Preamble

Environment Detection

mkdir -p ~/.omni-skills/sessions
_PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/superomni/bin/config get proactive 2>/dev/null || echo "true")
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
_TEL_START=$(date +%s)
echo "Branch: $_BRANCH | PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"

CRITICAL: No EnterPlanMode

When this skill is active, NEVER use Claude Code's built-in EnterPlanMode tool. Use the superomni pipeline skills (brainstorm, writing-plans, executing-plans) instead.

PROACTIVE Mode

If PROACTIVE is false: do NOT proactively suggest skills. Only run skills the user explicitly invokes. If you would have auto-invoked, say: "I think [skill-name] might help here — want me to run it?" and wait.

Completion Status Protocol

Report status using one of these at the end of every skill session:

• DONE — All steps completed. Evidence provided.
• DONE_WITH_CONCERNS — Completed with issues. List each concern explicitly.
• BLOCKED — Cannot proceed. State what blocks you and what was tried.
• NEEDS_CONTEXT — Missing information. State exactly what you need.

Auto-Advance Rule

Pipeline stage order: THINK → PLAN → REVIEW → BUILD → VERIFY → SHIP → REFLECT

REVIEW is the only human gate. All other stages auto-advance on DONE.

Status	At REVIEW stage	At all other stages
DONE	STOP — present review summary, wait for user input (Y / N / revision notes)	Auto-advance — print [STAGE] DONE → advancing to [NEXT-STAGE] and immediately invoke next skill
DONE_WITH_CONCERNS	STOP — present concerns, wait for user decision	STOP — present concerns, wait for user decision
BLOCKED / NEEDS_CONTEXT	STOP — present blocker, wait for user	STOP — present blocker, wait for user

When auto-advancing:

1. Write the session artifact to docs/superomni/
2. Print: [STAGE] DONE → advancing to [NEXT-STAGE] ([skill-name])
3. Immediately invoke the next pipeline skill

Session Continuity

When the user sends a follow-up message after a completed session, before doing anything else:

1. Scan for prior session context:

   ls docs/superomni/specs/spec-*.md docs/superomni/plans/plan-*.md docs/superomni/ .superomni/ 2>/dev/null | head -20
   git log --oneline -3 2>/dev/null
   

   To find the latest spec or plan:

   _LATEST_SPEC=$(ls docs/superomni/specs/spec-*.md 2>/dev/null | sort | tail -1)
   _LATEST_PLAN=$(ls docs/superomni/plans/plan-*.md 2>/dev/null | sort | tail -1)
   

2. If context exists → re-engage the skill framework. Pick the skill that matches the current stage (see workflow skill for stage → skill mapping) and announce: "Continuing in superomni mode — picking up at [stage] using [skill-name]."
3. If no context → treat as a fresh session and offer the relevant skill from the Quick Reference table in using-skills/SKILL.md.

Question Confirmation Protocol

When asking the user a question, match the confirmation requirement to the complexity of the response:

Question type	Confirmation rule
Single-choice — user picks one option (A/B/C, 1/2/3, Yes/No)	The user's selection IS the confirmation. Do NOT ask "Are you sure?" or require a second submission.
Free-text input — user types a value and presses Enter	The submitted text IS the confirmation. No secondary prompt needed.
Multi-choice — user selects multiple items from a list	After the user lists their selections, ask once: "Confirm these selections? (Y to proceed)" before acting.
Complex / open-ended discussion — back-and-forth clarification	Collect all input, then present a summary and ask: "Ready to proceed with the above? (Y/N)" before acting.

Rule: never add a redundant confirmation layer on top of a single-choice or text-input answer.

Custom Input Option Rule: Whenever you present a predefined list of choices (A/B/C, numbered options, etc.), always append a final "Other" option that lets the user describe their own idea:

  [last letter/number + 1]) Other — describe your own idea: ___________

When the user selects "Other" and provides their custom text, treat that text as the chosen option and proceed exactly as you would for any other selection. If the custom text is ambiguous, ask one clarifying question before proceeding.

Context Window Management

Load context progressively — only what is needed for the current phase:

Phase	Load these	Defer these
Planning	Latest docs/superomni/specs/spec-*.md, constraints, prior decisions	Full codebase, test files
Implementation	Latest docs/superomni/plans/plan-*.md, relevant source files	Unrelated modules, docs
Review/Debug	diff, failing test output, minimal repro	Full history, specs

If context pressure is high: summarize prior phases into 3-5 bullet points, then discard raw content.

Output Directory

All skill artifacts are written to docs/superomni/ (relative to project root). See the Document Output Convention in CLAUDE.md for the full directory map.

Feedback Signal Protocol

Agent failures are harness signals — not reasons to retry the same approach:

• 1 failure → retry with a different approach
• 2 failures → surface to user: "Tried [A] and [B], both failed. Recommend [C]."
• 3 consecutive failures → STOP. Report BLOCKED. Treat as a harness deficiency signal. Recommended: invoke harness-engineering skill to update the harness before retrying.
• Uncertain about security → STOP and report NEEDS_CONTEXT
• Scope exceeds verification capacity → STOP and flag blast radius

It is always OK to stop and say "this is too hard for me." Escalation is expected, not penalized.

Performance Checkpoint

After completing any skill session, run a 3-question self-check before writing the final status:

1. Process — Did I follow all defined phases? If any were skipped, state why.
2. Evidence — Is every claim backed by a test result, command output, or file reference? If not, gather the missing evidence now.
3. Scope — Did I stay within the task boundary? If I touched files outside the original scope, flag them explicitly.

If any answer is NO, address it before reporting DONE. If it cannot be addressed, report DONE_WITH_CONCERNS and name the gap.

For a full performance evaluation spanning the entire sprint, use the self-improvement skill.

Telemetry (Local Only)

_TEL_END=$(date +%s)
_TEL_DUR=$(( _TEL_END - _TEL_START ))
~/.claude/skills/superomni/bin/analytics-log "SKILL_NAME" "$_TEL_DUR" "OUTCOME" 2>/dev/null || true

Nothing is sent to external servers. Data is stored only in ~/.omni-skills/analytics/.

/office-hours — Product Discovery

Goal: Before writing a single line of code, understand the real problem, the real user, and the real market. Save a design-doc.md that downstream skills can use.

Iron Law: Understand Before Building

Never start implementation without a design-doc.md. If the user is excited about a solution, your job is to find the problem behind the solution.

Step 1: Choose Mode

Ask the user which mode applies:

Startup Mode — validating a real product for real users with growth expectations Builder Mode — side project, hackathon, open source, learning, or personal tool

Startup Mode — 6 Forcing Questions

Ask these questions one at a time (never all at once):

Q1: Demand Reality

"Tell me about the last time this problem bit you specifically. Not in general — the last actual time. What were you doing, what happened, and what did you do about it?"

Goal: Find if the problem is real or hypothetical.

Q2: Status Quo

"What do people do today to solve this? Walk me through their current workflow."

Goal: Find the incumbent. If there's no status quo, there may be no market.

Q3: Desperate Specificity

"Who woke up this morning already desperate for this? Not 'people who' — name a specific type of person and describe their Monday morning."

Goal: Find the beachhead user. Vague answers → vague product.

Q4: Narrowest Wedge

"What is the absolute minimum you could build in a week that would be genuinely useful to the desperate user? Not a demo — actually useful."

Goal: Force scope reduction to something shippable.

Q5: Observation

"Have you talked to 5 of these users? What did they tell you that surprised you?"

Goal: Find whether research has happened or if this is assumption-driven.

Q6: Future-Fit

"In 3 years, if this works, what does the company look like? What has to be true about the market?"

Goal: Find if the wedge leads anywhere.

Builder Mode — Design Thinking

Ask these questions to frame the builder's project:

1. Pain: "What problem are you personally trying to solve? When did it last bother you?"
2. Existing solutions: "What have you tried? Why didn't it work?"
3. Unique angle: "What do you know or have access to that makes your version different?"
4. Success definition: "How will you know in 30 days if this was worth building?"
5. Scope: "If you had to ship something in a weekend, what's the one thing it does?"

Step 2: Challenge and Reframe

After answers are collected, push back:

• Challenge the framing if it's feature-focused (find the problem)
• Name the actual product category (not the feature described)
• Extract 3-5 capabilities the user described but didn't name
• Challenge 2-3 premises you believe might be wrong
• Generate 3 alternative implementations with effort estimates

End with: RECOMMENDATION: Ship the narrowest wedge. The full vision is a [timeframe] project — start with what works tomorrow.

Step 3: Write the Design Doc

Create design-doc.md in the project root:

# Design Doc: [Product Name]

## Problem
[2-3 sentences: who has what problem, how badly]

## User
[Specific: "The person who..." not "People who..."]

## Status Quo
[What they do today. Why it's not good enough.]

## Solution
[The narrowest wedge. One paragraph.]

## Success Criteria (30 days)
[Measurable: X users, Y actions, Z outcome]

## Out of Scope (v1)
[Things we deliberately are NOT building]

## Implementation Alternatives
1. [Option A] — [effort, tradeoff]
2. [Option B] — [effort, tradeoff]
3. [Option C] — [effort, tradeoff]

## Open Questions
- [ ] [Question that must be answered before building]

Output Format

OFFICE HOURS COMPLETE
════════════════════════════════════════
Mode:        [Startup | Builder]
Product:     [Name]
User:        [Specific persona]
Wedge:       [The minimum viable thing]
Design doc:  design-doc.md

Status: DONE | DONE_WITH_CONCERNS | BLOCKED
════════════════════════════════════════