/flow-next-capture

name: flow-next-capture
description: Synthesize the current conversation context into a flow-next spec at `.flow/specs/<spec-id>.md` via `flowctl spec create + spec set-plan` — agent-native, source-tagged, with a saved-spec summary and editor follow-up. Triggers on /flow-next:capture, "capture spec", "lock down what we discussed", "make a spec from this conversation", "convert conversation to spec". Optional `mode:autofix` token runs without questions and requires `--yes` to write. Optional `--rewrite <spec-id>` overwrites an existing spec; `--from-compacted-ok` overrides the incomplete-evidence refusal after compaction; `--override-strategy` proceeds despite a contradiction with an active STRATEGY.md track (and prompts to record the override as a decision); `--no-plan` sets the spec-level `no_plan` field after the write (explicit opt-in on a user invocation, never inferred there); `from:flow` marks a run dispatched by `/flow-next:flow`, where capture applies the shared plan-versus-no-plan rule and sets the field itself when the rule resolves to direct.
user-invocable: false
allowed-tools: AskUserQuestion, Read, Bash, Grep, Glob, Write, Edit, Task

/flow-next:capture — agent-native conversation → spec

A free-form discussion (or a `/flow-next:prospect` survivor) frequently produces enough material for a complete spec, but stops short of the formal `flowctl spec create` + `spec set-plan` heredoc documented in `CLAUDE.md`. Without an explicit synthesis step, that context decays — the next session loses the conversation, the spec never lands, and the user re-explains the same idea to `/flow-next:plan`.

This skill IS the synthesis. The host agent (Claude Code / Codex / Droid) extracts the recent user turns, drafts a CLAUDE.md-shaped spec with **per-line source tags** (`[user]` / `[paraphrase]` / `[inferred]` / `[strategy:<track>]`), **writes the spec through existing flowctl plumbing, prints a compact summary, and offers to open it in the editor** (capture's saved-spec review in [docs/read-back.md](../../docs/read-back.md)). The capture request authorizes the write; there is no approve-and-write checkpoint. Substantive choices still use short questions. There is no Python synthesizer, no codex / copilot subprocess, no fast-model classifier. The host agent is already an LLM and does the work directly.

flowctl provides thin spec plumbing (`spec create`, `spec set-plan`, optional `spec set-branch`, `memory search` for duplicate detection) plus the chart handoff callback (`chart link-spec`) after a successful chart-briefing capture. Capture never writes chart files and never mutates a chart's `ready` flag; chart never writes `.flow/specs`.

Routing boundary (route matrix)

Clear meaningful ideas and finished chart briefings route **here** - to capture (or direct spec authoring). Capture does **not** manufacture a chart for clear work. When intent and boundaries are already stateable, skip chart (`signal absent`). After a structured brief lands, narrow or skip interview only once the source-grounded synthesis proves no material gaps - never pre-skip interview on hope. Unsure: `/flow-next:flow --explain`.

**Read [workflow.md](workflow.md) for the full phase-by-phase execution. Read [phases.md](phases.md) for the source-tag taxonomy and confidence tiers.** Path-specific machinery lives in `references/*.md`, loaded only when the gate at its branch point fires — a run that never takes a branch never pays for it.

Preamble

**CRITICAL: flowctl is BUNDLED — NOT installed globally.** `which flowctl` will fail (expected). Define once; subsequent blocks (here and in `workflow.md` / `phases.md`) use `$FLOWCTL`:

FLOWCTL="${DROID_PLUGIN_ROOT:-${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}}/scripts/flowctl"
[ -x "$FLOWCTL" ] || FLOWCTL="<plugin-root>/scripts/flowctl"   # <plugin-root> = the directory two levels above this skill's SKILL.md file (the harness gave you that file's absolute path when the skill loaded); substitute it literally
[ -x "$FLOWCTL" ] || FLOWCTL=".flow/bin/flowctl"

**Inline skill (no `context: fork`)** — `AskUserQuestion` must stay reachable across phases. Subagents can't call blocking question tools (Claude Code issues #12890, #34592). Duplicate detection, material ambiguities, split selection, and the editor follow-up still need user choice in interactive mode. (sync-codex.sh rewrites this to a plain-text numbered prompt in the Codex mirror.)

Mode Detection

Parse `$ARGUMENTS` for the literal tokens `mode:autofix` and `from:flow` and the flags `--rewrite <spec-id>`, `--from-compacted-ok`, `--yes`, `--override-strategy`, `--no-plan`. Strip recognized tokens; whatever remains is treated as freeform context (ignored - the conversation is the input, not `$ARGUMENTS`).

RAW_ARGS="$ARGUMENTS"
MODE="interactive"
REWRITE_TARGET=""
FROM_COMPACTED_OK=0
COMMIT_YES=0
OVERRIDE_STRATEGY=0

# Mode token
if [[ "$RAW_ARGS" == *"mode:autofix"* ]]; then
  MODE="autofix"
  RAW_ARGS="${RAW_ARGS//mode:autofix/}"
fi

# --rewrite <id>
if [[ "$RAW_ARGS" =~ --rewrite[[:space:]]+([^[:space:]]+) ]]; then
  REWRITE_TARGET="${BASH_REMATCH[1]}"
  RAW_ARGS="${RAW_ARGS//--rewrite ${REWRITE_TARGET}/}"
fi

# --from-compacted-ok
if [[ "$RAW_ARGS" == *"--from-compacted-ok"* ]]; then
  FROM_COMPACTED_OK=1
  RAW_ARGS="${RAW_ARGS//--from-compacted-ok/}"
fi

# --yes (autofix write gate)
if [[ "$RAW_ARGS" == *"--yes"* ]]; then
  COMMIT_YES=1
  RAW_ARGS="${RAW_ARGS//--yes/}"
fi

# --override-strategy (Phase 5.0 strategy-contradiction override)
if [[ "$RAW_ARGS" == *"--override-strategy"* ]]; then
  OVERRIDE_STRATEGY=1
  RAW_ARGS="${RAW_ARGS//--override-strategy/}"
fi

# --no-plan (explicit opt-in to set the spec-level no_plan field
# in §5.9b after the spec write; on a user invocation the field is never set
# without it) and from:flow (the run was dispatched by
# /flow-next:flow, so §5.9b sets the field when the plan-versus-no-plan rule
# resolves to direct). Both are EXACT-token matches, not substring tests