Legion Questioning Flow | Skills Pool

技能档案

Legion Questioning Flow

Adaptive project initialization questioning that captures vision, requirements, and preferences

9thLevelSoftware34 星标2026年4月17日

职业: Office and Administrative Support Workers, All Other

技能内容

name legion:questioning-flow description Adaptive project initialization questioning that captures vision, requirements, and preferences triggers ["start","initialize","project","question","discovery","setup"] token_cost low summary Guided questioning flow for new project initialization. Extracts vision, requirements, constraints, and architecture preferences through structured conversation. Generates PROJECT.md, ROADMAP.md, STATE.md. Questioning Flow Adaptive conversation engine for /legion:start . Captures everything needed to populate PROJECT.md, ROADMAP.md, and STATE.md templates through a 3-stage dialogue. Section 1: Questioning Philosophy Vision first, technology second — understand what the user wants to exist before asking how to build it. Adaptive depth — follow the user's energy. If they go deep on a topic, explore it. If they give a terse answer, move on. Infer where possible, confirm where uncertain — don't ask questions the user already answered implicitly. State your inference and let them correct it. Always close with a bounded choice (CLAUDE.md mandate) — every user-facing question MUST invoke adapter.ask_user (AskUserQuestion on Claude Code) with a finite option set. Free-text prompts are not permitted. When the concept space is unbounded, include an Other / Add details option that opens a single free-text capture via adapter.prompt_free_text — never end a turn with an open prose prompt. Target 5-8 total exchanges — not 20 questions. Combine related questions. Skip what's already clear. Summarize between stages with a closure question — after each stage, reflect back what you captured and close with a bounded confirmation: Looks correct / Correct a specific field / Add missing detail / Cancel . Never close a summary with an open "Anything to add?" prompt. Section 2: Conversation Flow Stage 1: Vision & Identity (1-3 exchanges) Purpose : Capture {project_name} , {project_description} , {value_proposition} , {target_users} . Open with an adapter.ask_user (AskUserQuestion) call — not a bare prose prompt. Example option set for the opener: id label description pitch Paste or type my elevator pitch Opens adapter.prompt_free_text for a single free-text elevator pitch from-spec I have a spec/PRD to paste Opens adapter.prompt_free_text for the spec text from-url Start from a link (repo, doc, deck) Opens adapter.prompt_free_text for a URL other None of these Opens adapter.prompt_free_text for an alternative entry From the captured text, extract what you can. Then ask only what's still missing — each follow-up MUST be an adapter.ask_user call with a bounded option set (not a prose question): Slot to fill Options presented via adapter.ask_user {target_users} Concrete user archetypes inferred from the pitch (3-5 options) + Other (specify via free-text primitive) {value_proposition} Inferred value-prop candidates (2-4 options) + Refine — describe the real differentiator (free-text primitive) {architecture_notes} (competitive context) Detected adjacent products/spaces (2-4 options) + None of these — describe what's close (free-text primitive) + Nothing close exists Only open a free-text primitive when the user explicitly selects an Other / Refine / Describe option — never as the default prompt. After Stage 1 — Summarize, then close with a bounded adapter.ask_user confirmation: Display the summary as plain text: "Here's what I'm understanding: [project_name] is [project_description]. It's for [target_users] and the core value is [value_proposition]." Then invoke adapter.ask_user with these options (exact schema — no free-text default): id label description confirm Looks correct, proceed to Stage 2 Accept the summary as captured correct-name Correct the project name Opens adapter.prompt_free_text scoped to {project_name} correct-description Correct the description Opens adapter.prompt_free_text scoped to {project_description} correct-users Correct the target users Opens adapter.prompt_free_text scoped to {target_users} correct-value Correct the value proposition Opens adapter.prompt_free_text scoped to {value_proposition} add-missing Add missing detail not captured above Opens adapter.prompt_free_text for an unbounded addition cancel Cancel initialization Stop the questioning flow Wait for a selection. Do NOT emit an open "Anything to correct or add?" prompt — that is a CLAUDE.md violation. Stage 2: Requirements & Constraints (2-4 exchanges) Purpose : Capture {requirements_list} , {out_of_scope} , {constraints} , {architecture_notes} , {decisions_table} . Core capture — always via adapter.ask_user : For must-have features: id label description list-features Enter the v1 feature list Opens adapter.prompt_free_text for a bullet-list of must-haves from-spec Extract from a spec/PRD Opens adapter.prompt_free_text for the spec text defer-to-legion Let Legion propose a minimal v1 from the vision captured Legion drafts a feature list for user confirmation For out-of-scope: id label description list-out-of-scope Enter explicit exclusions Opens adapter.prompt_free_text for the exclusion list none Nothing explicit — include whatever Legion suggests No exclusions recorded Adaptive follow-ups — after detecting project type in Stage 1, invoke one adapter.ask_user call per slot with option lists inferred from the stack — never a free-prose question. Examples: Project type signal Slot Example option set Code/software stack Next.js + PostgreSQL , Django + Postgres , Rails + MySQL , Other (specify) , No preference Code/software codebase Greenfield , Brownfield (existing repo) , Fork of existing project Code/software deploy-target Vercel , Cloudflare , AWS , Self-hosted , Other (specify) , Undecided Content/marketing platforms LinkedIn , X , Instagram , TikTok , YouTube , Newsletter , Other (specify) Design devices Desktop web , Mobile web , Native iOS , Native Android , Cross-platform , Other (specify) Research/analysis deliverable Report (markdown) , Slide deck , Dashboard , Dataset , Other (specify) Rule: If you cannot enumerate 2-5 plausible options for a slot, do not ask — skip the slot and let the phase planner capture it later. General optional slots — each invoked via adapter.ask_user when relevant (skip the slot entirely if not): constraints — options: None , Timeline , Budget , Hosting , Language/stack , Other (specify) risk — options: 3-5 inferred risks + Other (specify) + No major unknowns existing-assets — options: Existing repo , Existing designs , Existing content , Nothing yet , Other (specify) timeline — options: No deadline , Soft (weeks) , Firm (date — specify) , Urgent (this week) After Stage 2 — Summarize as plain text, then close with a bounded adapter.ask_user confirmation: Summary display: "Here's the v1 scope I captured: [bullet list]. Out of scope: [items]." Close with: id label description confirm Looks correct, proceed to Stage 3 Accept the requirements as captured adjust-requirements Adjust the v1 requirements list Opens adapter.prompt_free_text scoped to {requirements_list} adjust-scope Adjust the out-of-scope list Opens adapter.prompt_free_text scoped to {out_of_scope} adjust-constraints Adjust the constraints Opens adapter.prompt_free_text scoped to {constraints} add-missing Add missing detail not captured Opens adapter.prompt_free_text for an unbounded addition cancel Cancel initialization Stop the questioning flow Do NOT close with an open "Any adjustments?" prompt — that is a CLAUDE.md violation. Stage 3: Workflow Preferences (1-2 exchanges) Purpose : Capture execution mode, planning depth, and cost profile. These shape how ROADMAP.md phases are structured and how agents execute. Present three structured choices. Use clear descriptions so the user can choose quickly. Question 1 — Execution Mode : Guided (Recommended): Legion recommends actions, you approve before each step. Best for first-time use or high-stakes projects. Autonomous : Legion plans and executes, you review at checkpoints. Best for trusted workflows or time pressure. Collaborative : Work alongside agents with high interaction. Best when you want to stay hands-on. Question 2 — Planning Depth : Standard (Recommended): Balanced planning and execution. 3-6 phases. Good for most projects. Quick Sketch : Minimal planning, start building fast. 2-3 phases. Good for prototypes or explorations. Deep Analysis : Thorough research and planning before execution. 6+ phases. Good for complex or unfamiliar domains. Question 3 — Cost Profile : Balanced (Recommended): Opus for planning, Sonnet for execution, Haiku for checks. Best cost/quality ratio. Economy : Sonnet for planning and execution, Haiku for checks. Lower cost, still capable. Premium : Opus for planning and execution, Sonnet for checks. Maximum quality, higher cost. Record choices as decisions in {decisions_table} : | Execution mode | [user rationale or "default"] | [chosen mode] | | Planning depth | [user rationale or "default"] | [chosen depth] | | Cost profile | [user rationale or "default"] | [chosen profile] | Section 3: Output Structure Placeholder Mapping Template Placeholder Source Stage How to Fill {project_name} Stage 1 Short name extracted from pitch. Use the user's own words if they named it. {project_description} Stage 1 2-3 sentence description of what the project is. {value_proposition} Stage 1 Core differentiator — why this matters. {target_users} Stage 1 Who the project serves. Concrete user types, not vague "everyone." {requirements_list} Stage 2 Checkbox list of v1 requirements (see format below). {out_of_scope} Stage 2 Bullet list of explicitly excluded items. Omit section if none stated. {constraints} Stage 2 Technical, timeline, or resource constraints. Omit section if none. {decisions_table} Stage 2-3 Table rows: | Decision | Rationale | Outcome | {architecture_notes} Stage 2 Stack choices, competitive context, technical direction. Omit if non-technical project. {date} Generated Current date in YYYY-MM-DD format. {phase_checklist} Decomposition Checkbox list of phases (see Section 4). {phase_details_sections} Decomposition One detail block per phase (see roadmap template comment). {progress_table} Decomposition One row per phase, all showing "Not started". {total_phases} Decomposition Integer count of phases. {total_plans} Decomposition Sum of estimated plans across all phases. {progress_bar} Generated Empty progress bar matching total plans width, e.g., ·········· {progress_percent} Generated 0 at initialization. {recent_decisions} Stage 3 Workflow preference decisions formatted as bullet list. {first_phase_name} Decomposition Name of Phase 1 for the "next action" prompt. Formatting Rules Requirements — each requirement is a checkbox item:

相关技能

[ ] Phase 2: {phase name} ({plan count} plans) Planning Depth Adjustments Depth Phase Count Plan Density Notes Quick Sketch 2-3 1-2 plans/phase Combine aggressively. Ship fast. Standard 3-6 2-3 plans/phase Balanced. Default recommendation. Deep Analysis 6+ 2-3 plans/phase More phases, not more plans per phase. Add research phases. Section 5: Edge Cases User wants to skip questions Accept it. Infer reasonable defaults from whatever context they provided. Record all assumptions as decisions in {decisions_table} with rationale "Inferred — user skipped detailed questioning." Apply default workflow preferences (Guided, Standard, Balanced). User provides a PRD, spec, or requirements document If the user pastes or references an existing document: Parse it to extract: project name, description, target users, requirements, constraints, and any stated technical decisions. Summarize what you extracted and confirm: "I pulled the following from your doc — anything to adjust?" Skip directly to Stage 3 (workflow preferences). Do not re-ask questions the document already answers. Record "Imported from user-provided specification" in {decisions_table} . Existing .planning/ directory detected The start.md command handles the overwrite warning. If the user confirms reinitialize, proceed with a clean questioning flow. Do not attempt to merge with existing state — it's a fresh start. Unclear or overly broad project scope Push for specificity. Use: "That's broad — if you could only ship ONE thing first, what would it be?" If the user remains vague after two attempts, scope to what's concrete and note "Scope requires further refinement" in {constraints} . Non-code project Legion supports marketing, design, content, and research projects. If the project has no code component: Skip all technical stack questions in Stage 2 Skip {architecture_notes} — omit the section Focus phase decomposition on deliverables (content pieces, design assets, campaign milestones) Agent recommendations will naturally draw from marketing, design, product, and support divisions Single-phase project If requirements are small enough for one phase, that's fine. Create a single phase with 1-2 plans. Don't pad with artificial phases. User changes their mind mid-flow If the user contradicts something from an earlier stage, update the captured data. Always use the latest stated preference. Note the pivot in {decisions_table} if it's significant.