vague ideas into execution-ready specifications by asking targeted questions about why the user wants a change, how far it should go, what should stay out of scope, and what OMX may decide without confirmation.
</Purpose>

<Use_When>
- The request is broad, ambiguous, or missing concrete acceptance criteria
- The user says "deep interview", "interview me", "ask me everything", "don't assume", or "ouroboros"
- The user wants to avoid misaligned implementation from underspecified requirements
- You need a requirements artifact before handing off to `ralplan`, `autopilot`, `ralph`, or `team`
</Use_When>

<Do_Not_Use_When>
- The request already has concrete file/symbol targets and clear acceptance criteria
- The user explicitly asks to skip planning/interview and execute immediately
- The user asks for lightweight brainstorming only (use `plan` instead)
- A complete PRD/plan already exists and execution should start
</Do_Not_Use_When>

<Why_This_Exists>
Execution quality is usually bottlenecked by intent clarity, not just missing implementation detail. A single expansion pass often misses why the user wants a change, where the scope should stop, which tradeoffs are unacceptable, and which decisions still require user approval. This workflow applies Socratic pressure + quantitative ambiguity scoring so orchestration modes begin with an explicit, testable, intent-aligned spec.
</Why_This_Exists>

<Depth_Profiles>
- **Quick (`--quick`)**: fast pre-PRD pass; target threshold `<= 0.30`; max rounds 5
- **Standard (`--standard`, default)**: full requirement interview; target threshold `<= 0.20`; max rounds 12
- **Deep (`--deep`)**: high-rigor exploration; target threshold `<= 0.15`; max rounds 20
- **Autoresearch (`--autoresearch`)**: same interview rigor as Standard, but specialized for `$autoresearch` mission readiness and `.omx/specs/` artifact handoff

Profile `max rounds` is a hard cap, not a target. Do not continue only to reach a numbered round count. Extra Socratic rigor does not override the active threshold unless the profile/config changes.

If no flag is provided, use **Standard**.

<Mode_Flags>
- **`--autoresearch`**: switch the interview into autoresearch-intake mode for `$autoresearch` handoff. In this mode, the interview should converge on a validator-ready research mission, write canonical artifacts under `.omx/specs/`, and preserve the explicit `refine further` vs `launch` boundary for downstream skill intake.
</Mode_Flags>
</Depth_Profiles>

<Execution_Policy>
- Ask ONE question per round (never batch multiple interview rounds into one `questions[]` form)
- Ask about intent and boundaries before implementation detail
- Target the weakest clarity dimension each round after applying the stage-priority rules below
- Treat every answer as a claim to pressure-test before moving on: the next question should usually demand evidence or examples, expose a hidden assumption, force a tradeoff or boundary, or reframe root cause vs symptom
- Do not rotate to a new clarity dimension just for coverage when the current answer is still vague; stay on the same thread until one layer deeper, one assumption clearer, or one boundary tighter
- Before crystallizing, complete at least one explicit pressure pass that revisits an earlier answer with a deeper, assumption-focused, or tradeoff-focused follow-up
- Gather codebase facts via `explore` before asking user about internals
- `omx explore` is deprecated. Use normal repository inspection tools/subagents for simple read-only brownfield fact gathering; use `omx sparkshell` only for explicit shell-native read-only evidence, and keep ambiguous or non-shell-only investigation on the richer normal path.
- Always run a preflight context intake before the first interview question
- For brownfield work, preflight must include doc/context grounding before user-facing questions: inspect applicable `AGENTS.md` files, README/getting-started docs, relevant `docs/` contracts/plans/ADRs, existing `.omx/context/` snapshots, and any project-local glossary/context files such as `CONTEXT.md` or `CONTEXT-MAP.md` when present.
- Treat existing repo language as evidence, not authority: if the user uses a fuzzy, overloaded, or conflicting term, surface the specific doc/code wording and ask which meaning should govern before implementation.
- Cross-check user claims about current behavior against code or documented contracts when discoverable. If docs and code disagree, ask a confirmation question that names both sources instead of silently choosing one.
- Use scenario-based edge-case grilling when relationships, boundaries, or handoff behavior are unclear: invent one concrete scenario that stresses the ambiguous boundary, then ask one focused question about the expected outcome.
- Durable docs, glossary, ADR, or memory updates are opt-in and public-safe only. Deep-interview may recommend such updates in the handoff summary, but must not automatically create or dump public docs from interview transcripts unless the user explicitly chooses that as in-scope.
- If initial context is oversized or would exceed the prompt budget, do not paste or forward the raw payload into interview prompts; request and record a prompt-safe initial-context summary first
- The oversized initial-context summary gate is blocking: wait for the concise summary before ambiguity scoring, crystallizing artifacts, or any downstream execution handoff
- The summary must preserve goals, constraints, success criteria, non-goals, decision boundaries, and references to any full source documents so downstream consumers receive a prompt-safe but faithful context
- Keep total prompt payloads within a safe budget by summarizing or trimming retained history; preserve newest/highest-signal answers and never let raw oversized context crowd out the current question
- Reduce user effort: ask only the highest-leverage unresolved question, and never ask the user for codebase facts that can be discovered directly
- For brownfield work, prefer evidence-backed confirmation questions such as "I found X in Y. Should this change follow that pattern?"
- Route facts before judgment in the Ouroboros style: before presenting a user-facing interview round, classify whether the needed information is a discoverable fact, a fact needing confirmation, or a human decision. The interview is with the human for judgment, not for facts the agent can inspect.
- When unresolved ambiguity depends on current external best practices, official/upstream guidance, standards, or version-aware behavior, use `$best-practice-research` as the bounded evidence wrapper before crystallizing requirements or handing off to planning/execution.
- Use these transcript/spec labels only; never use them as `omx question` `source` values, and never replace the runtime `source: "deep-interview"` contract for user-facing deep-interview questions:
  - `[from-code][auto-confirmed]` — exact, high-confidence codebase facts from manifests/configs or direct source evidence, with no prescription attached.
  - `[from-code]` — codebase findings that are useful but inferred, pattern-based, or low/medium confidence and therefore need a confirmation-style user-facing round before being treated as settled.
  - `[from-research]` — externally sourced facts such as API limits, compatibility, or public documentation; facts only, not decisions.
  - `[from-user]` — goals, preferences, business logic, scope, non-goals, acceptance criteria, tradeoffs, and any decision-bearing interpretation.
- Treat `[from-code][auto-confirmed]` and other non-user fact discoveries as context/transcript updates, not interview rounds: do not call `omx question`, do not create a pending deep-interview question obligation, and do not increment the user-facing round number for facts the agent can safely establish.
- Auto-confirm only descriptive facts. If a finding implies what the new feature should do, which pattern it should follow, which tradeoff to accept, or what should stay in/out of scope, route the entire decision-bearing question to the user as `[from-user]` even when code or research facts are available.
- In attached-tmux Codex CLI, deep-interview uses `omx question` as the required OMX-owned structured questioning path for every interview round
- When invoking `omx question` through attached-tmux Bash/tool paths, preserve the leader-pane return target by prefixing the command with `OMX_QUESTION_RETURN_PANE=$TMUX_PANE` (or a concrete `%pane` value)
- If you launch `omx question` in a background terminal, immediately wait for that background terminal to finish and read its JSON answer before scoring ambiguity, asking another round, or handing off
- Treat `answers[]` as the primary `omx question` success contract. For a single interview round, read `answers[0].answer`; use legacy top-level `answer` only as a compatibility fallback when needed.
- If the current runtime is outside tmux and cannot render `omx question`, use the native structured question tool when available; otherwise ask exactly one concise plain-text question and wait for the answer
- Re-score ambiguity after each answer and show progress transparently
- Once ambiguity is at or below the active profile threshold, stop ordinary questioning. Run the practical closure audit: crystallize/handoff when readiness gates pass; otherwise ask only the final closure question needed to satisfy a named gate.
- Treat `max_rounds` as a stop cap, not evidence that more rounds are needed.
- Do not hand off to execution while ambiguity remains above threshold unless user explicitly opts to proceed with warning
- Do not crystallize or hand off while `Non-goals` or `Decision Boundaries` remain unresolved, even if the weighted ambiguity threshold is met
- Treat early exit as a safety valve, not the default success path
- Persist mode state for resume safety with CLI-first state commands (`omx state write/read --input '<json>' --json`); use `state_write` / `state_read` only when explicit MCP compatibility is enabled
</Execution_Policy>

<Steps>

## Phase 0: Preflight Context Intake

1. Parse `{{ARGUMENTS}}` and derive a short task slug.
2. Attempt to load the latest relevant context snapshot from `.omx/context/{slug}-*.md`.
3. Check whether the provided initial context or loaded snapshot is too large for safe prompt use. If it is oversized, the first interview round must ask for a concise prompt-safe summary instead of scoring ambiguity or continuing to downstream handoff.
4. If no snapshot exists, create a minimum context snapshot with:
   - Task statement
   - Desired outcome
   - Stated solution (what the user asked for)
   - Probable intent hypothesis (why they likely want it)
   - Known facts/evidence
   - Constraints
   - Unknowns/open questions
   - Decision-boundary unknowns
   - Likely codebase touchpoints
   - Relevant repo docs/rules/context inspected
   - Terminology or doc/code conflicts found
   - Prompt-safe initial-context summary status (`not_needed`, `needed`, or `recorded`)
5. For brownfield tasks, inspect the applicable documentation/rule surface before the first user-facing round. Prefer exact, nearby sources over broad scans:
   - governing `AGENTS.md` files and template/runtime instruction surfaces that apply to the touched paths
   - README/getting-started docs and relevant docs under `docs/`, especially contracts, plans, ADR-like records, and workflow docs
   - existing `.omx/context/` snapshots, `.omx/specs/`, and planning artifacts relevant to the slug
   - project-local glossary/context files such as `CONTEXT.md`, `CONTEXT-MAP.md`, or context-specific docs when they exist
6. Save snapshot to `.omx/context/{slug}-{timestamp}.md` (UTC `YYYYMMDDTHHMMSSZ`) and reference it in mode state.

## Phase 1: Initialize

1. Parse `{{ARGUMENTS}}` and depth profile (`--quick|--standard|--deep`).
2. Detect project context:
   - Run `explore` to classify **brownfield** (existing codebase target) vs **greenfield**.
   - For brownfield, collect relevant codebase context before questioning.
3. Initialize state via `omx state write --input '{"mode":"deep-interview","active":true}' --json`:

```json
{
  "active": true,
  "current_phase": "deep-interview",
  "state": {
    "interview_id": "<uuid>",
    "profile": "quick|standard|deep",
    "type": "greenfield|brownfield",
    "initial_idea": "<user input>",
    "rounds": [],
    "current_ambiguity": 1.0,
    "threshold": 0.3,
    "max_rounds": 5,
    "challenge_modes_used": [],
    "codebase_context": null,
    "current_stage": "intent-first",
    "current_focus": "intent",
    "context_snapshot_path": ".omx/context/<slug>-<timestamp>.md"
  }
}
```

4. Announce kickoff with profile, threshold, and current ambiguity.

## Phase 2: Socratic Interview Loop

Repeat until ambiguity `<= threshold`, the pressure pass is complete, the readiness gates are explicit, the user exits with warning, or max rounds are reached. This is a stop condition: below threshold, do not open a new ordinary interview branch.

### 2a) Generate next question
If the initial context is oversized and no prompt-safe summary has been recorded yet, the next question must be only a summary request. Do not score ambiguity, do not run readiness gates, and do not hand off to `$ultragoal`, `$ralplan`, `$autopilot`, `$ralph`, or `$team` until that summary answer is captured.

Use:
- Original idea
- Prior Q&A rounds
- Current dimension scores
- Brownfield context (if any)
- Doc/context grounding notes, including existing terminology, governing rules, and any doc/code mismatch
- Activated challenge mode injection (Phase 3)

Target the lowest-scoring dimension, but respect stage priority:
- **Stage 1 — Intent-first:** Intent, Outcome, Scope, Non-goals, Decision Boundaries
- **Stage 2 — Feasibility:** Constraints, Success Criteria
- **Stage 3 — Brownfield grounding:** Context Clarity (brownfield only)

Follow-up pressure ladder after each answer:
1. Ask for a concrete example, counterexample, or evidence signal behind the latest claim
2. Probe the hidden assumption, dependency, or belief that makes the claim true
3. Force a boundary or tradeoff: what would you explicitly not do, defer, or reject?
4. Challenge fuzzy or conflicting terms against the repo's documented language and current code behavior
5. Stress-test the boundary with one concrete scenario or edge case when a relationship or handoff remains ambiguous
6. If the answer still describes symptoms, reframe toward essence / root cause before moving on

Prefer staying on the same thread for multiple rounds when it has the highest leverage. Breadth without pressure is not progress.

Maintain a **Breadth Ledger** across independent ambiguity tracks: scope, constraints, outputs, verification, brownfield integration, and any user-mentioned deliverable tracks. The ledger is a guard, not a mandatory rotation rule: stay deep on the current thread until it has been pressure-tested, then zoom out only when another material track remains unresolved and would change execution.

Maintain a **Docs/Terminology Ledger** for brownfield interviews:
- repo docs/rules/context sources inspected, with path references
- canonical terms already used by the repo and terms to avoid or disambiguate
- user terms that conflict with docs or current code behavior
- doc/code mismatches that require a human decision before implementation
- optional durable-doc follow-ups that are safe to propose but not auto-apply

Detailed dimensions:
- Intent Clarity — why the user wants this
- Outcome Clarity — what end state they want
- Scope Clarity — how far the change should go
- Constraint Clarity — technical or business limits that must hold
- Success Criteria Clarity — how completion will be judged
- Context Clarity — existing codebase understanding (brownfield only)

`Non-goals` and `Decision Boundaries` are mandatory readiness gates. Ask about them early and keep revisiting them until they are explicit.

### 2b) Ask the question
Use the surface-appropriate structured questioning path for every interview round. In attached-tmux sessions, use OMX-owned structured questioning via `omx question` (this is the required structured-question equivalent and required `AskUserQuestion` equivalent for deep-interview). Outside tmux, use native structured input when available; otherwise ask exactly one concise plain-text question and wait for the answer. Present:

```
Round {n} | Target: {weakest_dimension} | Ambiguity: {score}%

{question}
```

`omx question` payload guidance for interview rounds:
- Deep-interview is Socratic: ask one focused round at a time. Do not use batch `questions[]` to combine multiple interview rounds, even though `omx question` supports batch forms for other workflows.
- Use canonical `type` values instead of authoring raw `multi_select` flags by hand. `type: "single-answerable"` is the default for one-path decisions; `type: "multi-answerable"` is the canonical shape for bounded multi-select rounds. The runtime will keep `multi_select` aligned with `type`.
- Use `single-answerable` when exactly one answer should drive the next branch, the options are mutually exclusive, or selecting more than one answer would blur the decision boundary. Typical cases: handoff lane selection, choosing the primary failure mode, or confirming which of several competing interpretations is correct.
- Use `multi-answerable` when multiple options may all be true at once and you need to capture a bounded set of coexisting constraints, non-goals, risks, or acceptance checks in one round. Typical cases: selecting all out-of-scope items, all success metrics that must hold, or all deployment constraints that apply together.
- If one selected option would immediately require a follow-up question to disambiguate the others, prefer a `single-answerable` round now and ask the follow-up next. Do not hide a branching interview tree inside one overloaded multi-select prompt.
- Keep interview options bounded and concrete. If the valid answers are already known, set `allow_other: false`; only leave `allow_other: true` when the interview genuinely needs one user-supplied option that cannot be enumerated in advance.
- Read answers structurally from the primary `answers[]` array. For a normal single-round interview response, use `answers[0].answer` as the source of truth; the top-level `answer` field is a legacy single-question projection/fallback only.
- For `single-answerable`, expect one decisive selection in the `value` field of `answers[0].answer` plus its selected-values metadata. For `multi-answerable`, treat the selected-values field inside `answers[0].answer` as the source of truth for all chosen constraints/non-goals and preserve the full set in the transcript/spec. In legacy single-question projections, this is equivalent to: For `multi-answerable`, treat `answer.selected_values` as the source of truth.

Canonical bounded single-choice payload:

```json
{
  "question": "Which execution lane should own this once the interview is complete?",
  "type": "single-answerable",
  "options": [
    {
      "label": "Plan first",
      "value": "ralplan",
      "description": "Need architecture and test-shape review before execution"
    },
    {
      "label": "Execute directly",
      "value": "autopilot",
      "description": "Requirements are already explicit enough for planning plus execution"
    },
    {
      "label": "Refine further",
      "value": "refine",
      "description": "Clarification is still needed before any handoff"
    }
  ],
  "allow_other": false,
  "other_label": "Other",
  "source": "deep-interview"
}
```

Canonical bounded multi-select payload:

```json
{
  "question": "Which non-goals must stay out of scope for the first pass?",
  "type": "multi-answerable",
  "options": [
    {
      "label": "No UI redesign",
      "value": "no-ui-redesign",
      "description": "Keep layout and styling unchanged"
    },
    {
      "label": "No new dependencies",
      "value": "no-new-dependencies",
      "description": "Work within the existing toolchain"
    },
    {
      "label": "No API contract changes",
      "value": "no-api-contract-changes",
      "description": "Preserve external request and response shapes"
    }
  ],
  "allow_other": false,
  "other_label": "Other",
  "source": "deep-interview"
}
```

Canonical answer-shape reminders:

```json
{
  "answer": {
    "kind": "option",
    "value": "ralplan",
    "selected_labels": ["Plan first"],
    "selected_values": ["ralplan"]
  }
}
```

```json
{
  "answer": {
    "kind": "multi",
    "value": ["no-new-dependencies", "no-api-contract-changes"],
    "selected_labels": ["No new dependencies", "No API contract changes"],
    "selected_values": ["no-new-dependencies", "no-api-contract-changes"]
  }
}
```

### 2c) Score ambiguity
Score each weighted dimension in `[0.0, 1.0]` with justification + gap.

Greenfield: `ambiguity = 1 - (intent × 0.30 + outcome × 0.25 + scope × 0.20 + constraints × 0.15 + success × 0.10)`

Brownfield: `ambiguity = 1 - (intent × 0.25 + outcome × 0.20 + scope × 0.20 + constraints × 0.15 + success × 0.10 + context × 0.10)`

Readiness gate:
- `Non-goals` must be explicit
- `Decision Boundaries` must be explicit
- A pressure pass must be complete: at least one earlier answer has been revisited with an evidence, assumption, or tradeoff follow-up
- A practical closure audit must pass: another question would change execution materially, not merely polish wording or chase a narrow edge case
- If either gate is unresolved, or the pressure pass is incomplete, continue below threshold only with a final closure question that names the unresolved gate and would materially change execution.
- Treat a low ambiguity score as permission to audit closure, not permission to keep drilling indefinitely. If remaining uncertainty would not change implementation, crystallize the spec instead of opening a new branch.
- If ambiguity is `<= 0.10`, another user-facing question is allowed only as that final closure question; otherwise crystallize immediately.

### 2d) Report progress
Show weighted breakdown table, readiness-gate status (`Non-goals`, `Decision Boundaries`), and the next focus dimension.

### 2e) Persist state
Append round result and updated scores via `omx state write --input '<json>' --json`; use `state_write` only when explicit MCP compatibility is enabled.

### 2f) Round controls
- Do not offer early exit before the first explicit assumption probe and one persistent follow-up have happened
- Apply a **Dialectic Rhythm Guard**: track consecutive non-user fact discoveries and confirmation-style answers (`[from-code][auto-confirmed]`, `[from-code]`, or `[from-research]`). After 3 consecutive non-user or confirmation answers, the next material user-facing round must solicit direct human judgment (`[from-user]`) unless the closure audit says the interview is ready to crystallize.
- Round 4+: allow explicit early exit with risk warning
- Soft warning at profile midpoint (e.g., round 3/6/10 depending on profile)
- Hard cap at profile `max_rounds`; never treat this cap as a desired interview length or quota

## Phase 3: Challenge Modes (assumption stress tests)

Use each mode once when applicable. These are normal escalation tools, not rare rescue moves:

- **Contrarian** (round 2+ or immediately when an answer rests on an untested assumption): challenge core assumptions
- **Terminologist** (brownfield, whenever a key term is fuzzy, overloaded, or conflicts with repo docs/code): force a canonical meaning against existing project language before implementation
- **Simplifier** (round 4+ or when scope expands faster than outcome clarity): probe minimal viable scope
- **Ontologist** (round 5+ and ambiguity > 0.25, or when the user keeps describing symptoms): ask for essence-level reframing

Track used modes in state to prevent repetition.

## Phase 4: Crystallize Artifacts

When threshold is met (or user exits with warning / hard cap):

1. Write interview transcript summary to:
   - `.omx/interviews/{slug}-{timestamp}.md`  
     (kept for ralph PRD compatibility)
2. Write execution-ready spec to:
   - `.omx/specs/deep-interview-{slug}.md`

Spec should include:
- Metadata (profile, rounds, final ambiguity, threshold, context type)
- Context snapshot reference/path (for ralplan/team reuse)
- Prompt-safe initial-context summary when oversized context was provided, plus references to any full source documents
- Clarity breakdown table
- Intent (why the user wants this)
- Desired Outcome
- In-Scope
- Out-of-Scope / Non-goals
- Decision Boundaries (what OMX may decide without confirmation)
- Constraints
- Testable acceptance criteria
- Assumptions exposed + resolutions
- Pressure-pass findings (which answer was revisited, and what changed)
- Brownfield evidence vs inference notes for any repository-grounded confirmation questions
- Docs/Terminology Ledger with inspected repo docs/rules/context, term conflicts, and any doc/code mismatch decisions
- Scenario/edge-case pressure findings that materially shaped scope or acceptance criteria
- Optional durable documentation recommendations, explicitly marked opt-in and public-safe; do not include raw private transcript dumps
- Technical context findings
- Full or condensed transcript

### Autoresearch specialization

When the clarified task is specifically about `$autoresearch`, or the skill is invoked with `--autoresearch`, keep the interview domain-specific and emit skill-consumable artifacts without skipping clarification.

- **Accepted seed inputs:** `topic`, `evaluator`, `keep-policy`, `slug`, existing mission draft text, and prior evaluator examples/templates
- **Required interview focus:** mission clarity, evaluator readiness, keep policy, slug/session naming, and whether the draft is ready to launch now or should refine further
- **Canonical artifact path:** `.omx/specs/deep-interview-autoresearch-{slug}.md`
- **Launch artifact bundle:** `.omx/specs/autoresearch-{slug}/mission.md`, `.omx/specs/autoresearch-{slug}/sandbox.md`, and `.omx/specs/autoresearch-{slug}/result.json`
- **Launch artifact directory:** `.omx/specs/autoresearch-{slug}/`
- **Required artifact sections:**
  - `Mission Draft`
  - `Evaluator Draft`
  - `Launch Readiness`
  - `Seed Inputs`
  - `Confirmation Bridge`
- **Required launch artifacts under `.omx/specs/autoresearch-{slug}/`:**
  - `mission.md`
  - `sandbox.md`
  - `result.json`
- **Launch-readiness rule:** mark the draft as **not launch-ready** while the evaluator command still contains placeholder markers such as `<...>`, `TODO`, `TBD`, `REPLACE_ME`, `CHANGEME`, or `your-command-here`
- **Structured result contract:** `result.json` should point to the draft + mission/sandbox artifacts and carry the finalized `topic`, `evaluatorCommand`, `keepPolicy`, `slug`, `launchReady`, and `blockedReasons` fields so `$autoresearch` can consume it directly
- **Confirmation bridge:** after artifact generation, offer at least `refine further` and `launch`; do not run direct CLI launch or detached/split tmux launch, and only hand off to `$autoresearch` after explicit confirmation
- **Handoff rule:** downstream execution must preserve the clarified mission intent, evaluator expectations, decision boundaries, and launch-readiness status from this artifact rather than bypassing the draft review step

## Phase 5: Execution Bridge

Present execution options after artifact generation using explicit handoff contracts. Treat the deep-interview spec as the current requirements source of truth and preserve intent, non-goals, decision boundaries, acceptance criteria, docs/terminology grounding, and any residual-risk warnings across the handoff.

### Optional execution contract foundation

When an Autopilot/deep-interview handoff explicitly requires a stride contract, emit it as structured data rather than prose. This is a validation foundation, not a broadness-inference feature: do not infer stride from task length, phase labels, snapshots, or freeform wording.

Canonical location under Autopilot state:

```json
{
  "handoff_artifacts": {
    "deep_interview": {
      "execution_contract_required": true,
      "execution_contract": {
        "version": 1,
        "execution_stride": "task",
        "source": "deep-interview",
        "selected_by": "user",
        "allow_task_shrink": true,
        "completion_unit": "One focused task",
        "stop_condition": "Stop after that task is implemented and verified",
        "acceptance_coverage_scope": "task",
        "shrink_policy": "allowed"
      }
    }
  }
}
```

Stride meanings:
- `task`: conservative, small-step execution; `allow_task_shrink:true`, `acceptance_coverage_scope:"task"`, `shrink_policy:"allowed"`.
- `deliverable`: finish the named deliverable before stopping; `allow_task_shrink:false`, `acceptance_coverage_scope:"deliverable"`, `shrink_policy:"ask_before_shrink"`.
- `milestone`: finish the larger approved milestone unless blocked; `allow_task_shrink:false`, `acceptance_coverage_scope:"milestone"`, `shrink_policy:"deny_unless_blocked"`.

Only set `execution_contract_required:true` when the selected downstream workflow needs this explicit stride/stop-condition guard. New artifacts must write the canonical snake_case schema shown above under `handoff_artifacts.deep_interview`; runtime readers may accept legacy camelCase field/marker aliases and direct/nested `execution_contract` locations only as compatibility input. If `execution_contract_required` is absent or false, downstream Autopilot compatibility behavior is unchanged.

### Goal-mode follow-ups

Include these product-facing suggestions when they fit the clarified spec, without removing the existing `$ultragoal`, `$ralplan`, `$autopilot`, `$ralph`, and `$team` handoff options:

- **`$ultragoal`** — default goal-mode follow-up for implementation or general goal-oriented follow-up specs that should be converted into durable Codex/OMX goals with sequential completion tracking.
- **`$autoresearch-goal`** — use when the clarified context is a research project: a research question, reference/literature gathering, evaluator-backed analysis, or professor/critic-style deliverable.
- **`$performance-goal`** — use when the clarified context is an optimization or performance project with measurable speed, latency, throughput, memory, benchmark, or evaluator criteria.

Recommend `$ultragoal` as the default durable goal-mode follow-up because it supersedes Ralph for goal tracking. Preserve `$team` for coordinated parallel implementation and keep `$ralph` only as an explicit fallback for persistent single-owner execution/verification when the user specifically selects it.

### 1. **`$ultragoal` (Default durable execution follow-up)**
- **Input Artifact:** `.omx/specs/deep-interview-{slug}.md` (optionally accompanied by the transcript/context snapshot for traceability)
- **Invocation:** `$ultragoal create-goals --brief-file <spec-path>` followed by `$ultragoal complete-goals` in the active execution lane
- **Consumer Behavior:** Convert the clarified spec into durable goal-mode work. Preserve intent, non-goals, decision boundaries, acceptance criteria, docs/terminology grounding, scenario-pressure findings, and residual-risk warnings as binding story constraints.
- **Skipped / Already-Satisfied Stages:** Requirement interview, ambiguity clarification, doc/context preflight, and early intent-boundary elicitation
- **Expected Output:** `.omx/ultragoal/brief.md`, `.omx/ultragoal/goals.json`, `.omx/ultragoal/ledger.jsonl`, implementation evidence, verification evidence, and final cleanup/review-gate evidence
- **Best When:** The clarified spec is execution-ready or the user explicitly wants durable goal tracking as the next step
- **Next Recommended Step:** Run the Ultragoal completion loop; launch `$team` only inside an active Ultragoal story when parallel lanes are warranted, and use `$ralph` only as an explicit fallback when the user asks for that legacy persistence mode

### 2. **`$ralplan` (Recommended when architecture/test-shape review is still needed)**
- **Input Artifact:** `.omx/specs/deep-interview-{slug}.md` (optionally accompanied by the transcript/context snapshot for traceability)
- **Invocation:** `$plan --consensus --direct <spec-path>`
- **Consumer Behavior:** Treat the deep-interview spec as the requirements source of truth. Do not repeat the interview by default; refine architecture/feasibility around the clarified intent and boundaries instead.
- **Skipped / Already-Satisfied Stages:** Requirements discovery, ambiguity clarification, and early intent-boundary elicitation
- **Expected Output:** Canonical planning artifacts under `.omx/plans/`, especially `prd-*.md` and `test-spec-*.md`
- **Best When:** Requirements are clear enough to stop interviewing, but architectural validation / consensus planning is still desirable
- **Next Recommended Step:** Use the approved planning artifacts with `$ultragoal` as the default durable goal-mode follow-up (optionally with `$team` for parallel lanes); choose `$autoresearch-goal` for research validation or `$performance-goal` for measurable optimization, and use `$ralph` only as an explicit fallback when a narrow single-owner persistence loop is requested

### 3. **`$autopilot`**
- **Input Artifact:** `.omx/specs/deep-interview-{slug}.md`
- **Invocation:** `$autopilot <spec-path>`
- **Consumer Behavior:** Use the deep-interview spec as the clarified execution brief. Preserve intent, non-goals, decision boundaries, and acceptance criteria as binding context for planning/execution.
- **Skipped / Already-Satisfied Stages:** Initial requirement discovery and ambiguity reduction
- **Expected Output:** Planning/execution progress, QA evidence, and validation artifacts produced by autopilot
- **Best When:** The clarified spec is already strong enough for direct planning + execution without an additional consensus gate
- **Next Recommended Step:** Continue through autopilot's execution/QA/validation flow; if coordination-heavy execution emerges, prefer `$team` under a leader-owned `$ultragoal` ledger, using `$ralph` only as an explicit fallback when a narrow single-owner persistence loop is requested

### 4. **`$ralph` (Explicit fallback only)**
- **Input Artifact:** `.omx/specs/deep-interview-{slug}.md`
- **Invocation:** `$ralph <spec-path>`
- **Consumer Behavior:** Use the spec's acceptance criteria and boundary constraints as the persistence target. Do not reopen requirements discovery unless the user explicitly asks to refine further.
- **Skipped / Already-Satisfied Stages:** Requirement interview, ambiguity clarification, and initial scope-definition work
- **Expected Output:** Iterative execution progress and verification evidence tracked against the clarified criteria
- **Best When:** The user explicitly asks for Ralph's persistent sequential completion pressure; otherwise use `$ultragoal` for durable goal tracking and completion checkpoints
- **Next Recommended Step:** If this explicit fallback is selected, continue Ralph's persistence loop; if work expands into coordination-heavy lanes, hand off to `$team` under `$ultragoal` checkpointing rather than promoting Ralph as the next default

### 5. **`$team`**
- **Input Artifact:** `.omx/specs/deep-interview-{slug}.md`
- **Invocation:** `$team <spec-path>`
- **Consumer Behavior:** Treat the spec as shared execution context for coordinated parallel work. Preserve the clarified intent, non-goals, decision boundaries, and acceptance criteria as common lane constraints.
- **Skipped / Already-Satisfied Stages:** Requirement clarification and early ambiguity reduction
- **Expected Output:** Coordinated multi-agent execution against the shared spec, with evidence that can later feed Ultragoal checkpoints by default, or an explicit Ralph verification pass only when requested
- **Best When:** The task is large, multi-lane, or blocker-sensitive enough to justify coordinated parallel execution instead of a single persistent loop
- **Next Recommended Step:** Follow the team verification path when the coordinated execution phase finishes; checkpoint completion through `$ultragoal` by default, escalating to a separate Ralph loop only when the user explicitly asks for that persistent verification/fix owner

### 6. **Refine further**
- **Input Artifact:** Existing transcript, context snapshot, and current spec draft
- **Invocation:** Continue the interview loop
- **Consumer Behavior:** Re-enter questioning to resolve the highest-leverage remaining uncertainty
- **Skipped / Already-Satisfied Stages:** None beyond already-captured context
- **Expected Output:** A lower-ambiguity spec with tighter boundaries and fewer unresolved assumptions
- **Best When:** Residual ambiguity is still too high, the user wants stronger clarity, or the above-threshold / early-exit warning indicates too much risk to proceed cleanly
- **Next Recommended Step:** Return to one of the execution handoff contracts above once the spec is sufficiently clarified

**Residual-Risk Rule:** If the interview ended via early exit, hard-cap completion, or above-threshold proceed-with-warning, explicitly preserve that residual-risk state in the handoff so the downstream skill knows it inherited a partially clarified brief.

**IMPORTANT:** Deep-interview is a requirements mode. On handoff, invoke the selected skill using the contract above. **Do NOT implement directly** inside deep-interview.

</Steps>

<Tool_Usage>
- Use `explore` for codebase fact gathering
- Use `omx question` as the OMX-native structured user-input tool for each interview round when an attached tmux renderer is available
- From attached-tmux Bash/tool paths, call it as `OMX_QUESTION_RETURN_PANE=$TMUX_PANE omx question ...` unless an explicit `%pane` return target is already known
- If the current runtime is outside tmux and cannot render `omx question`, use native structured input when available; otherwise ask exactly one concise plain-text question and wait for the answer
- After `omx question` returns JSON, prefer `answers[0].answer` / `answers[]`; use legacy `answer` only as a fallback for older records
- Use `omx state write/read --input '<json>' --json` for resumable mode state; `state_write` / `state_read` are explicit MCP compatibility fallbacks only
- If the interview cannot ask a required `omx question` round, persist the blocker as terminal state with `active: false` and `current_phase: "blocked"`; do not write a terminal blocked phase with `active: true`
- Read/write context snapshots under `.omx/context/`
- Read applicable repo docs/rules/context during preflight; write durable docs, glossary, ADR, or memory updates only when the user explicitly opts in and the content is public-safe
- Record whether the oversized-context summary gate is not needed, pending, or satisfied before any scoring or handoff step
- Save transcript/spec artifacts under `.omx/interviews/` and `.omx/specs/`
</Tool_Usage>

<Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>
- User says stop/cancel/abort -> persist state and stop
- Ambiguity stalls for 3 rounds (+/- 0.05) -> force Ontologist mode once
- Max rounds reached -> proceed with explicit residual-risk warning
- All dimensions >= 0.9 -> allow early crystallization even before max rounds
</Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>

<Final_Checklist>
- [ ] Preflight context snapshot exists under `.omx/context/{slug}-{timestamp}.md`
- [ ] Oversized initial context, if present, has a prompt-safe summary recorded before ambiguity scoring or downstream handoff
- [ ] Ambiguity score shown each round
- [ ] Intent-first stage priority used before implementation detail
- [ ] Weakest-dimension targeting used within the active stage
- [ ] At least one explicit assumption probe happened before crystallization
- [ ] At least one persistent follow-up / pressure pass deepened a prior answer
- [ ] Challenge modes triggered at thresholds (when applicable)
- [ ] Transcript written to `.omx/interviews/{slug}-{timestamp}.md`
- [ ] Spec written to `.omx/specs/deep-interview-{slug}.md`
- [ ] Brownfield questions use evidence-backed confirmation when applicable
- [ ] Brownfield preflight inspected applicable repo docs/rules/context before user-facing questions
- [ ] Fuzzy or conflicting terminology was challenged against repo language/current code behavior when applicable
- [ ] Scenario-based edge-case grilling was used when boundary ambiguity would materially affect implementation
- [ ] Durable docs/ADR/memory updates, if any, were explicitly opted into and public-safe
- [ ] Handoff options provided (`$ultragoal`, `$ralplan`, `$autopilot`, `$ralph`, `$team`) plus context-sensitive goal-mode suggestions (`$autoresearch-goal`, `$performance-goal`) when applicable
- [ ] No direct implementation performed in this mode
</Final_Checklist>

<Advanced>
## Suggested Config (optional)

Deep-interview reads runtime defaults from the first existing config source in this order:

1. Repository-local `.omx/config.toml`
2. Repository-root `omx.toml`
3. User-global `~/.omx/config.toml`

This section is currently a deep-interview-specific runtime override surface, not a general replacement for Codex `config.toml` or `.omx-config.json` model/env routing.
Malformed config files are ignored fail-soft so `$deep-interview` activation can continue with built-in defaults.
Explicit `--quick`, `--standard`, or `--deep` invocation flags override `defaultProfile`.

```toml
[omx.deepInterview]
defaultProfile = "standard"
quickThreshold = 0.30
standardThreshold = 0.20
deepThreshold = 0.15
quickMaxRounds = 5
standardMaxRounds = 12
deepMaxRounds = 20
enableChallengeModes = true
```

## Resume

If interrupted, rerun `$deep-interview`. Resume from persisted mode state via `omx state read --input '{"mode":"deep-interview"}' --json`.

## Recommended 3-Stage Pipeline

```
deep-interview -> ralplan -> autopilot
```

- Stage 1 (deep-interview): clarity gate
- Stage 2 (ralplan): feasibility + architecture gate
- Stage 3 (autopilot): execution + QA + validation gate
</Advanced>
