/war-room-checkpoint

name: war-room-checkpoint
description: Assesses decision reversibility and risk at critical checkpoints. Use when a workflow reaches a high-stakes branch needing escalation check.
alwaysApply: false
# Custom metadata (not used by Claude for matching):
model: sonnet
category: strategic-planning
tags: [checkpoint, embedded, escalation, reversibility, inline]
dependencies:
  - attune:war-room
complexity: lightweight
model_hint: fast
estimated_tokens: 400
progressive_loading: false
role: library

War Room Checkpoint Skill

Lightweight inline assessment for determining whether a decision point within a command warrants War Room escalation.

Table of Contents

1. [Purpose](#purpose) 2. [When Commands Should Invoke This](#when-commands-should-invoke-this) 3. [Invocation Pattern](#invocation-pattern) 4. [Checkpoint Flow](#checkpoint-flow) 5. [Confidence Calculation](#confidence-calculation) 6. [Profile Thresholds](#profile-thresholds) 7. [Output Format](#output-format) 8. [Examples](#examples)

Verification

Run `make attune-test` from the repository root to verify checkpoint logic still works after changes.

Purpose

This skill is **not invoked directly by users**. It is called by other commands (e.g., `/do-issue`, `/pr-review`) at critical decision points to:

1. Calculate Reversibility Score (RS) for the current context 2. Determine if full War Room deliberation is needed 3. Return either a quick recommendation (express) or escalate to full War Room

When Commands Should Invoke This

| Command | Trigger Conditions | |---------|-------------------| | `/do-issue` | 3+ issues, dependency conflicts, overlapping files | | `/pr-review` | >3 blocking issues, architecture changes, ADR violations | | `/architecture-review` | ADR violations, high coupling, boundary violations | | `/fix-pr` | Major scope, conflicting reviewer feedback |

When NOT To Use

| Situation | Use instead | |-----------|-------------| | A user asks for deliberation directly | `Skill(attune:war-room)` | | The decision is cheap to reverse (high RS) | Proceed without a checkpoint | | A panel already ruled on this decision | The prior verdict |

This skill decides *whether* deliberation is warranted and returns fast when it is not. A command that checkpoints every decision pays the scoring cost to be told to proceed almost every time, and re-checkpointing a settled call re-litigates it.

Invocation Pattern

Skill(attune:war-room-checkpoint) with context:
  - source_command: "{calling_command}"
  - decision_needed: "{human_readable_question}"
  - files_affected: [{list_of_files}]
  - issues_involved: [{issue_numbers}] (if applicable)
  - blocking_items: [{type, description}] (if applicable)
  - conflict_description: "{summary}" (if applicable)
  - profile: "default" | "startup" | "regulated" | "fast" | "cautious"

Checkpoint Flow

Step 1: Context Analysis

Analyze the provided context to extract:

• Scope of change (files, modules, services affected)
• Stakeholders impacted
• Conflict indicators
• Time pressure signals

Step 2: Reversibility Assessment

Calculate RS using the 5-dimension framework:

| Dimension | Assessment Question | |-----------|-------------------| | Reversal Cost | How hard to undo this decision? | | Time Lock-In | Does this crystallize immediately? | | Blast Radius | How many components/people affected? | | Information Loss | Does this close off future options? | | Reputation Impact | Is this visible externally? |

Score each 1-5, calculate RS = Sum / 25.

Step 3: Mode Selection

Apply profile thresholds to determine mode:

if RS <= profile.express_ceiling:
    mode = "express"
elif RS <= profile.lightweight_ceiling:
    mode = "lightweight"
elif RS <= profile.full_council_ceiling:
    mode = "full_council"
else:
    mode = "delphi"

Step 4: Response Generation

Express Mode (RS <= threshold)

Return immediately with recommendation:

response:
  should_escalate: false
  selected_mode: "express"
  reversibility_score: {rs}
  decision_type: "Type 2"
  recommendation: "{quick_recommendation}"
  rationale: "{brief_explanation}"
  confidence: 0.9
  requires_user_confirmation: false

Escalate Mode (RS > threshold)

Invoke full War Room and return results:

response:
  should_escalate: true
  selected_mode: "{lightweight|full_council|delphi}"
  reversibility_score: {rs}
  decision_type: "{Type 1B|1A|1A+}"
  war_room_session_id: "{session_id}"
  orders: ["{order_1}", "{order_2}"]
  rationale: "{war_room_rationale}"
  confidence: {calculated_confidence}
  requires_user_confirmation: {true_if_confidence_low}

Confidence Calculation

For escalated decisions, calculate confidence for auto-continue:

confidence = 1.0
- 0.10 * dissenting_view_count
- 0.20 if voting_margin < 0.3
- 0.15 if RS > 0.80
- 0.10 if novel_domain
- 0.10 if compound_decision
+ 0.20 if unanimous (cap at 1.0)

requires_user_confirmation = (confidence <= 0.8)

Profile Thresholds

| Profile | Express | Lightweight | Full Council | Use Case | |---------|---------|-------------|--------------|----------| | default | 0.40 | 0.60 | 0.80 | Balanced | | startup | 0.55 | 0.75 | 0.90 | Move fast | | regulated | 0.25 | 0.45 | 0.65 | Compliance | | fast | 0.50 | 0.70 | 0.90 | Speed priority | | cautious | 0.30 | 0.50 | 0.70 | Higher stakes |

Command-Specific Adjustments

| Command | Adjustment | Rationale | |---------|-----------|-----------| | do-issue (3+ issues) | -0.10 | Higher risk with multiple issues | | pr-review (strict mode) | -0.15 | Strict mode = higher scrutiny | | architecture-review | -0.05 | Architecture inherently consequential |

Output Format

For Calling Command

Return a structured response that the calling command can act on:

## Checkpoint Response

**Source**: {source_command}
**Decision**: {decision_needed}

### Assessment
- **RS**: {reversibility_score} ({decision_type})
- **Mode**: {selected_mode}
- **