Deft Directive Setup

Agent-driven alternative to directive init plus setup Phases 1-3 (task project:render / spec interview).

Legend (from RFC2119): !=MUST, ~=SHOULD, ≉=SHOULD NOT, ⊗=MUST NOT, ?=MAY.

When to Use

• User says "set up deft", "configure deft", or "bootstrap my project"
• User asks to create USER.md, PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json, or a specification
• User clones a deft-enabled repo for the first time with no config
• User says "revisit experimental rules", "toggle experimental meta", "enable SOUL", "disable morals", or wants to change Experimental Rules after bootstrap (#46)

Opt-out flag (.no-deft-directive) (#2926)

! Before Pre-Cutover Detection Guard, Phase 1, or any install/setup step, check the project root for .no-deft-directive (exact lowercase name; presence = flag; empty or short # comment OK).

Condition	Action
Flag present	Stop. Tell the human: "Directive disabled via .no-deft-directive". ⊗ Offer install, session ritual, or setup interview.
Flag absent, no Directive deposit (.deft/core)	? Ask whether to use Directive. On no → create root .no-deft-directive (optional one-line rationale) and stop. On yes → continue setup and ⊗ create the flag.
Operator says stop using DD	Create .no-deft-directive. ⊗ Auto-delete .deft/ (explicit cleanup only).
Operator says start using DD	Remove .no-deft-directive and ensure install (directive init / deposit).

! Flag is root-only (workspace root opened). Nested monorepo package roots are out of scope for v1.
! Flag wins locally over trusted-org / product-signal force-on (v1).
! Flag + deposit = inconsistent: warn loudly; doctor diagnoses; do not silently refresh. See content/docs/no-deft-directive.md.

Consumer-first default (#1813)

! Assume the operator is using Deft in their project (consumer path). Proceed directly to the Pre-Cutover Detection Guard and Phase 1 — do NOT open with a contributor-vs-consumer fork.

~ The overwhelming majority of setup sessions are consumer installs; contributor onboarding is a separate, opt-in path (see below).

Contributor / framework-maintainer path (secondary)

? Only enter this branch when the user explicitly says they are working on Deft itself (framework source checkout, deftai/directive clone, or maintainer tooling).

When that happens:

1. ! Tell the user: "Contributor setup lives in `CONTRIBUTING.md` and this repo's root `AGENTS.md`. Use the maintainer installer: deft-install --yes --upgrade --maintainer --repo-root . --json."
2. ⊗ Continue the consumer USER.md / PROJECT-DEFINITION interview — the maintainer path does not use the first-session consumer flow.
3. Stop here unless the user explicitly asks to continue with consumer setup anyway.

Pre-Cutover Detection Guard

! Before proceeding with any setup phase, detect whether the project uses the pre-v0.20 document model and redirect to migration if so.

Detection Criteria

A project is pre-cutover if ANY of the following are true. When in doubt, run task verify:pre-cutover (the deterministic helper).

1. SPECIFICATION.md exists and is neither a deprecation redirect nor a current generated spec export. A current generated spec export contains <!-- Purpose: rendered specification --> and <!-- Source of truth: xbrief/specification.xbrief.json -->, and xbrief/specification.xbrief.json plus all five lifecycle folders exist.
2. PROJECT.md exists and contains neither the legacy <!-- deft:deprecated-redirect --> sentinel NOR the current Purpose: deprecation redirect canonical-banner marker (same one-release-cycle grace window).
3. xbrief/specification.xbrief.json exists but the lifecycle folders (xbrief/proposed/, xbrief/pending/, xbrief/active/, xbrief/completed/, xbrief/cancelled/) do NOT exist

Action on Detection

! If pre-cutover state is detected, stop immediately and display an actionable message pointing at the frozen-release migration path (#2068):

"This project uses the pre-v0.20 document model. Current npm releases no longer ship in-product task migrate:vbrief. Follow UPGRADING.md § Frozen pre-v0.20 document-model migration: pin framework v0.59.0 (frozen Go installer or git tag), install Python 3.11+ and uv, run task migrate:vbrief once from that payload, then upgrade to current npm."

! Include specific details about what was detected:

• Missing lifecycle folders: "Create lifecycle folders via the frozen-release migrator on v0.59.0, or manually add xbrief/{proposed,pending,active,completed,cancelled}/ after migrating narratives"
• SPECIFICATION.md with real content: "SPECIFICATION.md contains non-redirect content — migrate on pinned v0.59.0 before upgrading to current npm"
• PROJECT.md with real content: "PROJECT.md contains non-redirect content — migrate on pinned v0.59.0 before upgrading to current npm"
• Missing PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json: "Run task project:render after document-model migration completes"

Preflight (optional diagnostic)

~ Run task migrate:preflight to confirm pre-cutover state and print the frozen-release guidance. It does not run migration.

⊗ Offer to run task migrate:vbrief from the current npm deposit — the migrator is not bundled on current releases (#2068).
⊗ Proceed with setup phases when pre-cutover artifacts are detected — always redirect to the frozen migration path first.
⊗ Silently ignore pre-cutover artifacts — the user must be informed with an actionable command to fix the state.

Greenfield Projects (No Migration Needed)

! For new projects (no existing SPECIFICATION.md, PROJECT.md, or xbrief/specification.xbrief.json), the guard passes silently and setup proceeds normally.

! Greenfield setup creates the full xBRIEF-centric structure from scratch:

1. ./xbrief/ directory with all 5 lifecycle subdirectories: proposed/, pending/, active/, completed/, cancelled/
2. ./xbrief/PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json generated from Phase 2 interview results
3. First scope xBRIEF created in proposed/ or pending/ depending on Phase 3 interview outcome

~ This is already handled by Phase 2 Output Path (creates ./xbrief/ and lifecycle subfolders) and Phase 3 Output (creates scope xBRIEFs in lifecycle folders). The guard ensures migrating projects are redirected before reaching these phases.

Migration safety flags (frozen v0.59.0 release only)

When guiding an operator through migration on the pinned release, mention the migrator safety affordances (#497, #506 D7):

• task migrate:vbrief -- --dry-run (preview) on v0.59.0
• Dirty-tree guard — migrator refuses when the working tree is dirty unless --force
• task migrate:vbrief -- --rollback on v0.59.0 to restore .premigrate.* backups

⊗ Offer in-product migration from a current npm deposit — use the frozen path (#2068).

Deterministic Questions Contract

! Every numbered-menu prompt rendered in this skill (Phase 1 depth question, Phase 2 project type / deployment / language / strategy / branching gates, Phase 3 onboarding question, end-of-phase transition prompts, post-interview confirmation gate) MUST follow `../../contracts/deterministic-questions.md`: render the canonical numbered menu in chat unless the host UI visibly preserves numeric option labels and returns numeric selections or exact displayed option text. The final two numbered options MUST be Discuss and Back, in that order. The Discuss-pause semantic is documented verbatim there -- on Discuss selection the agent MUST halt the in-progress sequence immediately, prompt What would you like to discuss?, and resume only on an explicit user signal (re-asks original question, says resume/continue, or re-issues prior selection). Implicit resumption is forbidden. Fallback chat replies MUST map only to the displayed number or exact displayed option text; do not infer from alphabetic host affordances.

Platform Detection

! Before resolving any config paths, detect the host OS from your environment context:

Platform	USER.md default path
Windows	%APPDATA%\deft\USER.md (e.g. C:\Users\{user}\AppData\Roaming\deft\USER.md)
Unix (macOS/Linux)	~/.config/deft/USER.md

• ! If $DEFT_USER_PATH is set, it takes precedence on any platform
• ! Create parent directories as needed when writing USER.md
• ~ $DEFT_PROJECT_PATH overrides the default project config path (./xbrief/PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json) if set
• ! Resolve <policy-project-root> to the user's working directory at skill entry. When $DEFT_PROJECT_PATH is set, resolve it relative to that root and preserve the environment variable for every Phase 2 command; the public policy writer, inspector, lock, and conformance gate honor the configured file even when it is outside the canonical xbrief/ path.
• ! Pass --project-root <policy-project-root> to every Phase 2 policy inspector, writer, and conformance command. Do not unset or rewrite $DEFT_PROJECT_PATH, and do not let those commands fall back to a different working directory.

Agent Behavior

Flow:

• ! Start asking immediately — everything you need is in THIS file
• ⊗ Explore the codebase, read framework files, or gather context before asking
• ? Read deft/main.md or language files LATER when generating output

Interaction:

• ~ Use structured question tools only when their visible option labels preserve the canonical numbers (for example, 1. Yes) and their return value is the numeric selection or exact displayed option text.
• ! Fall back to the numbered chat menu when the host UI may replace numbers with alphabetic affordances, unlabeled buttons, or any other non-canonical choice labels.
• ⊗ Infer deterministic answers from host-added letters or shortcuts unless those letters were actually displayed in the canonical menu labels.

Defaults:

• ! Communicate that deft ships with best-in-class standards for 20+ languages
• ! Frame setup as "tell me your overrides" — not "configure everything"
• ~ "Deft has solid opinions on how code should be written and tested — I just need a few things about you and your project."

Adapt to Technical Level:

• ! First question gauges whether user is technical or non-technical
• ! Technical user: ask about languages, strategy, coverage directly — they'll have opinions
• ! Non-technical user: skip jargon, use sensible defaults, ask about what they're building not how
• ⊗ Ask non-technical users about coverage thresholds, strategies, or framework choices

Available Languages

C, C++, C#, Dart, Delphi, Elixir, Go, Java, JavaScript, Julia, Kotlin,
Office.js (Excel JavaScript API), Python, R, Rust, SQL, Swift, TypeScript,
VBA (Excel macros), VHDL, Visual Basic (.NET), Zig, 6502-DASM

• ? Read deft/languages/{name}.md when generating output — not before asking

Available Strategies

~ When presenting strategies to the user, always use this numbered list format (not a plain table).
~ Always include the chaining note below the list.
! Always show the FULL strategy list at every chaining gate — never remove a strategy because it was previously run.
~ If a strategy has been run already, indicate it with a note e.g. (run 1x) but keep it selectable.

1. interview ★ (recommended) — Structured interview with sizing gate: Light or Full path
2. yolo — Auto-pilot interview — Johnbot picks all recommended options
3. map — Analyze existing codebase conventions before adding features
4. discuss — Front-load decisions and alignment before planning
5. probe — Adversarially stress-test the plan; surface assumptions, edge cases, and risks before spec
6. research — Investigate the domain before planning
7. speckit — Five-phase spec-driven workflow for large/complex projects

💡 Strategies can be chained — after one completes, you'll be asked if you want to run another.

---

Phase 1 — User Preferences (USER.md)

Goal: Personal preferences file with two sections:

• Personal — always wins over everything (name, custom rules)

• Defaults — fallback values that PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json can override (strategy, coverage)

• ~ Skip if USER.md exists at the platform-appropriate path (see Platform Detection) and user doesn't want to overwrite

• ⊗ Scan filesystem beyond checking that one path

USER.md Freshness Detection

! When an existing USER.md is found (returning user), check its deft_version field before skipping Phase 1:

1. ! If deft_version is missing: the USER.md predates versioning -- treat as stale
2. ! If deft_version is present but differs from the current framework version (0.20.0): check whether any expected fields are missing from the USER.md
3. ! If fields are missing: query the user for each missing field individually -- do NOT re-run the full Phase 1 interview
4. ! After completing any field queries (even if none were needed), write the current deft_version (0.20.0) to USER.md
5. ~ If deft_version matches the current version and all expected fields are present: USER.md is fresh — do not re-run Phase 1. ! Still offer the Returning-user re-entry menu below so the operator can revisit Experimental Rules or continue to Phase 2 without a full re-interview (#46).

Expected USER.md fields: Name, Custom Rules, Default Strategy, and optionally Coverage and Experimental Rules.

⊗ Re-run the full Phase 1 interview when only individual fields are missing from a stale USER.md -- query missing fields individually instead.

Returning-user re-entry (#46)

! When USER.md already exists (fresh or after individual missing-field fill), present a deterministic numbered menu before assuming Phase 1 is "done and silent":

"USER.md is in place. What next?"

1. Continue to Phase 2 (project configuration) ★ (recommended when project config is still missing)
2. Revisit experimental rules — enable/disable SOUL / morals / code-field without hand-editing schema
3. Not now (exit setup)
4. Discuss
5. Back

• ! Final two numbered options MUST be Discuss and Back per `../../contracts/deterministic-questions.md`
• ! On option 2, enter Revisit experimental rules (next section) — not a full Phase 1 re-interview
• ⊗ Silently skip past a complete USER.md with no re-entry offer when the operator entered setup (or asked to configure preferences)
• ⊗ Invent a deft config / task config:* verb family for this slice — setup skill re-entry is the product surface (#46)

Interview Rules

! This phase follows the deterministic interview loop defined in skills/deft-directive-interview/SKILL.md. The core rules (one question per turn, numbered options with stated default, explicit "other" escape, depth gate, default acceptance, confirmation gate, structured handoff) apply here. Key points repeated for emphasis:

! Each message you send MUST contain exactly ONE question. This is the most
important rule in this file. After the user answers, send the NEXT question in
a new message. Repeat until all questions for their track are answered.

• ⊗ Include two or more questions in the same message under any circumstances
• ⊗ List upcoming questions — only show the current one
• ~ Provide numbered answer options with an "other" choice where appropriate
• ! Mark which option is RECOMMENDED when showing choices
• ~ Use structured question tools only when visible option labels preserve the canonical numbers and returns map to numeric selections or exact displayed option text.

Question Sequence

Step 0 — Opening (all users):
Ask: "How deep do you want to go?"

1. I'm technical — ask me everything
2. I have some opinions but keep it simple
3. Just pick good defaults — I care about the product, not the tools

Wait for answer. Then follow the track below.

Track 1 (technical) — 7 steps:

• Step 1: Ask their name
• Step 2: Ask strategy preference (show Available Strategies numbered list from the Available Strategies section, with descriptions and recommended marker; fallback — projects can override)
• Step 3: Ask coverage threshold (default 85%; fallback — projects can override)
• Step 4: Ask for custom rules — if user has rules, collect them one per line (empty line to finish); if none, skip
• Step 5a: Present SOUL.md and ask whether to include it (default: yes):

  SOUL.md — Results-first agent persona (inspired by Winston Wolf). Enforces assess-before-acting,
  finish-what-you-start, right-tool-for-the-job, and play-the-long-game. Keeps the AI decisive and
  concise. Includes a named persona ('Vinston') — drop if you prefer to define your own agent personality.
  Include SOUL.md? (Y/n)

• Step 5b: Present morals.md and ask whether to include it (default: yes):

  morals.md — Epistemic honesty rules. No presenting speculation as fact, label unverified claims,
  self-correct when wrong. Foundational trust rules for any AI agent. Strongly recommended.
  Include morals.md? (Y/n)

• Step 5c: Present code-field.md and ask whether to include it (default: yes):

  code-field.md — Pre-code assumption protocol. Requires stating assumptions and naming failure modes
  before writing a single line. Fights the 'it compiles, ship it' instinct. Based on NeoVertex1 context-field.
  Include code-field.md? (Y/n)

Track 2 (middle ground) — 2 steps:

• Step 1: Ask their name
• Step 2: Ask for custom rules — if user has rules, collect them one per line (empty line to finish); if none, skip
• Set defaults without asking: strategy = "interview", coverage = 85%, all meta-guidelines included

Track 3 (non-technical) — 2 steps:

• Step 1: Ask their name
• Step 2: Ask what they're building (brief description — used for PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json later)
• Set defaults: strategy = "interview", coverage = 85%, all meta-guidelines included

Output Path

Resolve using Platform Detection above. Write to the platform-appropriate path
(or $DEFT_USER_PATH if set). Create parent directories as needed.

Template

# User Preferences

Legend (from RFC2119): !=MUST, ~=SHOULD, ≉=SHOULD NOT, ⊗=MUST NOT, ?=MAY.

**deft_version**: 0.20.0

## Personal (always wins)

Settings in this section have HIGHEST precedence — override all other deft rules,
including PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json.

**Name**: Address the user as: **{name}**

**Custom Rules**:
{custom rules or "No custom rules defined yet."}

**Forge outage retry** (optional): `forgeOutageRetryMinutes: 30` — integer minutes, minimum 5. Default 30. Personal wins over `plan.policy.forgeOutageRetryMinutes`. Omit to use project policy or the framework default. Inspect: `task policy:show --field=forgeOutageRetryMinutes`.

## Defaults (fallback)

Settings in this section are fallback defaults. PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json overrides these
for project-scoped settings (strategy, coverage).

**Default Strategy**: [{strategy name}](../strategies/{strategy-file}.md)

{If coverage != 85: "**Coverage**: ! ≥{N}% test coverage"}

{If any experimental rules selected:
"## Experimental Rules

{one line per selected rule, e.g.:
- ! Use meta/SOUL.md for strategic context and purpose-driven guidance
- ! Use meta/morals.md for ethical AI development principles
- ~ Use meta/code-field.md for advanced architecture patterns}"}

---

**Note**: Edit this file anytime to update your preferences.
**See**: [../../main.md](../../../main.md) for framework defaults.

Then

• ! Emit a structured-tool question asking whether to continue to Phase 2 (project configuration) only when the host preserves numeric labels; otherwise emit the deterministic numbered menu in chat. Options: 1. Yes (continue), 2. Not now (exit setup), 3. Discuss, 4. Back (revisit previous phase). The numeric labels MUST remain visible and be returned as numeric selections or exact displayed option text.
• ⊗ Ask the phase-transition question as unnumbered conversational prose or through a structured UI that hides the canonical numeric labels -- it is a deterministic menu and MUST preserve visible numbers (#478, #1563).

---

Revisit experimental rules (#46)

Goal: Guided enable/disable of USER.md Experimental Rules entries that reference framework deposit meta files (meta/SOUL.md, meta/morals.md, meta/code-field.md). This is a post-bootstrap return path — not Phase 1 bootstrap, not a general preferences UI, and not an editor for framework meta file bodies.

When to enter

• Returning-user re-entry option Revisit experimental rules
• Direct user ask: "revisit experimental rules", "toggle experimental meta", "turn on SOUL", "disable code-field", etc.
• USER.md exists and is complete enough to edit (Name present); missing non-meta fields still use Freshness Detection individual queries first

Out of scope

• ⊗ General preferences UI / rewriting Personal or Defaults sections as part of this path
• ⊗ Editing framework meta/*.md content (deposit owns SOUL / morals / code-field bodies; directive update refreshes deposit)
• ⊗ Deposit layout changes
• ⊗ Inventing a full deft config mega-surface or new task config:* verb family for this slice
• ⊗ Re-building USER.md bootstrap / non-overwrite semantics
• ⊗ Treating Experimental Rules lines as project-local copies of meta files — they are references only

Flow

! Each message MUST contain exactly ONE question (same interview rule as Phase 1).

1. ! Resolve USER.md via Platform Detection ($DEFT_USER_PATH → platform path). Read the file as UTF-8.

2. ! Parse current Experimental Rules state (on/off) for the three paths:

   • meta/SOUL.md
   • meta/morals.md
   • meta/code-field.md
   • Detection: any line containing that path counts as on (custom wording still counts).

3. ! Show a current state summary (table or short list), for example:

   Entry	State	Role
   SOUL.md	on/off	Results-first agent persona
   morals.md	on/off	Epistemic honesty
   code-field.md	on/off	Pre-code assumption protocol

4. ! Ask which entry to change with a deterministic numbered menu (one question). Options MUST include each of the three entries as toggle targets, plus Done (save) / Done (discard), and final two options Discuss and Back:

   "Toggle which experimental meta entry? (current state shown above)"

   1. SOUL.md — currently {on|off}
   2. morals.md — currently {on|off}
   3. code-field.md — currently {on|off}
   4. Done — save changes
   5. Done — discard changes
   6. Discuss
   7. Back

5. ! When the user picks an entry (1–3), optionally show the short Phase 1 explainer (steps 5a–5c copy below), then confirm the new on/off value with a Y/n or numbered keep/flip menu. Update the in-memory desired state; do not write yet. Return to the toggle menu (step 4) until Done.

6. ! On Done — save: show a confirmation summary of the three final on/off values and require explicit affirmative (yes / confirmed / approve) before write — same Post-Interview Confirmation Gate strictness.

7. ! On Done — discard or Back without save: leave USER.md unchanged and return to the Returning-user re-entry menu (or exit if invoked directly).

Explainers (reuse Phase 1 steps 5a–5c)

• SOUL.md — Results-first agent persona (inspired by Winston Wolf). Enforces assess-before-acting, finish-what-you-start, right-tool-for-the-job, and play-the-long-game. Keeps the AI decisive and concise. Includes a named persona ('Vinston') — drop if you prefer to define your own agent personality.
• morals.md — Epistemic honesty rules. No presenting speculation as fact, label unverified claims, self-correct when wrong. Foundational trust rules for any AI agent. Strongly recommended.
• code-field.md — Pre-code assumption protocol. Requires stating assumptions and naming failure modes before writing a single line. Fights the 'it compiles, ship it' instinct. Based on NeoVertex1 context-field.

Safe write rules (non-clobber)

! When persisting toggles to USER.md:

1. ! Write UTF-8 (no BOM). Create parent directories only if the resolved path's parent is missing — never relocate USER.md.
2. ! Change only the ## Experimental Rules section (add the section if enabling when absent; remove the section when all three are off and no custom bullets remain).
3. ! Canonical enable lines (match Phase 1 template):
   • - ! Use meta/SOUL.md for strategic context and purpose-driven guidance
   • - ! Use meta/morals.md for ethical AI development principles
   • - ~ Use meta/code-field.md for advanced architecture patterns
4. ! Disable = remove lines that mention that path. Preserve any custom non-meta bullets under Experimental Rules.
5. ! Personal and Defaults section bodies MUST remain byte-identical to the pre-write file (non-clobber).
6. ~ Prefer the pure helper applyExperimentalRulesState / setExperimentalRule from @deftai/directive-core userConfig (packages/core/src/user-config/experimental-rules.ts) when the package is importable (framework checkout, tests, or a thin local script). When editing by hand as an agent, apply the same rules: section-only edit, UTF-8, path-based match, canonical enable lines.
7. ! After write, re-read USER.md and show the final on/off state to the user.

⊗ Rewrite the whole USER.md from the Phase 1 template when only Experimental Rules changed
⊗ Clobber or reformat Personal / Defaults content while toggling experimental meta
⊗ Hand-edit framework meta/SOUL.md, meta/morals.md, or meta/code-field.md bodies as part of this path
⊗ Invent deft config / task config:experimental-* for this product slice when setup re-entry suffices

Then

• ! After a successful save (or discard), re-offer the Returning-user re-entry menu (Continue to Phase 2 / Revisit again / Exit / Discuss / Back) unless the user asked only for the toggle and is done.
• ~ If Phase 2 is already complete, prefer Exit over Continue unless the user wants project reconfiguration.

Phase 2 — Project Configuration (PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json)

Goal: Project-specific configuration — tech stack, type, quality standards — written as a xBRIEF file at ./xbrief/PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json.

! Path Resolution Anchor: Resolve ALL paths relative to the user's working directory (pwd) at skill entry -- never relative to the skill file location, AGENTS.md location, or any framework directory (e.g. ./deft/). When deft is cloned as a subdirectory, the skill file lives inside the clone but all project artifacts (./xbrief/PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json, build files, etc.) must be resolved from the user's pwd.

• ~ Skip if ./xbrief/PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json exists (or $DEFT_PROJECT_PATH if set) and user doesn't want to replace
• ⊗ Count ./deft/PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json or ./deft/core/project.md as the user's project config — those are framework-internal

Re-entry shadow guard (#3609)

! Before any Phase 2 confirmation or file mutation when PROJECT-DEFINITION already exists, run deft policy:show --field=plan.policy.allowDirectCommitsToMaster --project-root <policy-project-root> and inspect stderr as well as the exit code. The inspector intentionally exits 0 when it can still read the namespaced value, so a warning that bare plan.policy coexists with plan["x-directive/policy"] is a hard stop even when the command succeeds.

! On that warning, do not regenerate, overwrite, or run a policy writer. Inventory the keys in both blocks; fold every bare-only key into plan["x-directive/policy"]; resolve every collision explicitly; delete bare plan.policy; then rerun the inspector. Preserve all unrelated PROJECT-DEFINITION content. Resume only when exactly one policy block remains.

⊗ Treat matching allowDirectCommitsToMaster values as safe while other keys may still be stranded in the shadowed block
⊗ Copy arbitrary policy values into a diagnostic or silently choose one side of a collision

Inference

• ! Before asking, infer from codebase — look for package.json, go.mod, requirements.txt, Cargo.toml, pyproject.toml, *.csproj
• ! Use inferences to pre-fill answers and confirm — don't ask blind
• ⊗ Look inside ./deft/ for build files (go.mod, package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, *.csproj, etc.) — those are framework-internal. Only inspect files at the project root and its non-deft subdirectories.
• ⊗ Run git commands inside ./deft/ to determine project identity — that directory is the framework repo, not the user's project.
• ~ If no build files are found at the project root, default the project name to the current directory name and ask for confirmation.

Track Detection

! If Phase 1 was skipped (USER.md already existed), the user's track is unknown.
Before asking any Phase 2 questions, ask the depth question:

"How deep do you want to go?"

1. I'm technical — ask me everything
2. I have some opinions but keep it simple
3. Just pick good defaults — I care about the product, not the tools

Wait for answer. Then follow the corresponding track in the Question Sequence below.

⊗ Assume Track 1 (technical) because USER.md exists or contains strategy/coverage fields.
⊗ Infer the track from USER.md content — always ask.

Defaults in Agentic Mode

! When a question has a USER.md default, phrase it as:

"{Field}: {value} from USER.md — keep this, or enter a different value?"

! Accept any affirmative response ("keep", "yes", "same", "default", ✓) as confirmation to use the default.
⊗ Phrase defaults as "press Enter to keep" — there is no Enter in conversational mode.

Interview Rules (same as Phase 1)

! Each message MUST contain exactly ONE question. The Phase 1 interview rules
apply here too. Do not combine questions. See skills/deft-directive-interview/SKILL.md for the canonical deterministic interview loop.

Question Sequence

Track 1 (technical) — 8 steps:

• Step 1: Ask project name (infer from build files or directory name, confirm)

• Step 2: Ask project type (CLI, TUI, Desktop App, REST API, Web App, Library, other)

• Step 3: Ask deployment platform:

  1. Cross-platform (Linux / macOS / Windows)
  2. Windows-native
  3. macOS-native
  4. Linux / Unix
  5. Embedded / low-resource
  6. Web / Cloud
  7. Mobile (iOS / Android)
  8. Other / not sure

• Step 4: Ask languages — show a filtered shortlist (3–4 recommendations) based on project type + platform. If codebase markers exist (go.mod, pyproject.toml, etc.), skip and confirm: "Detected {lang} — correct?"

  • If user selects "Other": show remaining plausible languages for the type+platform context (Tier 2)
  • If still not found: free text input (Tier 3)
  • If entered language has no deft languages/{lang}.md standards file, warn: "deft doesn't have a standards file for {lang} yet — general defaults will be used. Continue?"

• Step 5: Ask tech stack (frameworks, libraries)

• Step 6: Ask strategy (default to USER.md Defaults; ask if this project needs different — show Available Strategies numbered list with descriptions and recommended marker)

• Step 7: Ask coverage (default to USER.md Defaults; ask if this project needs different)

• Step 8: Ask for project-specific rules (optional, same one-per-line format as Phase 1 custom rules)

• Step 9: Ask branching preference (typed plan.policy.allowDirectCommitsToMaster flag per #746):

  ! Render this as a deterministic numbered menu. Default 1. Branch-based. Final two options MUST be Discuss and Back per `../../contracts/deterministic-questions.md`:

  "Do you prefer branch-based workflow (create a feature branch for every change) or
  trunk-based (commit directly to master)? Branch-based is the default and recommended
  for teams; trunk-based is common for solo projects."

  1. Branch-based ★ (recommended -- default; enforces feature branches via the deft branch-protection policy)
  2. Trunk-based (direct commits to master) -- see capability-cost disclosure below
  3. Discuss
  4. Back

  ! Capability-cost disclosure (#746): When the user picks option 2 (trunk-based), the agent MUST present the capability-cost disclosure verbatim BEFORE writing the typed flag, then re-prompt for explicit confirmation:

  "Capability-cost disclosure -- enabling direct commits to the default branch turns OFF the deft branch-protection policy. The pre-commit + pre-push hooks will no longer block default-branch commits, task verify:branch will pass on the default branch, and the skill-level guards in deft-directive-{swarm,review-cycle,pre-pr,release} will not halt for default-branch work. The change is reversible (task policy:enforce-branches) and is recorded to meta/policy-changes.log for auditability. The CI sanity check (head_ref != base_ref) remains independent and will continue to flag master->master PRs. Are you sure?"

  1. Yes, opt out -- persist allowDirectCommitsToMaster=true through the policy writer
  2. No, keep branch-protection enforced -- persist allowDirectCommitsToMaster=false through the policy writer
  3. Discuss
  4. Back

  ! Default to option 2 (enforce). Explicit affirmative on option 1 is required to opt out -- a broad proceed does NOT satisfy this gate. The same affirmative-only rule applies as in /deft:change (yes, confirmed, approve).

  ! Record the answer as the logical field plan.policy.allowDirectCommitsToMaster, but do not hand-write either policy block. The common Output Path gate below invokes the only writer and stores the boolean under plan["x-directive/policy"].allowDirectCommitsToMaster. Default false (enforce branches) when the user picks option 2 OR omits the question entirely. Agents MUST NOT write bare plan.policy or the legacy free-form Allow direct commits to master: narrative key.

  ! Re-running the interview detects the existing flag (#746 part G2): After the Re-entry shadow guard passes, surface the resolved current value (e.g. "Current setting: allowDirectCommitsToMaster=false (branch-protection ON)") and ask whether to keep it or change it before re-prompting. A keep choice still runs the selected writer so legacy-only storage is migrated; an already-namespaced match is a no-op with no audit append. On Track 2 or 3, preserve an existing resolved boolean by default without asking a new branching question. Never replace an existing true with the greenfield false default unless the operator explicitly chooses the Track 1 change flow.

  ! Consumer command alternatives (#746 part G2): Once the project is set up, use the public CLI directly:

  • deft policy:show --field=plan.policy.allowDirectCommitsToMaster --project-root <policy-project-root> -- display the current resolved policy and source
  • deft policy:enforce-branches --actor agent:deft-directive-setup --project-root <policy-project-root> -- set allowDirectCommitsToMaster=false
  • deft policy:allow-direct-commits --confirm --actor agent:deft-directive-setup --project-root <policy-project-root> -- set allowDirectCommitsToMaster=true

  Each transition is recorded to meta/policy-changes.log for auditability.

Track 2 (middle ground) — 4 steps:

• Step 1: Ask project name (infer from build files or directory name, confirm)
• Step 2: Ask project type (CLI, TUI, Desktop App, REST API, Web App, Library, other)
• Step 3: Ask languages (show detected, confirm or adjust; if none detected, infer from type and ask)
• Step 4: Ask strategy (default to USER.md Defaults; ask if this project needs different — show Available Strategies numbered list with descriptions and recommended marker)
• Default coverage to USER.md Defaults without asking
• ! Do not ask a branching question. For greenfield or absent policy, the common Output Path gate persists allowDirectCommitsToMaster=false. On re-entry it preserves the resolved existing boolean, including true; change it only through the Track 1 disclosure gate.

Track 3 (non-technical) — 1 step:

• Step 1: Present summary of inferences: "Based on your project: {name} ({type}), built with {stack}. Look right?"
• ⊗ Ask about strategy or coverage — use Phase 1 defaults
• ! Do not ask a branching question. For greenfield or absent policy, the common Output Path gate persists allowDirectCommitsToMaster=false. On re-entry it preserves the resolved existing boolean, including true; change it only through the Track 1 disclosure gate.

Output Path

./xbrief/PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json (or the resolved $DEFT_PROJECT_PATH if set). Create <policy-project-root>/xbrief/ and its lifecycle subfolders (proposed/, pending/, active/, completed/, cancelled/) if they don't exist. A configured PROJECT-DEFINITION may live elsewhere; the lifecycle root remains under <policy-project-root>.

Branch-policy persistence gate (#3609)

! This gate applies to every track, including default/greenfield and keep/re-entry paths. For greenfield setup, first write the confirmed PROJECT-DEFINITION base without any hand-authored policy block. On re-entry, merge base changes while preserving the existing policy block byte-for-byte: keep a legacy-only bare plan.policy intact until the shared writer migrates the whole block, and keep a namespaced block intact until that writer updates it. Never delete or reconstruct a legacy-only block before the writer because it may contain unrelated keys such as wipCap. Then invoke exactly one public writer:

• Branch-based/greenfield-default/keep-false: deft policy:enforce-branches --actor agent:deft-directive-setup --project-root <policy-project-root>
• Explicitly confirmed trunk-based/keep-true/Track 2 or 3 existing-true: deft policy:allow-direct-commits --confirm --actor agent:deft-directive-setup --project-root <policy-project-root>

! A nonzero writer exit halts Phase 2 immediately. Do not print a completion claim and do not retry by hand-editing JSON. Resolve the reported configuration problem, rerun the Re-entry shadow guard, and invoke the writer again.

! Before Phase 2 can complete, re-read PROJECT-DEFINITION and verify all three postconditions: plan["x-directive/policy"].allowDirectCommitsToMaster is the selected boolean; bare plan.policy is absent; and deft verify:vbrief-conformance --project-root <policy-project-root> exits 0. Also run deft policy:show --field=plan.policy.allowDirectCommitsToMaster --project-root <policy-project-root> and confirm its resolved value matches the selection. Any mismatch is a hard stop.

⊗ Finish Phase 2 after writing only the narrative template
⊗ Add a setup-specific policy writer or weaken conformance to permit bare plan.policy

GitHub PR Template Scaffolding (#531)

! Before writing PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json, offer to scaffold a default GitHub PR template so downstream skills (deft-directive-refinement Pre-Flight, deft-directive-pre-pr) can satisfy their .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md checks without blocking.

1. ! Ask the user with a deterministic numbered menu: "Create a default GitHub PR template at .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md?" Options: 1. Yes, 2. No, 3. Discuss, 4. Back. Use a structured question tool only if those numeric labels remain visible and are returned as numeric selections or exact displayed option text.
2. ! If the user accepts AND .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md does NOT already exist: copy templates/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md (shipped with deft) to ./.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md in the consumer project. Create .github/ if it does not exist.
3. ! If the file already exists, do NOT overwrite it — report that it is present and continue.
4. ~ If the user declines, note that deft-directive-refinement Pre-Flight will offer to scaffold later when needed.

⊗ Overwrite an existing .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md without explicit user approval.

Headless Coverage Warning — display-bound GUI entry points (#1027)

! The trigger is a display-bound GUI event loop (pygame, tkinter, PyQt/PySide, Kivy, Electron) that cannot run without a real display — typically a Desktop App project type, or a TUI that embeds such a GUI. Terminal-UI frameworks (textual, urwid, blessed, ncurses) run in the terminal and DO support headless testing (e.g. textual's App.run_async() + Pilot), so a standard TUI is NOT in scope — do not omit its coverage. The concrete commands below assume a Python GUI stack (pygame/tkinter); the same "omit the un-runnable loop, test the logic" principle applies to non-Python desktop stacks (Electron/JS, .NET/WPF, Qt/C++) using that language's own headless-test and coverage-exclusion tooling. When the Phase 2 project type resolves to a display-bound GUI project, warn the user BEFORE writing PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json (adapt the wording to the project's language):

"Heads up: pygame/tkinter event loops can't be tested headlessly, so the display-bound entry point (e.g. src/ui.py) reports near-zero coverage and drags the overall percentage below the 85% threshold. I recommend excluding the UI entry point from coverage measurement and keeping it thin — push testable logic (state, scoring, input handling) into separate modules."

! When scaffolding or advising on pyproject.toml for a display-bound GUI project, add the display-bound entry point to [tool.coverage.run] omit so task check measures logic modules only:

[tool.coverage.run]
omit = [
  "*/tests/*",
  "*/venv/*",
  "*/.venv/*",
  "src/ui.py",        # display-bound pygame/tkinter event loop -- cannot run headlessly (#1027)
]

• ! Keep the omit narrow — exclude only the event-loop shell, never a module that also holds business logic. If logic and the loop are mixed, recommend refactoring the logic into a separate, fully-tested module first.
• ~ For a Python project, point the user at languages/python.md (the Headless GUI / event-loop testing section under Patterns) for the headless-test pattern (SDL_VIDEODRIVER=dummy) and the full coverage-omit rationale; for a non-Python GUI stack, apply the same principle with that language's headless-test and coverage-exclusion tooling.
• ⊗ Apply the omit to a headless-capable terminal-UI project (textual/urwid/blessed/ncurses) — those frameworks test headlessly, so omitting them hides measurable coverage, the opposite of the intended effect.
• ⊗ Silently accept the default 85% coverage gate for a display-bound GUI project without surfacing the headless blind spot — the agent reports an inflated per-session coverage that collapses when the full src/ is measured (the 2026-05-10 tic-tac-toe desktop-UI swarm recurrence).

Template

! The output MUST conform to the canonical xBRIEF v0.8 schema (xbrief/schemas/xbrief-core-0.8.schema.json, strict const: "0.8"). See `../../conventions/references.md`. Write-path default is 0.8 only (#2971); legacy 0.6 remains read-accepted until deft migrate:xbrief.

{
  "xBRIEFInfo": {
    "version": "0.8",
    "author": "agent:deft-directive-setup",
    "description": "Project identity gestalt",
    "created": "{ISO-8601 timestamp}"
  },
  "plan": {
    "title": "{Project Name}",
    "status": "running",
    "narratives": {
      "Overview": "{Brief project description}",
      "TechStack": "{project type} using {languages} — {tech stack details}",
      "Strategy": "Use {strategy name} for this project",
      "Quality": "Run task check before every commit. Achieve >= {coverage}% coverage overall + per-module. Store secrets in secrets/ dir.",
      "ProjectRules": "{Any rules the user specified, or 'No project-specific rules defined.'}",
      "Branching": "{If confirmed trunk-based: 'Trunk-based workflow', otherwise 'Branch-based workflow (default)'}",
      "DeftVersion": "0.20.0"
    },
    "items": []
  }
}

• ! All narratives values MUST be plain strings — never objects or arrays
• ! items starts empty — populated as scope xBRIEFs are created in lifecycle folders

Then

• ! Emit a structured-tool question asking whether to continue to Phase 3 (specification) only when the host preserves numeric labels; otherwise emit the deterministic numbered menu in chat. Options: 1. Yes (continue), 2. Not now (exit setup), 3. Discuss, 4. Back (revisit previous phase). The numeric labels MUST remain visible and be returned as numeric selections or exact displayed option text.
• ⊗ Ask the phase-transition question as unnumbered conversational prose or through a structured UI that hides the canonical numeric labels -- it is a deterministic menu and MUST preserve visible numbers (#478, #1563).

Follow-up: triage onboarding (#1143)

• ~ After Phase 2 writes PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json, recommend task triage:welcome to the user as the single chained command for picking up the v0.27 triage surface. The N3 ritual (#1143) is the consolidating onboarding step for the #1119 governance swarm verbs (task triage:bootstrap / task triage:scope / plan.policy.wipCap writes / task scope:demote --batch relief / task triage:summary); without it consumers must learn each verb individually from the v0.27 release notes.
• ~ task triage:welcome is idempotent and detection-bound -- each phase emits an informational stderr line and skips when its precondition is already satisfied, so a re-run after a partial completion resumes cleanly. The destructive phases (subscription / wipCap writes, optional WIP-relief invocation) are gated by numbered-menu prompts per `../../contracts/deterministic-questions.md`. See `../../UPGRADING.md` ## From v0.26.x -> v0.27 for the full walkthrough.

Consumer AGENTS always-pin recommendations (#2508)

! After Phase 2 completes (or when closing a greenfield bootstrap), tell the consumer that process-critical directive skills should be named in their project's AGENTS.md unmanaged header when false-negative risk matters — full tier definitions: `../../docs/skill-pin-policy.md`.
~ Recommend the default consumer pin set for lifecycle work: deft-directive-build (implementation), deft-directive-pre-pr (before PR), deft-directive-review-cycle (bot review loop), and deft-directive-swarm when they plan parallel agents. Each is referenced by skill id + .deft/core/.agents/skills/<id>/SKILL.md path — not by pasting skill bodies.
⊗ Recommend pinning entire languages/, deployments/, or other framework doc packs into AGENTS.md (#2508 anti-pattern).

---

Phase 3 — Specification

Goal: Generate an implementable spec using the strategy chosen in Phase 2, producing scope xBRIEFs in xbrief/proposed/ and PROJECT-DEFINITION narratives for human approval — greenfield v0.20 does not create specification.xbrief.json.

! Path Resolution Anchor: Same rule as Phase 2 -- resolve ALL paths relative to the user's pwd at skill entry, never relative to the skill file, AGENTS.md, or any framework directory.

• ~ Skip if user already has scope xBRIEFs in ./xbrief/ they're happy with
• ! Check ./xbrief/PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json and ./xbrief/proposed/ for existing greenfield authority; treat ./xbrief/specification.xbrief.json as a full-spec compatibility artifact only
• ⊗ Count ANY file inside ./deft/ as the project's spec — those are framework-internal
  (e.g. deft/PROJECT.md, deft/specs/, deft/templates/, deft/core/project.md
  are all part of the framework, NOT the user's project)

Onboarding Question

! Before proceeding with the strategy gate, ask the onboarding question. Use the same add-scope / update / replace vocabulary as the Chaining Gate in strategies/interview.md.

Brownfield detector (same as Chaining Gate): PROJECT-DEFINITION exists (./xbrief/ or legacy ./vbrief/) OR any lifecycle folder (proposed/, pending/, active/, completed/, cancelled/) has scope records.

"How should we treat this project's specification?"

1. Add scope to this project [default when brownfield] — load existing identity; skip greenfield "what are we building?"; emit one proposed scope; Preparatory Guard on write
2. Update project definition — delta interview → Spec-Generating Guard → merge narratives into existing PROJECT-DEFINITION
3. Replace specification (scrap) — only after explicit affirmative (yes / confirmed); then full new-spec path
4. Starting a new project specification [default when greenfield] — proceed to the Strategy Gate below
5. Discuss — explore these options before choosing
6. Back — return to the previous setup question

• ! Default based on repo state via the brownfield detector above (brownfield → Add scope; greenfield → Starting new)
• ! Final two numbered options MUST be Discuss and Back per `../../contracts/deterministic-questions.md`
• ! If Add scope: skip the full interview, create a new scope xBRIEF in ./xbrief/proposed/ with the user's description, apply Preparatory Guard on write, then surface the Lifecycle Bridge + End-of-Phase-3 Export Prompt + handoff sections below (do not dead-end after the write)
• ! If Update project definition: run a delta interview; apply Spec-Generating Guard against ./xbrief/PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json (or legacy ./vbrief/PROJECT-DEFINITION.vbrief.json if that is the existing identity); merge narratives (do not wholesale replace unless the user confirmed scrap)
• ! If Replace specification (scrap): require explicit yes/confirmed, then proceed to the Strategy Gate as a greenfield-style full path
• ! If Starting new: proceed to the Strategy Gate below
• ⊗ Treat brownfield repos as "Starting new" by default
• ⊗ Accept vague confirmation (proceed, ok) for Replace/scrap
• ⊗ Exit immediately after Add-scope write without the lifecycle bridge / export / handoff guidance

⚠️ MANDATORY: Strategy Gate — Do This First

! STOP. You MUST determine the correct strategy before doing anything else.

1. ! Open ./xbrief/PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json (the file written in Phase 2)
2. ! Find the narratives.Strategy value
3. ! Extract the strategy name from the narrative

Dispatch:

• interview (or default) → Continue to the Sizing Gate below ✅

• anything else (discuss, yolo, speckit, research, brownfield, map, etc.) →

  1. ! Read deft/strategies/{strategy-name}.md right now, in this same turn
  2. ! Begin the strategy's workflow immediately — ask its first question
  3. ! For research, the first question is the strategy's Scope Confirmation Gate (#1273); ask it and wait before any autonomous research begins.
  4. ! For research, after the research artifact is written, surface the strategy's Then: Chaining Gate and wait for a user selection; do NOT create scope xBRIEFs from research output unless the user later chooses a spec-generating path; do NOT fall through to the interview output path after research.
  5. ! STOP reading this section — do NOT use the interview process below

• ⊗ Default to interview without reading PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json

• ⊗ Continue reading below when PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json specifies a non-interview strategy

• ⊗ Assume interview because the sections below describe the interview process

• ⊗ Fabricate justification for using interview when the user chose a different strategy

• ⊗ Announce the strategy choice and then stop — you must immediately read the file and start

---

⬇️ Everything below applies ONLY to the interview strategy. If your strategy is anything else, STOP — follow your strategy file instead.

Sizing Gate (interview and yolo strategies only)

! After hearing what the user wants to build and their feature list, determine
project complexity per strategies/interview.md.

• ! Check PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json narratives for Light or Full — if declared, use that path
• ! If not declared, propose a size and ask the user to confirm in a dedicated message
• ! Wait for the user's response before asking any interview questions
• ⊗ Combine the sizing proposal with the first interview question
• ⊗ Proceed to interview questions before the user has confirmed the path

Light (small/medium): Interview → slim narratives (Overview + Architecture) in PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json → scope xBRIEFs in xbrief/proposed/.
Full (large/complex): Interview → rich PROJECT-DEFINITION narratives for user approval → scope xBRIEFs with traceability.

! Neither greenfield path creates xbrief/specification.xbrief.json; that file remains a full-spec compatibility artifact.

Interview Process (interview strategy)

Per strategies/interview.md:

• ! Ask what to build and features first
• ! Ask ONE focused, non-trivial question per step
• ~ Provide numbered options with an "other" choice
• ! Mark which option is RECOMMENDED
• ⊗ Ask multiple questions at once
• ⊗ Make assumptions without clarifying
• ~ Use structured question tools for interview questions only when they preserve visible numeric option labels and return numeric selections or exact displayed option text; otherwise render the numbered menu in chat.

Question Areas:

• ! Missing decisions (language, framework, deployment)
• ! Edge cases (errors, boundaries, failure modes)
• ! Implementation details (architecture, patterns, libraries)
• ! Requirements (performance, security, scalability)
• ! UX/constraints (users, timeline, compatibility)
• ! Tradeoffs (simplicity vs features, speed vs safety)

Non-Technical Users:

• ~ Adjust vocabulary: "How do you want to store data?" not "What database engine?"
• ~ "Will other apps talk to this?" not "REST or GraphQL?"

Completion:

• ! Continue until little ambiguity remains
• ! Spec must be comprehensive enough to implement

Output — Light Path

1. ! Merge the confirmed slim narratives into ./xbrief/PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json:
   • Overview: Brief project summary
   • Architecture: System design description
2. ! Create scope xBRIEFs in ./xbrief/proposed/ for each identified work item
   • Each scope xBRIEF follows the YYYY-MM-DD-descriptive-slug.xbrief.json filename convention (slug rules in `../../conventions/vbrief-filenames.md`)
   • Each MUST use "xBRIEFInfo": { "version": "0.8" }
   • Each MUST include embedded Requirements (FR-N, NFR-N) in its narrative
   • Each task SHOULD reference which FR/NFR it implements via narrative.Traces
   • When the scope originates from a GitHub issue, include a references entry in the canonical form (see `../../conventions/references.md`):

     "references": [
       {
         "uri": "https://github.com/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{N}",
         "type": "x-xbrief/github-issue",
         "title": "Issue #{N}: {issue title}"
       }
     ]

3. ! Summarize decisions and ask the user to approve the PROJECT-DEFINITION narratives and proposed scope set
4. ! Record approval in the setup session; do not manufacture or require specification.xbrief.json

• ⊗ Create a separate PRD.md on the Light path
• ⊗ Generate an authoritative PRD.md — if needed, users run task prd:render

! The xBRIEF files MUST conform to xbrief/schemas/xbrief-core-0.8.schema.json (v0.8):

• ! All narratives and narrative values MUST be plain strings — never objects or arrays
• ! Nested children within a PlanItem use items (preferred field); subItems is the deprecated legacy alias kept for backward compatibility only
• ⊗ Mix items and subItems on the same PlanItem — pick one (prefer items)
• ⊗ Emit "version": "0.6" on any new write path — current engine write-default is 0.8 only (#2971)

Output — Full Path

1. ! Merge these rich narratives into ./xbrief/PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json for review:
   • ProblemStatement: What problem this project solves
   • Goals: High-level project goals
   • UserStories: User stories in standard format
   • Requirements: Structured requirements (FR-N: ..., NFR-N: ...)
   • SuccessMetrics: Measurable success criteria
   • Architecture: System design and technical architecture
   • Overview: Brief project summary
2. ! Human approval gate: Present the PROJECT-DEFINITION narratives and proposed scope plan to the user for review. The user may request changes before approving.
3. ! Record approval in the setup session and proceed to downstream generation; do not manufacture or require specification.xbrief.json
4. ! Create scope xBRIEFs in ./xbrief/proposed/ with traceability to requirement IDs from the narratives

• ! Scope xBRIEFs MUST trace tasks back to requirement IDs (FR-1, NFR-1) from the Requirements narrative
• ⊗ Generate an authoritative PRD.md — if needed, users run task prd:render

Spec Structure (both paths):

• ! Overview, Architecture
• ! Implementation Plan: scope xBRIEFs in xbrief/proposed/ with phases and dependencies
• ! Explicit dependency mapping MUST use the field consumers actually read for the scope shape:
  • Story-shaped scopes (plan.metadata.kind = "story" or scopes intended for swarm allocation / decompose): sequential/blocked work MUST set plan.metadata.swarm.depends_on to an array of resolvable story identifiers. Swarm readiness, decompose, and queue traversal read only this field for story ordering — not plan.metadata.dependencies alone. ! Each depends_on entry MUST equal the blocking scope's plan.id when that field is set; otherwise the blocking artifact's filename stem (basename with .xbrief.json / .vbrief.json stripped — the same stem readiness uses as story_id). ⊗ Use rendered titles, free-form prose, date-only prefixes, or unstripped full filenames — those do not resolve and leave the generated scope blocked.
  • Phase/epic or cross-scope roadmap batches: MAY also set plan-level plan.metadata.dependencies for roadmap/export readers.
  • edges / references may supplement documentation but do not replace plan.metadata.swarm.depends_on for sequential story scopes.
• ! When multiple scopes are produced in one Phase 3 pass, encode machine-readable dependency ordering before finishing the write: independent scopes use empty plan.metadata.swarm.depends_on ([]); sequential/blocked story scopes use non-empty plan.metadata.swarm.depends_on. Optionally mirror the same DAG in plan.metadata.dependencies for roadmap views.
• ~ Scopes designed for parallel work by multiple agents
• ⊗ Deposit sequential story-shaped scopes with only plan.metadata.dependencies / edges / references and missing plan.metadata.swarm.depends_on — orchestration will treat them as independent or reject readiness.
• ⊗ Deposit multiple generated scope xBRIEFs with no dependency metadata and rely on filenames or human prose for ordering.
• ! Testing Strategy and Deployment captured in narratives
• ⊗ Write code — specification only

Lifecycle Bridge to Downstream Skills (#1025)

! Scope xBRIEFs created by Phase 3 (both Light and Full paths) AND by the Onboarding Question "Add scope to this project" branch land in xbrief/proposed/ with plan.status: proposed. This is the canonical deposit point per the deft lifecycle (proposed -> pending -> active -> completed). The #810 implementation-intent gate (task xbrief:preflight) and the deft-directive-swarm Phase 0 Step 1 preflight BOTH require candidate xBRIEFs to live in xbrief/active/ with plan.status == "running" before any agent can dispatch against them; setup deliberately stops at proposed/ because the lifecycle commitment (promote + activate) belongs to the downstream skill, not the setup interview.

! Surface this bridge to the user in the Phase 3 → next-skill handoff so they are not surprised by a wholesale preflight rejection downstream:

• If the next step is skills/deft-directive-swarm/SKILL.md: the swarm skill's Phase 0 Step 0.5 (Lifecycle Bridge -- Promote and Activate Proposed Scope xBRIEFs) is the canonical bridge. The monitor will scan xbrief/proposed/ and xbrief/pending/, present in-scope candidates, and run task scope:promote -- <path> then task scope:activate -- <path> on explicit user approval. No manual operator action is required ahead of the swarm invocation.
• If the next step is skills/deft-directive-refinement/SKILL.md: the refinement skill's Phase 4 (Promote/Demote) owns the same task scope:promote / task scope:activate surface and runs the bridge as part of the refinement loop. The refinement skill MAY leave xBRIEFs in pending/ deliberately when they are queued for prioritisation rather than immediate dispatch.
• If the user wants to invoke an implementation agent directly via skills/deft-directive-build/SKILL.md or start_agent: the bridge MUST be run manually before dispatch -- task scope:promote -- xbrief/proposed/<file> then task scope:activate -- xbrief/pending/<file>. Both commands are idempotent and exit 0 on no-op. The #810 preflight gate (task xbrief:preflight -- <active-path>) will exit 0 only after the activate step.

⊗ Auto-run task scope:promote or task scope:activate from the setup skill on the Phase 3 outputs. The lifecycle commitment belongs to the user ("I am ready to swarm/build on this scope"), not the setup interview; silent promotion would clear the #810 implementation-intent gate without explicit user authorisation and bypass the deterministic-questions contract that protects every other Phase 3 transition.

⊗ Drop the user at the end of Phase 3 with scope xBRIEFs in xbrief/proposed/ and no forward pointer to the bridge. Without this section the user discovers the gap at runtime when the swarm Phase 0 Step 1 preflight rejects every candidate (Invalid transition: 'activate' requires file in pending/), as in the originating 2026-05-10 first-session consumer tic-tac-toe swarm (issue #1025).

End-of-Phase-3 Export Prompt (project:export-spec)

! After scope xBRIEFs are written to xbrief/proposed/ and PROJECT-DEFINITION is populated, but BEFORE handing off to deft-directive-build (or advancing speckit Phase 3 → Phase 4), ask the user whether to generate human-readable exports. Greenfield v0.20 projects export via task project:export-spec (not legacy task spec:render). This replaces the invisible skip-if-absent behavior of task check (#398), closes the greenfield gap (#433), and is the Phase 3 → Phase 4 transition gate required by strategies/speckit.md Post-Phase 3 Transition Gate (#432 / #2013).

1. ! Prompt: "Your scope xBRIEFs are ready. Generate a stakeholder-facing spec export and/or PRD.md now? (recommended for stakeholder review)"
   1. Yes — export spec (+ PRD if selected)
   2. Spec export only (SPECIFICATION.md)
   3. PRD.md only
   4. Skip — I'll export later with task project:export-spec / task prd:render
2. ! Run the selected export command(s):
   • task project:export-spec → writes SPECIFICATION.md from PROJECT-DEFINITION + lifecycle scopes (greenfield default; stakeholder audience)
   • task project:export-spec -- --audience=internal → same export but includes proposed scopes under ## Scope outlook (use for setup/speckit internal handoff when proposed scopes need visibility)
   • task prd:render → writes PRD.md (optional stakeholder review)
   • Legacy task spec:render — migrated trees only (when xbrief/specification.xbrief.json exists); do NOT use on greenfield v0.20 projects
3. ! If the user picked a speckit-strategy project: export is mandatory at this boundary — invoke task project:export-spec (with --audience=internal when proposed scopes exist) even if the user declined the prompt, because speckit Phase 3 → Phase 4 is gated on export succeeded (exit 0), not on specification.xbrief.json approval.
4. ! Confirm to the user which files were written and remind them that direct edits to SPECIFICATION.md / PRD.md are overwritten on the next export — edit xBRIEF narratives in xbrief/proposed/ and PROJECT-DEFINITION instead.
5. ~ If the user skipped export and is NOT on a speckit strategy, no-op and continue.

⊗ Advance a speckit project to Phase 4 without a successful task project:export-spec at this gate — export must succeed (exit 0) for the Phase 3 transition criterion.
⊗ Silently skip the prompt — greenfield users who never open a PR will miss the exports without it.
⊗ Invoke legacy task spec:render on a greenfield v0.20 project — use task project:export-spec instead (#2013).

Handoff to deft-directive-build

• ! Emit a structured-tool question asking whether to continue toward the build phase only when the host preserves numeric labels; otherwise emit the deterministic numbered menu in chat. Options: 1. Yes (run cost phase), 2. Not now (exit setup), 3. Discuss, 4. Back (revisit previous phase). The numeric labels MUST remain visible and be returned as numeric selections or exact displayed option text.
• ! If the user picks Yes, invoke skills/deft-directive-cost/SKILL.md; only a recorded Build or Skip decision from that skill may hand off to skills/deft-directive-build/SKILL.md
• ⊗ Invoke the build skill directly from setup and bypass the required cost decision
• ⊗ Leave user with a dead end -- always offer the next step via the structured-tool phase-transition question
• ⊗ Ask the handoff-to-build question as unnumbered conversational prose or through a structured UI that hides the canonical numeric labels -- it is a deterministic menu and MUST preserve visible numbers (#478, #1563).

Warp Auto-Approve Warning

! Recommended Warp setting: Before running deft-directive-setup, ensure Warp's AI autonomy is set to "Always ask" in AI -> Profile Settings. When set to a higher autonomy level (e.g. "Auto-run"), Warp may silently self-answer interview questions without user input, producing garbage USER.md/PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json with no error or warning. The post-interview confirmation gate (below) is the last line of defense, but prevention is better than detection.

Post-Interview Confirmation Gate

! After completing ALL interview questions for any phase (Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3), but BEFORE writing any files:

1. ! Display a summary of all captured values in a clearly formatted list -- include every field that will be written to the output file (e.g. name, strategy, coverage, languages, project type, custom rules, etc.)
2. ! Ask the user for explicit confirmation: "These are the values I captured. Write files? (yes/no)"
3. ! Accept only explicit affirmative responses (yes, confirmed, approve) -- reject vague responses (proceed, do it, go ahead) the same way /deft:change does
4. ! If the user says no: re-display the values and ask which ones to correct, then re-confirm before writing
5. ! If any value appears to be auto-generated filler (e.g. repeated default text, placeholder strings, or values that echo the question prompt), warn the user explicitly: "Some values look like they may have been auto-filled rather than provided by you. Please review carefully."

⊗ Write USER.md, PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json, lifecycle scope xBRIEFs, or any other deft-directive-setup artifact without first displaying captured values and receiving explicit user confirmation.
⊗ Create specification.xbrief.json on a greenfield Light or Full path solely to satisfy export, cost, or build handoff.
⊗ Treat a broad "proceed" or "continue" as confirmation to write files -- the user must explicitly confirm the displayed values.

? Yolo strategy carve-out: When the user's chosen strategy is yolo (auto-pilot), the confirmation gate still applies but the agent (Johnbot) may self-confirm on the user's behalf by displaying the summary and immediately proceeding -- the user has already opted into auto-pilot by selecting yolo. The summary must still be displayed so the user can interrupt if values look wrong.

Anti-Patterns

• ! When deft-directive-setup generates or updates USER.md or PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json, the deft_version field MUST be set to the current framework version
• ⊗ Generate a USER.md or PROJECT-DEFINITION.xbrief.json without including the deft_version field
• ⊗ Explore codebase before Phase 1 questions
• ⊗ Read framework files before first question
• ⊗ Batch multiple questions into one message — ask one at a time, interview style
• ⊗ Ask jargon-heavy questions to non-technical users
• ⊗ Ask about things inferable from codebase (Phase 2+)
• ⊗ Skip phases without asking
• ⊗ Generate files without confirming content
• ⊗ Present choices through a host UI that replaces the canonical numbers with alphabetic affordances or unlabeled buttons
• ⊗ Resolve paths relative to the skill file, AGENTS.md, or framework directory instead of the user's pwd at skill entry
• ⊗ Generate an authoritative PRD.md — PRD.md is a read-only export via task prd:render, never a source of truth
• ⊗ Skip the Returning-user re-entry / Revisit experimental rules path when USER.md exists and the operator entered setup to change experimental meta (#46)
• ⊗ Clobber Personal or Defaults while toggling Experimental Rules (#46)
• ⊗ Invent a full deft config verb family for experimental meta when setup re-entry suffices (#46)