From sdd
Socratically stress-tests a raw idea before turning it into a spec. Runs 3 phases (understand intent, surface tradeoffs, propose angles) via structured questions, ending with risks and next steps.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/sdd:interviewopusThis skill is limited to the following tools:
The summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Pressure-tests an idea **before** it becomes a spec. The user shares a raw idea; across **3
Pressure-tests an idea before it becomes a spec. The user shares a raw idea; across 3
phases you surface hidden assumptions, name tradeoffs, expose imprecisions, and propose
fresh angles — then hand the survivor to specify. This is the optional pre-backbone step:
it makes specify cheaper by killing or reshaping a weak idea before any spec gets written.
Scope: any idea. Product, content, business, architecture, refactor approach — all in scope. The boundary: this is an interview about the idea, not codebase archaeology. Ask the user to articulate the idea in words first. Consult files only if the user explicitly invites it; default is interview-first, no unprompted grep/find/read.
Language. Respond in the user's language; the instructions here are English for clarity.
The depth dial and the Socratic posture are SDD-wide:
→ ../_shared/interview-depth.md · ../_shared/ask-style.md
One AskUserQuestion, then commit (default medium). Depth governs question volume and how
much you decide for the user:
| Depth | Questions | Posture |
|---|---|---|
| easy | 3-4 | Decide-for-you. One pass on intent, one sharp tradeoff, one angle. |
| medium (default) | 6-10 | Balanced. Full three phases. |
| hard | 10-15 | Interrogate-me. Drill every assumption, run more probing frames. |
The adversarial triggers (grill / rip apart / розʼєби / погрилити) imply hard unless the user says otherwise. State the depth in one line, then start.
(Recommended), each option's description spelling out what follows from it.
Free text slips into "I don't know" and loses signal.Use 1-3 questions per phase, targeting the count from the depth dial. Move on from a phase when answers repeat, the user says "next" / "хватить", or the latest answer added nothing.
If the idea isn't stated in one sentence yet, ask for it in plain text (no AskUserQuestion). Then unpack: who suffers without this · what success concretely looks like · whether it's new or a refinement. Don't ask what's already obvious.
The core. Hunt hidden assumptions ("this assumes X — what if X is false?"), tradeoffs (time vs quality, scope vs depth, reach vs focus), imprecisions (vague terms, ambiguous metrics), attention competition, and cost of failure. Every question offers positions, not yes/no.
Probing frames — internal lenses (premortem · second-order · naive listener · inversion ·
cost of waiting · the other person). Pick what fits, mix them, don't name the frame to the
user. Worked before/after examples per lens → references/probing-frames.md.
Intensity dial. Default tone is Socratic; the adversarial triggers escalate phrasing ("Why do you think X is even true?"). The user dials back with "ease up" / "помʼякши".
Drill vs move on. Drill the same dimension when an answer surfaced a new assumption; move on once the position is clear and the tradeoff named.
Now actively propose via AskUserQuestion: 2-3 alternative shapes (different audience, format,
scale) or a twist (inversion, constraint, simplification). The Recommended option is your
strongest bet, with reasoning in description.
≤4 questions → mini; ≥5 → full.
Mini: Revised idea (one sentence) · Weakest spot (one sentence) · Next action (one verb).
Full:
## Revised idea
{one paragraph — the idea after the interview}
## What surfaced
- **Hidden assumptions**: …
- **Main tradeoff**: …
- **Weakest spot**: …
## Alternative angles
1. {strongest} 2. {second} 3. {the one they wouldn't have reached alone}
## Next step
{one concrete verb — usually "/sdd:specify <slug>" once the idea survives}
A full annotated medium-depth pass → references/annotated-pass.md.
interview writes no files — it sharpens the idea in the user's head. After the summary,
emit the stage-handoff block per ../_shared/handoff.md (utility
variant — /clear optional): What I did (the revised idea + its weakest spot) + Review
(nothing on disk — the summary above is the artifact) + Run next: when the idea is a feature
you intend to build, /sdd:specify <slug> turns the survivor into a spec; otherwise resume
whatever you were doing. Never end on a bare «Next: …».
If the user picks Other twice in a row OR writes "I don't know" / "не знаю", switch to a single open text question ("In your own words — what's bugging you most about this right now?"). Once they answer, resume AskUserQuestion with a new angle.
references/probing-frames.md — the 6 lenses with worked before/after questions.references/annotated-pass.md — a full annotated medium-depth interview.../_shared/interview-depth.md — the SDD-wide easy/medium/hard dial.../_shared/ask-style.md — the AskUserQuestion option-writing contract.../_shared/handoff.md — the stage-handoff block format.npx claudepluginhub genkovich/sdd --plugin sddConducts in-depth Socratic interviews to clarify, stress-test ideas, challenge assumptions, and generate structured outputs like specs or decision docs.
Leads Socratic discussions to clarify ideas, challenge assumptions, and surface blind spots before implementation. Activates on '/discuss' or phrases like 'discuss this'.
Orchestrates structured Socratic interviews to clarify ambiguous requirements using a dedicated interviewer agent and Ambiguity Score. Useful for vague ideas; invoke via /deep-interview or keywords.