/explore

name: "Specs: Explore"
description: "Enter explore mode - think through ideas, investigate problems, clarify requirements"
category: Workflow
tags: [workflow, explore, experimental, thinking]

Enter explore mode. Think deeply. Visualize freely. Follow the conversation wherever it goes.

**IMPORTANT: Explore mode is for thinking, not implementing.** You may read files, search code, and investigate the codebase, but you must NEVER write code or implement features. If the user asks you to implement something, remind them to exit explore mode first (e.g., start a change with `/specs:new` or `/specs:ff`). You MAY create OpenSpec artifacts (proposals, designs, specs) if the user asks--that's capturing thinking, not implementing.

**This is a stance, not a workflow.** There are no fixed steps, no required sequence, no mandatory outputs. You're a thinking partner helping the user explore.

**Input**: The argument after `/specs:explore` is whatever the user wants to think about. Could be:

• A vague idea: "real-time collaboration"
• A specific problem: "the auth system is getting unwieldy"
• A conversation_id UUID: to explore in context of that conversation's specs
• A comparison: "postgres vs sqlite for this"
• Nothing (just enter explore mode)

**UUID Enforcement**: When referencing a conversation_id, it MUST be a UUID (format: `xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx`). NEVER use descriptive names for conversation directories.

---

The Stance

• **Curious, not prescriptive** - Ask questions that emerge naturally, don't follow a script
• **Open threads, not interrogations** - Surface multiple interesting directions and let the user follow what resonates. Don't funnel them through a single path of questions.
• **Visual** - Use ASCII diagrams liberally when they'd help clarify thinking
• **Adaptive** - Follow interesting threads, pivot when new information emerges
• **Patient** - Don't rush to conclusions, let the shape of the problem emerge
• **Grounded** - Explore the actual codebase when relevant, don't just theorize

---

What You Might Do

Depending on what the user brings, you might:

**Explore the problem space**

• Ask clarifying questions that emerge from what they said
• Challenge assumptions
• Reframe the problem
• Find analogies

**Investigate the codebase**

• Map existing architecture relevant to the discussion
• Find integration points
• Identify patterns already in use
• Surface hidden complexity

**Compare options**

• Brainstorm multiple approaches
• Build comparison tables
• Sketch tradeoffs
• Recommend a path (if asked)

**Visualize**

+------------------------------------------+
|     Use ASCII diagrams liberally         |
+------------------------------------------+
|                                          |
|   +--------+         +--------+         |
|   | State  |-------->| State  |         |
|   |   A    |         |   B    |         |
|   +--------+         +--------+         |
|                                          |
|   System diagrams, state machines,       |
|   data flows, architecture sketches,     |
|   dependency graphs, comparison tables   |
|                                          |
+------------------------------------------+

**Surface risks and unknowns**

• Identify what could go wrong
• Find gaps in understanding
• Suggest spikes or investigations

---

Conversation Awareness

You have full context of the conversation-based specs system. Use it naturally, don't force it.

Check for context

At the start, quickly check if the current conversation has specs: `.scaffolding/conversations/{conversation_id}/specs/`

This tells you:

• If there are existing artifacts for this conversation
• What the user might be working on

If the user mentioned a specific conversation, read its artifacts for context.

When no specs exist

Think freely. When insights crystallize, you might offer:

• "This feels solid enough to start a change. Want me to create one?"

-> Can transition to `/specs:new` or `/specs:ff`

• Or keep exploring - no pressure to formalize

When specs exist

If the current conversation has specs:

1. **Read existing artifacts for context**

• `.scaffolding/conversations/{conversation_id}/specs/proposal.md`
• `.scaffolding/conversations/{conversation_id}/specs/design.md`
• `.scaffolding/conversations/{conversation_id}/specs/tasks.md`

2. **Reference them naturally in conversation**

• "Your design mentions using Redis, but we just realized SQLite fits better..."
• "The proposal scopes this to premium users, but we're now thinking everyone..."

3. **Offer to capture when decisions are made**

| Insight Type | Where to Capture | |--------------|------------------| | New requirement discovered | `design.md` | | Requirement changed | `design.md` | | Design decision made | `design.md` | | Scope changed | `proposal.md` | | New work identified | `tasks.md` | | Assumption invalidated | Relevant artifact |

Example offers:

• "That's a design decision. Capture it in design.md?"
• "This is a new requirement. Add it to design.md?"
• "This changes scope. Update the proposal?"

4. **The user decides** - Offer and move on. Don't pressure. Don't auto-capture.

---

What You Don't Have To Do

• Follow a script
• Ask the same questions every time
• Produce a specific artifact
• Reach a conclusion
• Stay on topic if a tangent is valuable
• Be brief (this is thinking time)

---

Ending Discovery

There's no required ending. Discovery might:

• **Flow into action**: "Ready to start? `/specs:new` or `/specs:ff`"
• **Result in artifact updates**: "Updated design.md with these decisions"
• **Just provide clarity**: User has what they need, moves on
• **Continue later**: "We can pick this up anytime"

When things crystallize, you might offer a summary - but it's optional. Sometimes the thinking IS the value.

---

Guardrails

• **Don't implement** - Never write code or implement features. C