voyage/commands/trekbrief.md

name	description	argument-hint	allowed-tools
trekbrief	Interactive interview that produces a task brief with explicit research plan. Feeds /trekresearch and /trekplan. Optionally orchestrates the full pipeline end-to-end.	[--quick] <task description> | --approve <project-dir | brief-file>	Agent, Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Edit, Bash, AskUserQuestion, Skill

Ultrabrief Local v2.1

Interactive requirements-gathering command. Produces a task brief — a structured markdown file that declares intent, goal, constraints, and an explicit research plan with copy-paste-ready /trekresearch commands.

Pipeline position:

/trekbrief  →  brief.md                         (this command)
/trekresearch --project <dir>  →  research/*.md
/trekplan --project <dir>  →  plan.md
/trekexecute --project <dir>  →  execution

The brief is the contract between the user's intent and /trekplan. Every decision the plan makes must trace back to content in the brief.

This command is always interactive. There is no background mode — the interview requires user input. After the brief is written, the command optionally orchestrates the rest of the pipeline (research + plan) in foreground if the user opts in.

Phase 1 — Parse mode and validate input

Parse $ARGUMENTS:

1. If arguments start with --quick: set mode = quick. The interview proposes small as the starting size class (Phase 3 still says the class aloud, the operator can override it, and it moves up if the task proves bigger). Strip the flag; remainder is the task description.

2. Otherwise: mode = default. Interview probes each section until the completeness gate (Phase 3) and brief-review gate (Phase 4) both pass.

3. --gates flag (autonomy control, may combine with any mode): when present, set gates_mode = true. This re-enables approval pauses at every phase boundary in the downstream pipeline (research, plan, execute) and at every wave in the executor. Default gates_mode = false means auto mode runs continuously until the main-merge gate (which is the one boundary that ALWAYS pauses, regardless of gates_mode). Strip the flag from $ARGUMENTS before further parsing. The flag is consumed by the autonomy-gate state machine via the CLI shim: node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/lib/util/autonomy-gate.mjs --state X --event Y --gates {true|false}.

4. --approve <project-dir | brief-file>: set mode = approve. No interview, no drafting. Set APPROVE_ARG to the argument and resolve it:

   node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/lib/validators/intent-approval.mjs --resolve "{APPROVE_ARG}"
   

   A directory resolves to <dir>/brief.md (a /trekplan --project brief). A file resolves to itself, whatever its name (a /trekplan --brief brief). On exit 1, print its error and stop. Otherwise set BRIEF_PATH, PROJECT_DIR and PLAN_COMMAND from brief_path, project_dir and plan_command, jump straight to Phase 4h, run it and print its report; if the stamp printed stamped: true, run Phase 7 with the approve-mode values it names, then stop. This is the remedy /trekplan names when it halts on an unapproved or stale intent, on both of its brief modes.

In every other mode, BRIEF_PATH = {PROJECT_DIR}/brief.md and PLAN_COMMAND = /trekplan --project {PROJECT_DIR}.

If no task description is provided (and mode is not approve), output usage and stop:

Usage: /trekbrief <task description>
       /trekbrief --quick <task description>
       /trekbrief --approve <project-dir | brief-file>

Modes:
  default       Dynamic interview until quality gates pass — brief with research plan
  --quick       Compact start; still escalates on weak sections — brief with research plan
  --approve     Approve an existing brief's ## Intent + ## Goal so /trekplan will plan it

Examples:
  /trekbrief Add user authentication with JWT tokens
  /trekbrief --quick Add rate limiting to the API
  /trekbrief Migrate from Express to Fastify

Report:

Mode: {default | quick | approve}
Task: {task description}

Phase 2 — Generate slug and create project directory

Generate a slug from the task description: first 3-4 meaningful words, lowercase, hyphens. Example: "Migrate from Express to Fastify" → fastify-migration.

Set today's date as YYYY-MM-DD (UTC).

Create the project directory:

PROJECT_DIR=".claude/projects/{YYYY-MM-DD}-{slug}"
mkdir -p "$PROJECT_DIR/research"

Report:

Project directory: .claude/projects/{YYYY-MM-DD}-{slug}/

If the directory already exists and is non-empty, warn and ask:

"Directory {path} exists. Overwrite, reuse (keep existing files), or pick new slug?"

Use AskUserQuestion with three options. If "pick new slug", ask for a new slug and restart Phase 2.

Phase 2.5 — Framing declaration (v5.5)

Before gathering ANY brief content, the operator MUST declare how this brief relates to prior operator intent. This is the first layer of the framing-alignment defense (CLAUDE.md cross-cutting invariant): the premise is declared explicitly before the interview can drift, and long before /trekplan can polish a wrong premise with reasoning power.

This runs BEFORE any brief prose is drafted. The committed value is written to brief frontmatter as framing: <value> in Step 4a and is REQUIRED for brief_version: "2.2" (the validator emits BRIEF_MISSING_FRAMING otherwise).

It is the first question of the Phase 3 round — asked in the same AskUserQuestion call as the round's other questions, not as a call of its own — with four canonical options:

Option	Maps to framing:	Meaning
Preserve	preserve	Same intent as before; this brief continues a prior direction unchanged.
Refine	refine	Same core intent, sharpened or narrowed scope.
Replace	replace	Supersedes a prior brief's approach; intent re-stated from scratch.
New direction	new-direction	Net-new intent; no prior brief to anchor against.

Commit the answer to state.framing immediately.

No safe default. framing cannot be guessed — the danger the invariant guards against is exactly "delta from last is a dangerous default anchor after a rejected iteration." Therefore this question is asked even in --quick mode and is the one dialog that has no skip path. If the operator force-stops here, re-surface the four options once more; the brief cannot be written at brief_version: "2.2" without a committed framing value. A hollow answer («høres bra ut», «gjør som du vil», an empty reply) is not a framing value either: ask it again.

Report:

Framing: {preserve | refine | replace | new-direction}

Phase 3 — Completeness loop

Phase 3 gathers the brief's content in one question round, sized by the task's size class (ceremony by size). Use AskUserQuestion for every question.

The interview form is the skill voyage:interviewing. Call the Skill tool with voyage:interviewing before the first question and run the round in its form: facts looked up first, never asked; one round with the recommended answer first; what you can predict and what is over the budget written down; the stop rule. This phase holds only what is /trekbrief's own: the size class and its budget (Step 3b), the fixed questions and where each answer lands in the brief (Step 3c).

Step 3b — Ceremony by size (K1)

Put the task in one of three size classes. In doubt, take the heaviest that fits.

Class	Typical task	What the pipeline does
small	one change in one place, no new dependency, no interface change, easy to undo	one round, no follow-up; brief-reviewer runs once and its gaps become written assumptions, not questions, written after the review stamp (Step 4e, passed gate, step 4); Phase 3.5 is skipped
bounded	several files or one module behind a clear boundary, no architecture decision	the round + at most one follow-up; at most one brief-review follow-up; Phase 3.5 asks one question for all four phases
architectural	a new module, interface, dependency, data model or migration; anything hard to undo	follow-up rounds while answers open new branches; the full brief-review loop; Phase 3.5 asks per phase

• Said aloud. State the class and why in one line before the round ("This reads as small: one setting on one screen, no new dependency."), and put it to the operator as one of the round's questions: your class as the recommendation, the other two as the override.
• Only ever moves up. When an answer, the brief-reviewer or the repo shows more than the class assumed (a migration, a new dependency, an interface change), raise the class, say so in one line, and use the new budget from then on. You never lower it yourself; only the operator's explicit override lowers it.
• Written to the brief as ceremony: <class> in Step 4a. An absent field reads as architectural, so a brief from another producer gets the heaviest treatment downstream.

Step 3c — The question round

The round runs in the form of voyage:interviewing. What /trekbrief adds:

1. Candidates. The coverage list is the question bank below (Intent, Goal, Success Criteria, Research Plan, Non-Goals, Constraints, Preferences, NFRs, Prior Attempts), plus three fixed questions every round carries: framing (Phase 2.5, first), the size class (Step 3b) and where the brief is stored (artifact_store, below).
2. The budget is the class budget (table below). A bounded or architectural round is consecutive AskUserQuestion calls with no drafting in between.
3. Where the written-down answers land. Predictions ("assumed, not asked") and the Deferred list, one line of why each, go into ## Open Questions / Assumptions, where the operator sees them before approving; the Deferred list is also printed with the round.
4. Follow-ups by class. A follow-up round is only for an answer that opens a branch you cannot predict (small: never; bounded: at most one).
5. Answers that decide nothing. «høres bra ut», «gjør som du vil», "sounds good", "whatever you think" and an empty reply are not a decision. Record the recommended answer as an assumption ("not confirmed — the answer was «…»"), never as the operator's choice.

Budget per class (interview questions, the three fixed ones included; the Phase 4h approval is not counted):

Class	Questions	Rounds
small	4	one AskUserQuestion call, no follow-up
bounded	8	the round + at most one follow-up
architectural	12 per round	the round + follow-ups while answers open new branches

Where the brief is stored (artifact_store; operator decision 2026-10-06: the approval log is always committed, the brief only by choice). One question every round. Recommend git for a private repo and local when the repo is public or you cannot tell:

Option	Maps to	Consequence
In git	artifact_store: git	brief.md (and later plan.md) is committed together with its approval.
Only on this machine	artifact_store: local	The project folder is kept out of git through the repo's .git/info/exclude, a file that is never committed.

The approval log is committed either way; it holds hashes, times and file names, never the text.

Borrowed, with credit. The size classes, "heaviest in doubt" and the one-way ratchet: obra/superpowers@8ca22db (MIT, © 2025 Jesse Vincent), skills/brainstorming. The class ladder: Kiro's docs (kiro.dev — Plan mode, Quick Spec, full spec; read 2026-10-06; an idea only, Kiro is a closed product). The answers that decide nothing (Step 3c, point 5): addyosmani/agent-skills@9d0c60d (MIT, © 2025 Addy Osmani), skills/interview-me. The interview form's own credits are in voyage:interviewing.

Internal state

Track this structure in memory as the loop runs:

state = {
  intent:           { content: "", probes: 0 },           # required
  goal:             { content: "", probes: 0 },           # required
  success_criteria: { content: [], probes: 0 },           # required
  research_plan:    { topics: [], probes: 0 },            # required
  non_goals:        { content: [], probes: 0 },           # optional
  constraints:      { content: [], probes: 0 },           # optional
  preferences:      { content: [], probes: 0 },           # optional
  nfrs:             { content: [], probes: 0 },           # optional
  prior_attempts:   { content: "", probes: 0 },           # optional
  ceremony:         "small | bounded | architectural",    # Step 3b; only moves up
  artifact_store:   "git | local",                        # Step 3c
  assumptions:      [],                                   # predicted, hollow or force-stopped answers
  deferred:         [],                                   # over budget, with why
  question_history: []                                    # list of questions asked
}

content is raw user answers merged; probes is how many times this section has been asked; question_history prevents re-asking the same variant twice.

Required sections (initial-signal gate)

Four sections MUST have substantive content before exiting Phase 3:

1. Intent — full sentence or paragraph (not a single word or phrase)
2. Goal — full sentence or paragraph
3. Success Criteria — at least one concrete, testable item
4. Research Plan — either ≥ 1 topic probed, OR the user has explicitly confirmed "no external research needed", OR (when you can predict it) it is written down as the assumption "no external research needed", which the operator sees in the brief before approving

"Substantive" means: non-empty, not a trivial one-word reply, not "I don't know" without a recorded assumption. The strict falsifiability check happens in Phase 4 (brief-review gate); Phase 3 is just the initial-signal bar.

Optional sections (Non-Goals, Constraints, Preferences, NFRs, Prior Attempts) do not gate exit. If they remain empty after the required sections pass, they will be recorded as "Not discussed — no constraints assumed" in Phase 4's draft.

Question bank (per section)

The coverage list Step 3c draws its candidates from. Each variant is a starting point for a round question, not a script; write it as a full sentence with your recommended answer first.

Intent (required):

• Anchor (probes=0, content empty): "Why are we doing this? What is the motivation, the user need, or the strategic context behind the task?"
• Follow-up (probes≥1, content present but shallow): "What happens if we do nothing? Who is affected?"
• Sharpen (user mentioned a symptom): "You mentioned {X}. Is {X} the symptom or the underlying cause?"

Goal (required):

• Anchor: "Describe the end state in 1–3 sentences — specific enough to disagree with."
• Follow-up: "How would you recognize this is done when looking at the UI / API / codebase?"

Success Criteria (required): how a criterion is written so the review can run it is the skill voyage:writing-criteria; call it before proposing one.

• Anchor: "How do we verify it is actually done? List 2–4 concrete, testable conditions — commands to run, observations, or metrics." A command the review can run is one test-runner call (npm test, node --test <file>, bash tests/<script>.sh); propose a script under tests/ for anything else (the product's own binary, a pipe, jq). When the brief requires bash 3.2, propose /bin/bash tests/<script>.sh: plain bash is whichever bash comes first on PATH, which may be newer.
• Sharpen (criterion is vague): "'{quoted criterion}' is subjective. Which command, observation, or metric would prove this is met?"
• Quantify (performance/quality claim): "You mentioned it should be {fast/reliable/secure}. What number or threshold counts as success?"

Research Plan (required, strictest):

• Anchor (no topics yet): "Are there technologies, libraries, or decisions in this task you do not have solid current knowledge of? Examples might be library choice, a protocol, or a security pattern."
• Per-topic sharpen (topic exists but incomplete): "For topic '{title}': which parts of the plan depend on the answer? What confidence level do you need — high, medium, or low?"
• Scope question: "Is '{topic}' answerable from the existing codebase, from external docs, or both?"
• Confirm none (user refuses all topics): "Confirming: no external research needed — you already know everything the plan will depend on?"

Non-Goals (optional):

• Anchor: "What is explicitly NOT in scope? This prevents scope-guardian from flagging gaps for things we deliberately don't do."

Constraints (optional):

• Anchor: "Technical, time, or resource constraints the plan must respect? Dependencies, compatibility, deadlines, or budget."
• Sharpen: "You mentioned {deadline / budget / compatibility}. Is it hard or guidance?"

Preferences (optional):

• Anchor: "Preferences for libraries, patterns, or architectural style?"

NFRs (optional):

• Anchor: "Performance, security, accessibility, or scalability targets? Quantified wherever possible."

Prior Attempts (optional):

• Anchor: "Has this been attempted before? What worked or failed?"

Selection rule

Within the round (Step 3c), and in a follow-up round:

1. A required section below the initial-signal gate outranks every optional one, in this order: Intent → Goal → Success Criteria → Research Plan — unless you can predict it from the task and the repo, in which case it becomes a written assumption the operator sees before approving.
2. An optional section is a candidate only when the task hints that it matters to scope (constraints, NFRs); it is asked at most once.
3. Per section, pick the variant: Anchor when nothing is known, Follow-up or Sharpen when an answer is shallow, per-topic sharpen for Research Plan topics.
4. Never repeat a question in question_history. Append each asked question, increment its section's probes, and merge the answer into content — never overwrite.

Research topic identification

As the user answers Intent, Goal, or Success Criteria, listen for:

• Unfamiliar technologies — libraries, frameworks, protocols not clearly present in the codebase
• Version upgrades — migrating to a new major version
• Security-sensitive decisions — auth, crypto, data handling
• Architectural choices — pattern X vs Y, library A vs B
• Unknown integrations — third-party APIs, external services
• Compliance / legal — GDPR, accessibility, industry regulations

When you hear one, add a candidate topic to research_plan.topics with only a title and why-it-matters. Probe it on the next Research Plan iteration using the per-topic sharpen question to fill in:

• Research question (must end in ?)
• Required for plan steps
• Scope (local / external / both)
• Confidence needed (high / medium / low)
• Estimated cost (quick / standard / deep)

If the user says "I know this" to a candidate topic, remove it from the list. Trust the user. If no topics emerge after probing, the user confirms "no external research needed" → research_plan gate passes with 0 topics.

Quick mode adjustments

If mode = quick:

• Propose small as the class in Step 3b. It is still said aloud, the operator can still override it, and it still moves up when the task proves bigger; --quick then follows the new class's budget.
• Prefer Anchor variants over Sharpen.

Force-stop path

If the user says "skip", "stop asking", "just proceed", "enough", or similar, break the loop immediately:

• Mark any required sections still below the initial-signal gate as { incomplete_forced_stop: true } in state.
• Proceed to Phase 4 with a note that the brief will carry a reduced confidence flag.

Exit condition

Exit Phase 3 when:

• All four required sections meet the initial-signal gate (asked, or written down as an assumption the operator will see), OR
• The class budget is used up — what is left goes on the Deferred list, OR
• The user has force-stopped.

Report:

Class: {small | bounded | architectural}{ (raised from X: <why>) }
Phase 3 complete: {N} of {budget} questions asked in {R} round(s).
Assumed, not asked: {K}   Deferred: {D}
Stored: {in git | only on this machine}
Proceeding to draft and review.

Phase 3.5 — Per-phase effort dialog

Phase 3.5 is the v5.1 entry-point for adaptive-depth execution. After Phase 3 has gathered intent / goal / success criteria / research plan, the operator commits an effort level and (optional) model per downstream phase (research, plan, execute, review). The committed signals are written to brief frontmatter as a phase_signals: list that the four downstream commands read via their ## Composition rule (v5.1) section.

State requirements

Before entering Phase 3.5 the following must be populated:

• state.intent — the Phase 3 Intent answer (1+ paragraph)
• state.goal — the Phase 3 Goal answer
• state.success_criteria — at least one falsifiable SC
• state.research_plan.topics — list (may be empty)

If any are absent: skip Phase 3.5 entirely and write phase_signals_partial: true to the draft frontmatter. Do not block.

By size class (and --quick)

• small (and --quick while the class stays small): skip Phase 3.5 entirely and auto-write phase_signals_partial: true to draft frontmatter. The brief satisfies the v5.1 sequencing gate without the dialog, and the downstream commands fall back to the profile.
• bounded: ask ONE question in the Step 3c round — the tier for all four phases, with 4 options from the mapping below — and write the same tier for research, plan, execute and review.
• architectural: the per-phase dialog below, as one AskUserQuestion call carrying four questions (one per phase).

Default-derivation heuristic (LLM judgment, not algorithmic)

Before each phase question, propose a default tier marked (default). Use these signals — they are weak heuristics, not rules:

• research_topics_count → high (high), low (low), absent (low)
• sc_count (count of falsifiable SCs) → high (≥6 ⇒ high), low (≤2 ⇒ low)
• Goal complexity: keywords like "rewrite", "migration", "refactor across", "new platform" ⇒ high; "typo", "small bugfix", "docs touch-up" ⇒ low
• Otherwise: standard

Mix these into one proposed default per phase. Document the proposed tier in the question body so the operator sees why it was picked.

The dialog — one call, one tier-coupled question per phase

For [research, plan, execute, review], ask one question each, all four in one AskUserQuestion call, each question with 4 options:

Option	Maps to phase_signals entry
Low effort	{phase: <name>, effort: low, model: sonnet}
Standard (default)	{phase: <name>, effort: standard} (model omitted — composition falls through to profile)
High effort	{phase: <name>, effort: high, model: opus}
Fable (max quality)	{phase: <name>, effort: high, model: fable}

The proposed tier per phase (from the default-derivation heuristic) MUST be labelled (default) and listed first so the operator can one-click accept. Commit the chosen tiers to an in-memory effort_state dict as the answers come back — no bulk summary-before-commit. A hollow or empty answer for a phase leaves that phase uncommitted (the force-stop path below).

The mapping table is canonical:

• low → {effort: low, model: sonnet} (force sonnet for the low-cost path)
• standard → {effort: standard} (model omitted; composition rule resolves via profile)
• high → {effort: high, model: opus} (force opus for the high-confidence path)
• fable → {effort: high, model: fable} (force Fable 5.1 for the max-quality path)

The fable tier reuses effort: high semantics — full swarm, contrarian always-on; EFFORT_LEVELS is unchanged (Voyage effort is orchestration shape, not model reasoning effort). Model reasoning effort is inherited from the session: Fable 5.1's default effort is high, NOT xhigh. To run xhigh, the operator chooses it explicitly via /effort xhigh, --effort xhigh, or CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL — Claude Code saves effort per model, so a level saved for one model does not carry to another.

Force-stop handling

If in answer to the dialog the operator says "stop", "skip", "enough", "just write it", or similar, do NOT exit silently — apply the Phase 4f force-stop pattern verbatim:

You stopped before committing per-phase signals. Remaining phases:
  - {list of phases not yet answered}

The brief will still be valid (v5.1 supports `phase_signals_partial: true`
as a force-stop record). Downstream commands will fall back to the profile
resolver for the un-committed phases.

Continue anyway?

Then AskUserQuestion:

Option	Action
Answer one more phase	Return to the next un-answered phase question.
Stop now (record partial)	Drop any in-progress effort_state and set phase_signals_partial: true in draft frontmatter. Mutually exclusive with phase_signals. Break Phase 3.5.

This pattern matches Step 4f (line 436-458) so the force-stop UX is identical across both surfaces.

Hand-off to Phase 4a

If effort_state is fully populated (4 commits, no force-stop): write a phase_signals: block to draft frontmatter — one entry per phase, preserving the canonical-mapping form above. Omit model: for standard tier (composition falls through to profile).

If phase_signals_partial: true was set: write that single line to draft frontmatter and skip the phase_signals: block (mutually exclusive per validator).

Phase 4a (Step 4a — Draft in memory) reads from effort_state / phase_signals_partial and incorporates the appropriate frontmatter block into the draft brief.

Sequencing gate (downstream)

brief_version: 2.1 activates the validator's sequencing gate. If the final brief reaches /trekplan, /trekresearch, /trekexecute, or /trekreview WITHOUT phase_signals and WITHOUT phase_signals_partial: true, the validator emits BRIEF_V51_MISSING_SIGNALS and the command halts with a friendly hint pointing back to /trekbrief.

Phase 4 — Draft, review, and revise

Phase 4 runs a draft → brief-reviewer → revise loop. The draft is not written to disk until the brief-review quality gate passes (or the iteration cap is hit). This ensures the brief that reaches /trekplan has already survived a critical review.

Read the brief template first: @${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/templates/trekbrief-template.md

Loop bound

The cap follows the size class: small 1 review iteration (no follow-up question: its gaps become assumptions after the stamp on a passed gate (Step 4e, step 4), into ## Brief Quality on an exhausted loop), bounded 2 (one follow-up), architectural 3 (two rounds of targeted follow-ups). A follow-up question counts against the class budget; when the reviewer shows the task is bigger than its class, raise the class first (Step 3b) and use the new cap.

Iteration step-by-step

Step 4a — Draft in memory

Build the brief text from Phase 3 state by filling the template:

• Frontmatter: populate task, slug, project_dir, research_topics (count of topics), research_status: pending, auto_research: false (will update in Phase 5 if user opts in), interview_turns (total questions asked across Phase 3 + Phase 4), source: interview. Set brief_version: "2.2" and framing: <state.framing> (committed in Phase 2.5 — never omit; the validator blocks a 2.2 brief without it). Set ceremony: <state.ceremony> and artifact_store: <state.artifact_store> (both optional in the schema, so no brief_version bump; always written by this command).
• TL;DR (v5.5, required at 2.2): write a ## TL;DR section (≤ 5 content lines) at the very top of the body, before ## Intent. It is the framing-anchored one-glance summary — what the brief asks for and how it relates to prior intent given framing: <state.framing>. Drafting it FIRST forces the wrong-premise check before the rest of the prose is written. Keep it to ≤ 5 lines (the validator warns with BRIEF_TLDR_TOO_LONG above that).
• Intent: expand the user's motivation into 3–5 sentences. Load-bearing.
• Goal: concrete end state.
• Non-Goals: from state, or "- None explicitly stated" bullet if empty.
• Constraints / Preferences / NFRs: from state, or "Not discussed — no constraints assumed" note if empty.
• Success Criteria: falsifiable commands/observations from state, each written in the form of voyage:writing-criteria.
• Research Plan: one ### Topic N: {title} section per topic with the full structure from the template. If 0 topics: write the "No external research needed — user confirmed solid knowledge of all plan dependencies" note.
• Open Questions / Assumptions: from any "I don't know" answers recorded during Phase 3, plus implicit gaps; every state.assumptions entry marked "assumed, not asked" or "not confirmed — the answer was «…»" (what you said apart from what the operator said); and the Deferred list, one line of why each.
• Prior Attempts: from state, or "None — fresh task."

Step 4b — Write draft to disk

Write the draft to {PROJECT_DIR}/brief.md.draft (not brief.md — the final file is only written after the gate passes).

Step 4c — Launch brief-reviewer

Gather memory context first (v5.5, layer 2 of the framing defense). If the operator's environment exposes memory facts (e.g. an auto-memory MEMORY.md plus feedback_* / project_* topic files), collect the paths or excerpts of those relevant to this task. This is best-effort and environment-dependent: if no memory is available, pass nothing — the reviewer scores the memory-alignment dimension 5 (N/A) when no context is supplied.

Launch the brief-reviewer agent with the prompt below, then wait for its result before Step 4d: the Agent tool runs it in the background and tells this session when it is done (voyage-lekerepo trial 2, 2026-10-08), and no gate, revision or guess at the verdict comes before the reviewer's own output.

Never pass the Agent tool's name parameter — at this or any other spawn site in this command. name does not label a subagent, it changes its kind: the spawn is recorded as taskKind: "in_process_teammate" (spawnDepth: 0) instead of a subagent (spawnDepth: 1). A teammate's final assistant text is not a return value — it reaches the orchestrator only if the teammate itself calls SendMessage(to: "main"), and every agent in agents/ declares a tools: allowlist without SendMessage. The agent still runs and still produces correct output; the result is simply never delivered, so the phase presents as a hung agent that no re-prompting can revive. Measured 2026-08-17: named 0/5 returned, unnamed 3/3. Mechanism, denominators, and the on-disk recovery path: docs/agent-return-channel-defect.md.

"Review this task brief for quality: {PROJECT_DIR}/brief.md.draft. Check completeness, consistency, testability, scope clarity, research-plan validity, and memory alignment. Judge the success criteria by voyage:writing-criteria and review by voyage:reviewing-adversarially. Report findings, verdict, and the required machine-readable JSON block. Operator memory context (compare the brief's Intent/Goal and its declared framing: value against these for EXPLICIT contradictions only): {memory paths or excerpts, or "none supplied"}."

Step 4d — Parse JSON scores

Parse the agent's output. Locate the last fenced json block. Extract per-dimension scores:

review = {
  completeness:    { score, gaps },
  consistency:     { score, issues },
  testability:     { score, weak_criteria },
  scope_clarity:   { score, unclear_sections },
  research_plan:   { score, invalid_topics },
  memory_alignment:{ score, contradictions },   # v5.5 — layer 2
  verdict:         "PROCEED | PROCEED_WITH_RISKS | REVISE"
}

JSON fallback: if the JSON block is missing, invalid, or a dimension is missing, treat all dimensions as score: 3 and set the verdict from the prose verdict if present, otherwise PROCEED_WITH_RISKS. Emit an internal note that the reviewer output was degraded. This ensures the loop never deadlocks on a parser error.

Step 4e — Gate evaluation

The gate passes when all of the following are true:

• completeness.score ≥ 4
• consistency.score ≥ 4
• testability.score ≥ 4
• scope_clarity.score ≥ 4
• research_plan.score == 5
• memory_alignment.score ≥ 4 (v5.5 — a score ≤ 3 means the reviewer found an EXPLICIT contradiction between the brief and operator memory; this is a framing-alignment blocker, not a wording nit. A 5 is also returned when no memory context was supplied, so this never blocks environments without memory.)

(Research Plan requires a perfect score because its format is checked mechanically: ends in ?, Required for plan steps filled, scope is one of local | external | both, confidence is high | medium | low. Anything less means at least one topic is malformed and planning will stumble.)

If gate passes:

1. Move brief.md.draft → brief.md (atomic rename).
2. Delete the draft file if rename is not possible on the OS; write brief.md fresh.
3. Stamp the reviewed body, so /trekplan does not run the same review on the same text again (operator decision 2026-10-08): node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/lib/validators/brief-review-stamp.mjs --stamp "{PROJECT_DIR}/brief.md". Any later edit to the body makes the stamp stale and /trekplan reviews again. Exit 1 (not stamped) is said in one line; it only means the review runs twice. Only a passed gate is stamped.
4. Class small only: now write the reviewer's gaps into ## Open Questions / Assumptions. They come after the stamp on purpose: the reviewer never saw them, so the stamp reads stale and /trekplan reviews the brief once more.
5. Break the loop and proceed to Step 4g.

If gate fails AND iteration count < the class cap:

1. Identify the weakest dimension (lowest score; tie broken by priority: research_plan > memory_alignment > testability > completeness > consistency > scope_clarity).
2. Generate a targeted follow-up question from the dimension's detail field (gaps / issues / weak_criteria / unclear_sections / invalid_topics / contradictions). Example generators:
   • completeness.gaps: ["Non-Goals empty, unclear if deliberate"] → "You did not specify anything out-of-scope. Is that deliberate, or are there things we should explicitly exclude?"
   • testability.weak_criteria: ["'system should be fast'"] → "'System should be fast' is not falsifiable. Which metric or threshold proves this is met — e.g., p95 < 200ms, or throughput ≥ X requests/sec?"
   • research_plan.invalid_topics: [{"topic":"JWT","issue":"Required for plan steps empty"}] → "For research topic 'JWT': which plan steps depend on the answer? Give one or two concrete kinds of step (e.g., 'library selection', 'threat model', 'migration strategy')."
   • memory_alignment.contradictions: [{"brief_claim":"continue the REST approach","memory_fact":"team decided to move to GraphQL","file":"project_api.md"}] → "Your brief's framing says 'preserve', but memory records the team moved off REST to GraphQL. Is this brief intentionally reviving REST, or should the framing be 'replace' / 'new-direction'?"
3. Ask via AskUserQuestion. Record the answer into Phase 3 state.
4. Return to Step 4a with incremented iteration count. The reviewer sees an updated draft, so you MUST re-read the brief and regenerate the review each iteration — do not reuse stale scores.
5. When launching the reviewer on iteration 2 or 3, include prior questions in the prompt so it does not produce circular follow-ups:

   "Questions already asked during this interview: {list from question_history}. Focus on issues that remain after those answers — do not re-raise gaps that have already been addressed."

If gate fails AND iteration count == the class cap (loop exhausted):

1. Move brief.md.draft → brief.md.
2. Add brief_quality: partial to the frontmatter (edit the file post-rename — insert the key above the closing ---).
3. Add a ## Brief Quality section near the end with the failing dimensions and their detail arrays from the final review, formatted:

   ## Brief Quality
   
   Review loop exhausted after 3 iterations. The following dimensions
   did not reach the pass threshold:
   
   - **Research Plan (score 2/5):** Topic 'JWT library' missing
     Required-for-plan-steps field.
   - **Testability (score 3/5):** Success criterion "works correctly"
     is not falsifiable.
   
   Downstream planning will treat these as reduced-confidence areas.
   

4. Break the loop and proceed to Step 4g.

Step 4f — Force-stop handling

If during any AskUserQuestion in Step 4e the user says "stop", "skip", "enough", "just write it", or similar, do NOT exit the loop immediately. Instead, surface the current review findings in plain text:

Brief-reviewer would flag these issues:
- Research Plan (score 2/5): Topic 'JWT library choice' missing Required-for-plan-steps field.
- Testability (score 3/5): Success criterion "works correctly" is not falsifiable.

Continue anyway? The plan will have lower confidence in these areas.

Then ask via AskUserQuestion:

Option	Action
Answer one more follow-up	Return to Step 4e with the current weakest-dimension question.
Stop now (accept partial brief)	Finalize brief with brief_quality: partial and the ## Brief Quality section (same path as iteration-cap exhaustion). Break loop.

The force-stop path is distinct from a silent iteration cap: the user sees exactly which dimensions are weak and chooses informed.

Step 4g — Finalize

After the loop exits (pass, cap, or force-stop), ensure:

• brief.md exists at {PROJECT_DIR}/brief.md.
• brief.md.draft no longer exists.
• If the loop ended without a clean pass, frontmatter contains brief_quality: partial and a ## Brief Quality section exists.
• If the loop ended with a clean pass, brief_quality is either absent or set to complete.

Populate the "How to continue" footer with the actual project path and topic questions.

Schema sanity check (since v3.1.0): before reporting, run the brief validator. This catches frontmatter typos and state-machine inconsistencies the brief-reviewer rubric does not check (e.g. research_status: skipped with research_topics: 3 and no brief_quality: partial).

node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/lib/validators/brief-validator.mjs --json "{PROJECT_DIR}/brief.md"

If the validator returns errors, report them to the user and offer to re-enter Phase 4 with the validator's hints in scope. If only warnings, note them in the final report — except BRIEF_SC_NOT_RUNNABLE: a success criterion whose command /trekreview will never run (the product's own binary, jq, grep, a pipe, or a command that stands after a flag or path in backticks). Name each one to the user in plain words and offer to rewrite it as a script under tests/ that the criterion runs (bash tests/<script>.sh exits 0) before the brief is approved; if the user keeps it, it stays a criterion a human judges, and the report says so. The same goes for BRIEF_SC_SUBPOINTS (a criterion with sub-points and no command of its own: offer one script that checks them all, or one criterion per sub-point) and BRIEF_SC_BASH_NOT_PINNED (the brief requires bash 3.2 but a criterion runs plain bash: offer /bin/bash).

Build the operator-annotation HTML, then print the report. After the brief is validated, run scripts/annotate.mjs to build the page where the operator writes their own notes. The loop that follows is the skill voyage:annotating: call it when the operator pastes the notes back (a Question is answered, not applied; after Phase 4h, a note on ## Intent or ## Goal makes the approval stale, and that is said before the edit).

ANNOT_HTML=$(node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/annotate.mjs "{PROJECT_DIR}/brief.md" 2>&1)
# stdout is the absolute path to the .html on success.

If annotate.mjs exits non-zero, surface a one-line warning and continue — the annotation HTML is a convenience, not a gate. The report below still mentions the (failed) path so the operator can debug.

Then print this block verbatim (substitute {PROJECT_DIR} and $ANNOT_HTML):

Brief written:    {PROJECT_DIR}/brief.md
Annotation HTML:  file://{$ANNOT_HTML}
Review iterations: {1..3}
Final quality:    {complete | partial}
Validator:        {PASS | warnings(N)}
Research topics identified: {N}

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
To review and annotate this brief, open the HTML above in a browser:

    open file://{$ANNOT_HTML}

Click any line to add YOUR OWN note. The sidebar collects every note,
the "Copy Prompt" button gathers them into one structured prompt.
Paste that prompt back into this chat: Claude answers each Question
and revises brief.md from your Fix and Change notes. Annotations
persist in your browser if you close the tab and reopen the same file.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Phase 4h — Intent approval (veikart steg 1)

/trekplan does not plan against an intent the operator has not approved (it halts on BRIEF_INTENT_NOT_APPROVED). This phase is where that approval is given. It runs on EVERY brief, before the Phase 5 manual/auto fork, so both paths pass through it — and it is asked even in --quick mode; there is no skip path and no default answer.

1. Show the operator the ## Intent and ## Goal sections of {BRIEF_PATH} verbatim — the exact text the approval will bind to. Do not summarize them.

2. Ask via AskUserQuestion — one question: "Is this the intent /trekplan should plan against?"

   Option	Effect
   Approve	Check the answer (step 3), then stamp, log and commit (steps 4–6).
   Revise first	The operator states the change; edit ## Intent / ## Goal in {BRIEF_PATH}, re-run the Phase 4g validator, then return to step 1.
   Leave unapproved	Write nothing. /trekplan will halt on this brief until /trekbrief --approve {BRIEF_PATH} is run.

3. Is the answer an approval? Only an explicit "Approve" is. Check the operator's answer as given, verbatim, on stdin (never in the command line):

node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/lib/util/approval-log.mjs answer <<'ANSWER'
{OPERATOR_ANSWER}
ANSWER

Exit 0 → step 4. Exit 1 → it is not an approval: «høres bra ut», «gjør som du vil», "sounds good", "looks good", "whatever you think" and an empty answer all land here, as does anything you would have to infer approval from (silence, an earlier answer). Say in one line that the answer was not taken as approval and why, then ask step 2 once more; a second non-approval is "Leave unapproved". Never stamp after exit 1.

4. Stamp the brief:

node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/lib/validators/intent-approval.mjs --stamp "{BRIEF_PATH}"

This writes intent_approved_hash (sha256 over the normalized ## Intent

• ## Goal) and intent_approved_at into the frontmatter, and emits the brief-approved lifecycle event. It prints JSON; if stamped is false (e.g. ## Goal is empty), report the reason and return to step 1. Editing ## Intent or ## Goal afterwards makes the approval stale — /trekplan halts until the operator approves the new text.

5. Log the approval (K2), whatever artifact_store says. {INTENT_HASH} is the intent_hash the stamp just printed:

node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/lib/util/approval-log.mjs append --kind intent --subject "{BRIEF_PATH}" --sha256 "{INTENT_HASH}"

It appends one hash-chained record to the target repo's .claude/voyage/approvals.jsonl. On exit 1 or 2, print its reason in one line: the brief is stamped but not logged, so /trekplan halts (not-logged) until /trekbrief --approve {BRIEF_PATH} succeeds.

6. Commit in the target repo. {ARTIFACT_STORE} is the brief's artifact_store (local when absent, e.g. in --approve mode on another producer's brief); {slug} is the brief's slug; {model} is this session's model name (e.g. Opus 5.5):

node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/lib/util/artifact-commit.mjs --store {ARTIFACT_STORE} --artifact "{BRIEF_PATH}" --message "docs(voyage): approve intent {slug}" --trailer "Co-Authored-By: Claude {model} <noreply@anthropic.com>"

git: the brief and the log in one commit. local: only the log; the project folder is kept out of git through .git/info/exclude. The commit names its paths, so anything else the operator has staged stays staged and uncommitted. On exit 1 (e.g. the repo ignores .claude/) or 2 (not a git repository), print the reason in one line and continue: the approval is logged on disk, not committed, and /trekplan reports it as uncommitted.

What the stamp and the log do NOT prove: any session on this machine could run the same commands. They are a trace that this step ran against this text, not the operator's signature; the commit is what makes an approval visible in git log (see the headers of lib/validators/intent-approval.mjs and lib/util/approval-log.mjs).

Report:

Intent:    {approved (sha256:…12 hex) | left unapproved — /trekplan will halt}
Logged:    {record {seq} in .claude/voyage/approvals.jsonl | no — {reason}}
Committed: {{short sha}: brief + log | {short sha}: log only, brief kept on this machine | no — {reason}}

In --approve mode, run Phase 7 ("mode": "approve") when the stamp printed stamped: true, then stop and print the next step: {PLAN_COMMAND} (only if approved).

Phase 5 — Auto-orchestration opt-in (if research_topics > 0)

Skip this phase if research_topics = 0. Proceed directly to Phase 6.

Ask the user via AskUserQuestion:

Question: "You have {N} research topic(s). How do you want to proceed?"

Option	Description
Manual (default)	Print the commands. You run /trekresearch and /trekplan yourself, choosing depth per topic.
Auto (managed by Claude Code)	I run all {N} research topics sequentially in foreground, then automatically trigger /trekplan when research completes. This session blocks until the plan is ready.

Manual path (default)

Output:

## Brief complete

Project: {PROJECT_DIR}/
Brief:   {PROJECT_DIR}/brief.md
Research topics: {N}

Next steps (run in order or parallel):

{For each topic:}
  /trekresearch --project {PROJECT_DIR} --external "{topic question}"

Then:
  /trekplan --project {PROJECT_DIR}

Then:
  /trekexecute --project {PROJECT_DIR}

Stop. Do not continue to Phase 6.

Auto path

Auto requires an approved intent. If Phase 4h ended "Leave unapproved", the auto chain would halt at /trekplan anyway — print the manual-path output instead and stop.

Set auto_research: true in the brief's frontmatter (edit the file).

The brief-approved lifecycle event was already emitted by the Phase 4h stamp — on both paths — so it is not emitted again here.

If gates_mode == true: pause here via AskUserQuestion — "Auto-mode confirmed. Proceed to research now? (yes/no)". If the user answers no, fall back to the manual path output and stop. Otherwise proceed to Phase 6.

If gates_mode == false (default in auto): proceed directly to Phase 6. The chain stops only at the main-merge gate (see commands/trekexecute.md Phase 8).

Proceed to Phase 6.

Phase 6 — Auto research dispatch (auto path only)

Runs only when user opted into auto mode.

Step 6a — Confirm proceed

Tell the user auto mode will run in foreground and block the session, then confirm via AskUserQuestion:

Question: "Auto mode runs {N} research topic(s) sequentially and then the plan — all in foreground. This session blocks until the plan is ready. Continue?"

Option	Action
Continue — auto	Proceed.
Cancel — do manual	Revert to manual path (print commands, stop).

If cancelled → fall back to manual path output and stop.

Step 6b — Run research topics sequentially (inline)

Set research_status: in_progress in the brief's frontmatter.

For each research topic (index i = 1 .. N), invoke /trekresearch inline in this main-context session:

/trekresearch --project {PROJECT_DIR} {--external | --local | (none)} "{topic i question}"

Pass the scope flag that matches the topic's scope hint. Wait for each invocation to finish writing the research brief at {PROJECT_DIR}/research/{NN}-{topic-slug}.md before moving to the next topic.

Why sequential inline instead of parallel background? Historically, background orchestrator-agents could not spawn the research swarm — before Claude Code 2.1.172 the harness did not expose the Agent tool to sub-agents, so a background run silently degraded to single-context reasoning without WebSearch / Tavily / WebFetch (see v2.4.0 release notes). As of CC 2.1.172 sub-agents can spawn sub-agents (up to 5 levels deep), so a delegated redesign is under evaluation (see docs/cc-upgrade-2.1.181-decision-matrix.md, W1/CC-26). Until then, running each research pass inline in main context keeps the swarm intact.

Step 6c — Verify all briefs landed

After the last topic completes, verify each research brief file exists:

ls -1 {PROJECT_DIR}/research/*.md | wc -l

Expected count: N. If any are missing, report and ask the user how to proceed (retry, skip missing topic, cancel).

Update brief frontmatter: research_status: complete.

Step 6d — Auto-trigger planning (inline foreground)

Invoke the planning command inline in this session:

/trekplan --project {PROJECT_DIR}

The planning pipeline runs all phases (exploration, synthesis, review) in main context. Wait for the plan to be written to {PROJECT_DIR}/plan.md before continuing.

Step 6e — Report completion

When the planning-orchestrator finishes, present:

## Ultrabrief + Ultraresearch + Voyage Complete (auto mode)

**Project:** {PROJECT_DIR}/
**Brief:** {PROJECT_DIR}/brief.md
**Research briefs:** {N} in {PROJECT_DIR}/research/
**Plan:** {PROJECT_DIR}/plan.md

### Pipeline summary

| Step | Status |
|------|--------|
| Brief | Complete ({interview_turns} interview turns) |
| Research | Complete ({N} topics, sequential foreground) |
| Plan | Complete ({steps} steps, critic: {verdict}) |

Next:
  /trekexecute --project {PROJECT_DIR}

Or:
  /trekexecute --dry-run --project {PROJECT_DIR}   # preview
  /trekexecute --validate --project {PROJECT_DIR}  # schema check

Phase 7 — Stats tracking

Append one record to trekbrief-stats.jsonl in the plugin data directory. Run it exactly like this. The record goes on stdin, and the writer resolves the directory: CLAUDE_PLUGIN_DATA, which the Bash tool env does not carry, else the directory scripts/yardstick.mjs reads.

node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/lib/stats/stats-append.mjs trekbrief <<'JSON'
{
  "ts": "{ISO-8601}",
  "task": "{task description (first 100 chars)}",
  "slug": "{slug}",
  "mode": "{default | quick | approve}",
  "interview_turns": {N},
  "review_iterations": {1..3},
  "brief_quality": "{complete | partial}",
  "research_topics": {N},
  "auto_research": {true | false},
  "auto_result": "{completed | cancelled | failed | manual}",
  "intent_approved": {true | false},
  "project_dir": "{path}"
}
JSON

intent_approved is true only when Phase 4h ran the stamp (the operator answered "Approve"). slug is the brief's slug, the same one the stamp's brief-approved record and /trekplan's record carry.

In --approve mode the record carries fixed values: "mode": "approve", "interview_turns": 0, "review_iterations": 0, brief_quality, research_topics and auto_research from the brief's frontmatter (complete, 0, false when absent), "auto_result": "manual", "intent_approved": true.

The writer adds three keys itself: order_id, order_claimed_at and order_reason - the coord-queue order this run is working on, read from the queue's claimed orders (exactly one: its id and claim time; zero or several: order_id: null and the reason). Never type them: any order_* key in the record is replaced. scripts/yardstick.mjs joins its use number on order_id.

The writer prints {"written": true, ...}. On "written": false (exit 1), print its reason in one line and continue. A stats failure never blocks the workflow, but it is reported, not skipped silently.

Profile (v4.1)

Accepts --profile <name> where <name> is one of economy, balanced, premium, fable, or a custom profile under voyage-profiles/. Default: premium.

Resolution order (per lib/profiles/resolver.mjs):

1. --profile flag (source: flag)
2. VOYAGE_PROFILE environment variable (source: env)
3. premium default (source: default)

Examples:

/trekbrief --profile economy
VOYAGE_PROFILE=balanced /trekbrief

Stats records emit profile, phase_models, and profile_source so operators can audit which profile drove which session.

Hard rules

1. Interactive only. This command requires user input. There is no --fg or background mode — the interview cannot run headless.
2. Brief is the contract. Every section must have substantive content or an explicit "Not discussed" note. No empty sections.
3. Intent is load-bearing. Do not accept a one-line intent. Expand with the user until motivation is clear — the plan and every review agent will trace decisions back to this.
4. Research topics must be answerable. Each topic's research question must be phrased so /trekresearch can answer it. If a topic is too vague, split or reformulate before writing.
5. Never invent research topics the user did not agree to. Topics come from the interview. If the user says "I know this", respect it.
6. Project dir is the single source of truth. Every artifact (brief, research briefs, plan, progress) lives in one project directory. Never scatter files across .claude/research/, .claude/plans/, etc.
7. Auto mode blocks foreground. If the user opts into auto, this session waits for research + planning to complete. Document this in the opt-in question.
8. Ceremony by size. The size class sets the question budget and the review cap (Phase 3, Phase 4). It is said aloud, the operator can override it, and on your own you only ever move it up. The budget never hides a gap: what it leaves out is on the Deferred list or written down as an assumption.
9. Only an explicit approval approves. «høres bra ut», «gjør som du vil» and an empty answer decide nothing (Phase 4h step 3). Every approval is logged in the target repo's approval log and committed there.
10. Never write brief.md while the review gate is still pending. Draft lives in brief.md.draft until the loop terminates. A caller that sees brief.md must be able to trust that Phase 4 finished.
11. Privacy: never log prompt text, secrets, or credentials.