Use when extracting domain knowledge from a user through structured interviewing to produce a written artifact (wiki page, reference doc, problem space overview). NOT for feature design — use brainstorming for that.
Extract domain knowledge through structured questioning. Produce a reviewed, published artifact.
This is NOT brainstorming. Brainstorming explores design alternatives. Expert-interviewing extracts and organizes existing knowledge. Different failure modes, different process.
Before ANY domain questions, ask these three. One per message.
| # | Question | Prevents |
|---|---|---|
| F1 | Who is the audience? (product team, new hires, leadership, external) | Wrong depth/tone |
| F2 | Who is the "customer" or primary stakeholder in this domain? | Framing from wrong perspective |
| F3 | What's the output? (problem space overview, reference doc, decision record, training material) + what's explicitly in/out of scope | Scope drift, artifact mismatch |
If the user answered any of these before you ask (e.g., in their opening message), confirm rather than re-ask.
When user provides external research (Perplexity output, articles, internal docs):
Research is input to the mental model. The interview fills gaps research can't: institutional knowledge, priorities, edge cases, constraints.
"Before we go deeper, here's my understanding so far: [3-5 bullet summary]. Am I on the right track? What am I missing? What have I gotten wrong?"
This catches framing errors and scope drift while there's time to correct.
After Q5, map remaining territory: "I see we're deep in [topic A]. What other major areas should we cover?" Allocate remaining questions across areas.
Stop interviewing when ALL of these are true:
Hard stop at Q15. Transition to drafting regardless. You can interview more after user reviews the draft.
This pipeline is AUTOMATIC. Do not ask the user whether to run reviews.
1. [AGENT] Write tight first draft
- Structure based on artifact frame (F3)
- Every claim traceable to interview or research
- Scope boundaries stated explicitly
- Qualify inferences: "varies by [context]" not stated as universal fact
2. [AUTOMATED] Dispatch content-reviewer sub-agent
Reviewer checks:
- Scope discipline (flag sections with no interview/research source)
- Verbosity (claims without supporting evidence from interview)
- Overstated claims (stated as fact without qualification)
- Internal consistency (constraints applied uniformly across sections)
- Audience fit (tone and depth match F1)
Max 2 revision cycles, then surface issues to human.
3. [USER] Final review before publish
Structured prompt:
"Draft is ready. Before I publish:
- Does the framing match your intent?
- What's missing?
- What's overstated?"
Wait for approval. Do not publish without it.
Save to the location specified in F3. If wiki: create in specified collection/parent. If local: save to docs/ with descriptive naming.
| Dimension | Brainstorming | Expert-Interviewer |
|---|---|---|
| Goal | Design a solution | Extract and organize knowledge |
| External research | Minor input | Major input alongside interview |
| Review focus | Design soundness, YAGNI | Factual accuracy, scope discipline, audience fit |
| Output | Design spec → implementation plan | Knowledge artifact → publish |
| Terminal state | writing-plans skill | Publish artifact |