---
name: discover
description: Take raw signal — interviews, journeys, a strategy question — to a requirement a human has ratified, so design starts from an agreed problem rather than an assumed one. Use when the user is deciding what to build, scoping a feature, or turning stakeholder conversations into requirements.
---

# discover

The first loop of the lifecycle, and the cheapest one to run twice. Everything downstream
inherits whatever this loop got wrong, which is why it ends at a **human** gate rather than a
script: no check can tell you that you solved the wrong problem well.

## Stages

| # | Stage | Type | Skills | Gate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | `gather` | generate | [`requirements-interview`](../../skills/requirements-interview/SKILL.md), [`user-journey-map`](../../skills/user-journey-map/SKILL.md), [`strategy-analysis`](../../skills/strategy-analysis/SKILL.md) | — |
| 2 | `structure` | generate | [`brief-intake`](../../../core/skills/brief-intake/SKILL.md) | — |
| 3 | `specify` | generate | [`prd-draft`](../../skills/prd-draft/SKILL.md) | — |
| 4 | `ratify` | gate | [`doc-critique`](../../../core/skills/doc-critique/SKILL.md) | **G0** human |

## How to run this loop

1. **Gather from whichever direction the signal arrives.** A stakeholder conversation →
   `requirements-interview`. An existing experience with known friction → `user-journey-map`.
   An open strategic question → `strategy-analysis`. Run one; running all three on the same
   input produces three views of the same thing and no more information.
2. **Structure once.** `brief-intake` tags every field `[explicit]` / `[implied]` /
   `[inferred]` / `[missing]` with verbatim quotes. The tags are the deliverable — an
   untagged brief hides which parts are somebody's assumption.
3. **Resolve the missing before specifying.** `brief-intake` ends with what the downstream
   skill will refuse to start without. Answer those; do not let `prd-draft` invent them.
4. **Specify.** `prd-draft` turns the brief into numbered requirements a design can be held to.
5. **Ratify at G0.** Run `doc-critique` against the PRD, then put the decision to a human.
   The critique informs; the human decides. `REVISE` returns to `structure`, not to `specify`
   — a weak PRD almost always means a thin brief.

## Verdicts

Defined in [`contracts/terminals.json`](../../../../contracts/terminals.json). G0 emits `PROCEED`,
`PROCEED WITH CONDITIONS`, `REVISE`, `RECONSIDER`, or `BLOCKED`. `RECONSIDER` leaves the loop:
the problem itself is wrong, and no amount of re-briefing fixes that.

## Non-interactive runs

With no human present, G0 cannot be satisfied. Emit `BLOCKED: need ratification of <the
brief's central claim>` and stop. Do not self-ratify — a fabricated goal corrupts every
artifact the other four loops produce.

## When a stage's skill is not installed

Name the missing skill and skilldrop as its source, do the minimal inline version of that
stage, and record that it ran degraded. Never skip G0.

## Run log (opt-in)

Only when the environment variable `SKILLDROP_LOOP_LOG` is set to a file path: after each
gate's verdict, append one JSON line to that file. Nothing else is recorded, and nothing is
sent anywhere. When the variable isn't set, or you can't read it, skip this section.

```bash
printf '%s\n' '{"ts":"2026-10-01T14:03:00Z","loop":"discover","stage":"ratify","gate":"G0","verdict":"PROCEED","round":1}' >> "$SKILLDROP_LOOP_LOG"
```

Fields: `ts` (UTC), `loop`, `stage`, `gate` (`null` for a stage without one), `verdict` (the
gate's exact word), and `round` (1 for the first attempt, counting returns under the cap).
`skilldrop loop-stats` summarises the file: which gates pass first time, which loop back, and
which end in `BLOCKED`.

## Quality bar

- **Every field carries a provenance tag.** A brief that does not distinguish quoted from inferred cannot be ratified, only believed.
- **`[missing]` is resolved or stated, never filled.** Inventing the goal, the customer, or the success measure is the one failure this loop exists to prevent.
- **The requirements are numbered and testable.** "Fast" is not a requirement; a latency target is.
- **A human ratifies before design starts.** G0 is the loop's only reason to exist — an unratified brief is a draft, whatever the critique said.

## Anti-patterns to avoid

- ❌ **Running all three `gather` skills to be thorough.** Three lenses on one input is not three inputs; pick the one that matches where the signal came from.
- ❌ **Letting `prd-draft` fill a `[missing]` field.** That converts an open question into a fact nobody agreed to.
- ❌ **Treating `doc-critique`'s `SHIP IT` as ratification.** The critique judges the document; G0 judges the problem.
- ❌ **Returning `REVISE` to `specify`.** Re-writing the PRD from the same thin brief reproduces the same gaps in better prose.