GitNexus CLI Commands

All commands work via npx — no global install required.

Commands

analyze — Build or refresh the index

npx gitnexus analyze

Run from the project root. This parses all source files, builds the knowledge graph, writes it to .gitnexus/, and generates CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md context files.

When to run: First time in a project, after major code changes, or when gitnexus://repo/{name}/context reports the index is stale. In Claude Code, a PostToolUse hook runs analyze automatically after git commit and git merge, preserving embeddings if previously generated.

status — Check index freshness

npx gitnexus status

Shows whether the current repo has a GitNexus index, when it was last updated, and symbol/relationship counts. Use this to check if re-indexing is needed.

clean — Delete the index

npx gitnexus clean

Deletes the .gitnexus/ directory and unregisters the repo from the global registry. Use before re-indexing if the index is corrupt or after removing GitNexus from a project.

wiki — Generate documentation from the graph

npx gitnexus wiki

Generates repository documentation from the knowledge graph using an LLM. Requires an API key (saved to ~/.gitnexus/config.json on first use).

list — Show all indexed repos

npx gitnexus list

Lists all repositories registered in ~/.gitnexus/registry.json. The MCP list_repos tool provides the same information.

After Indexing

1. Read gitnexus://repo/{name}/context to verify the index loaded
2. Use the other GitNexus skills (exploring, debugging, impact-analysis, refactoring) for your task

Troubleshooting

• "Not inside a git repository": Run from a directory inside a git repo
• Index is stale after re-analyzing: Restart Claude Code to reload the MCP server
• Embeddings slow: Omit --embeddings (it's off by default) or set OPENAI_API_KEY for faster API-based embedding

Debugging with GitNexus

When to Use

• "Why is this function failing?"
• "Trace where this error comes from"
• "Who calls this method?"
• "This endpoint returns 500"
• Investigating bugs, errors, or unexpected behavior

Workflow

1. gitnexus_query({query: "<error or symptom>"})            → Find related execution flows
2. gitnexus_context({name: "<suspect>"})                    → See callers/callees/processes
3. READ gitnexus://repo/{name}/process/{name}                → Trace execution flow
4. gitnexus_cypher({query: "MATCH path..."})                 → Custom traces if needed

If "Index is stale" → run npx gitnexus analyze in terminal.

Checklist

- [ ] Understand the symptom (error message, unexpected behavior)
- [ ] gitnexus_query for error text or related code
- [ ] Identify the suspect function from returned processes
- [ ] gitnexus_context to see callers and callees
- [ ] Trace execution flow via process resource if applicable
- [ ] gitnexus_cypher for custom call chain traces if needed
- [ ] Read source files to confirm root cause

Debugging Patterns

Tools

gitnexus_query — find code related to error:

gitnexus_query({query: "payment validation error"})
→ Processes: CheckoutFlow, ErrorHandling
→ Symbols: validatePayment, handlePaymentError, PaymentException

gitnexus_context — full context for a suspect:

gitnexus_context({name: "validatePayment"})
→ Incoming calls: processCheckout, webhookHandler
→ Outgoing calls: verifyCard, fetchRates (external API!)
→ Processes: CheckoutFlow (step 3/7)

gitnexus_cypher — custom call chain traces:

MATCH path = (a)-[:CodeRelation {type: 'CALLS'}*1..2]->(b:Function {name: "validatePayment"})
RETURN [n IN nodes(path) | n.name] AS chain

Example: "Payment endpoint returns 500 intermittently"

1. gitnexus_query({query: "payment error handling"})
   → Processes: CheckoutFlow, ErrorHandling
   → Symbols: validatePayment, handlePaymentError

2. gitnexus_context({name: "validatePayment"})
   → Outgoing calls: verifyCard, fetchRates (external API!)

3. READ gitnexus://repo/my-app/process/CheckoutFlow
   → Step 3: validatePayment → calls fetchRates (external)

4. Root cause: fetchRates calls external API without proper timeout

Exploring Codebases with GitNexus

When to Use

• "How does authentication work?"
• "What's the project structure?"
• "Show me the main components"
• "Where is the database logic?"
• Understanding code you haven't seen before

Workflow

1. READ gitnexus://repos                          → Discover indexed repos
2. READ gitnexus://repo/{name}/context             → Codebase overview, check staleness
3. gitnexus_query({query: "<what you want to understand>"})  → Find related execution flows
4. gitnexus_context({name: "<symbol>"})            → Deep dive on specific symbol
5. READ gitnexus://repo/{name}/process/{name}      → Trace full execution flow

If step 2 says "Index is stale" → run npx gitnexus analyze in terminal.

Checklist

- [ ] READ gitnexus://repo/{name}/context
- [ ] gitnexus_query for the concept you want to understand
- [ ] Review returned processes (execution flows)
- [ ] gitnexus_context on key symbols for callers/callees
- [ ] READ process resource for full execution traces
- [ ] Read source files for implementation details

Resources

Tools

gitnexus_query — find execution flows related to a concept:

gitnexus_query({query: "payment processing"})
→ Processes: CheckoutFlow, RefundFlow, WebhookHandler
→ Symbols grouped by flow with file locations

gitnexus_context — 360-degree view of a symbol:

gitnexus_context({name: "validateUser"})
→ Incoming calls: loginHandler, apiMiddleware
→ Outgoing calls: checkToken, getUserById
→ Processes: LoginFlow (step 2/5), TokenRefresh (step 1/3)

Example: "How does payment processing work?"

1. READ gitnexus://repo/my-app/context       → 918 symbols, 45 processes
2. gitnexus_query({query: "payment processing"})
   → CheckoutFlow: processPayment → validateCard → chargeStripe
   → RefundFlow: initiateRefund → calculateRefund → processRefund
3. gitnexus_context({name: "processPayment"})
   → Incoming: checkoutHandler, webhookHandler
   → Outgoing: validateCard, chargeStripe, saveTransaction
4. Read src/payments/processor.ts for implementation details

GitNexus Guide

Quick reference for all GitNexus MCP tools, resources, and the knowledge graph schema.

Always Start Here

For any task involving code understanding, debugging, impact analysis, or refactoring:

1. Read gitnexus://repo/{name}/context — codebase overview + check index freshness
2. Match your task to a skill below and read that skill file
3. Follow the skill's workflow and checklist

If step 1 warns the index is stale, run npx gitnexus analyze in the terminal first.

Skills

Tools Reference

Resources Reference

Lightweight reads (~100-500 tokens) for navigation:

Graph Schema

Nodes: File, Function, Class, Interface, Method, Community, Process Edges (via CodeRelation.type): CALLS, IMPORTS, EXTENDS, IMPLEMENTS, DEFINES, MEMBER_OF, STEP_IN_PROCESS

MATCH (caller)-[:CodeRelation {type: 'CALLS'}]->(f:Function {name: "myFunc"})
RETURN caller.name, caller.filePath

Impact Analysis with GitNexus

When to Use

• "Is it safe to change this function?"
• "What will break if I modify X?"
• "Show me the blast radius"
• "Who uses this code?"
• Before making non-trivial code changes
• Before committing — to understand what your changes affect

Workflow

1. gitnexus_impact({target: "X", direction: "upstream"})  → What depends on this
2. READ gitnexus://repo/{name}/processes                   → Check affected execution flows
3. gitnexus_detect_changes()                               → Map current git changes to affected flows
4. Assess risk and report to user

If "Index is stale" → run npx gitnexus analyze in terminal.

Checklist

- [ ] gitnexus_impact({target, direction: "upstream"}) to find dependents
- [ ] Review d=1 items first (these WILL BREAK)
- [ ] Check high-confidence (>0.8) dependencies
- [ ] READ processes to check affected execution flows
- [ ] gitnexus_detect_changes() for pre-commit check
- [ ] Assess risk level and report to user

Understanding Output

Risk Assessment

Tools

gitnexus_impact — the primary tool for symbol blast radius:

gitnexus_impact({
  target: "validateUser",
  direction: "upstream",
  minConfidence: 0.8,
  maxDepth: 3
})

→ d=1 (WILL BREAK):
  - loginHandler (src/auth/login.ts:42) [CALLS, 100%]
  - apiMiddleware (src/api/middleware.ts:15) [CALLS, 100%]

→ d=2 (LIKELY AFFECTED):
  - authRouter (src/routes/auth.ts:22) [CALLS, 95%]

gitnexus_detect_changes — git-diff based impact analysis:

gitnexus_detect_changes({scope: "staged"})

→ Changed: 5 symbols in 3 files
→ Affected: LoginFlow, TokenRefresh, APIMiddlewarePipeline
→ Risk: MEDIUM

Example: "What breaks if I change validateUser?"

1. gitnexus_impact({target: "validateUser", direction: "upstream"})
   → d=1: loginHandler, apiMiddleware (WILL BREAK)
   → d=2: authRouter, sessionManager (LIKELY AFFECTED)

2. READ gitnexus://repo/my-app/processes
   → LoginFlow and TokenRefresh touch validateUser

3. Risk: 2 direct callers, 2 processes = MEDIUM

Refactoring with GitNexus

When to Use

• "Rename this function safely"
• "Extract this into a module"
• "Split this service"
• "Move this to a new file"
• Any task involving renaming, extracting, splitting, or restructuring code

Workflow

1. gitnexus_impact({target: "X", direction: "upstream"})  → Map all dependents
2. gitnexus_query({query: "X"})                            → Find execution flows involving X
3. gitnexus_context({name: "X"})                           → See all incoming/outgoing refs
4. Plan update order: interfaces → implementations → callers → tests

If "Index is stale" → run npx gitnexus analyze in terminal.

Checklists

Rename Symbol

- [ ] gitnexus_rename({symbol_name: "oldName", new_name: "newName", dry_run: true}) — preview all edits
- [ ] Review graph edits (high confidence) and ast_search edits (review carefully)
- [ ] If satisfied: gitnexus_rename({..., dry_run: false}) — apply edits
- [ ] gitnexus_detect_changes() — verify only expected files changed
- [ ] Run tests for affected processes

Extract Module

- [ ] gitnexus_context({name: target}) — see all incoming/outgoing refs
- [ ] gitnexus_impact({target, direction: "upstream"}) — find all external callers
- [ ] Define new module interface
- [ ] Extract code, update imports
- [ ] gitnexus_detect_changes() — verify affected scope
- [ ] Run tests for affected processes

Split Function/Service

- [ ] gitnexus_context({name: target}) — understand all callees
- [ ] Group callees by responsibility
- [ ] gitnexus_impact({target, direction: "upstream"}) — map callers to update
- [ ] Create new functions/services
- [ ] Update callers
- [ ] gitnexus_detect_changes() — verify affected scope
- [ ] Run tests for affected processes

Tools

gitnexus_rename — automated multi-file rename:

gitnexus_rename({symbol_name: "validateUser", new_name: "authenticateUser", dry_run: true})
→ 12 edits across 8 files
→ 10 graph edits (high confidence), 2 ast_search edits (review)
→ Changes: [{file_path, edits: [{line, old_text, new_text, confidence}]}]

gitnexus_impact — map all dependents first:

gitnexus_impact({target: "validateUser", direction: "upstream"})
→ d=1: loginHandler, apiMiddleware, testUtils
→ Affected Processes: LoginFlow, TokenRefresh

gitnexus_detect_changes — verify your changes after refactoring:

gitnexus_detect_changes({scope: "all"})
→ Changed: 8 files, 12 symbols
→ Affected processes: LoginFlow, TokenRefresh
→ Risk: MEDIUM

gitnexus_cypher — custom reference queries:

MATCH (caller)-[:CodeRelation {type: 'CALLS'}]->(f:Function {name: "validateUser"})
RETURN caller.name, caller.filePath ORDER BY caller.filePath

Risk Rules

Example: Rename validateUser to authenticateUser

1. gitnexus_rename({symbol_name: "validateUser", new_name: "authenticateUser", dry_run: true})
   → 12 edits: 10 graph (safe), 2 ast_search (review)
   → Files: validator.ts, login.ts, middleware.ts, config.json...

2. Review ast_search edits (config.json: dynamic reference!)

3. gitnexus_rename({symbol_name: "validateUser", new_name: "authenticateUser", dry_run: false})
   → Applied 12 edits across 8 files

4. gitnexus_detect_changes({scope: "all"})
   → Affected: LoginFlow, TokenRefresh
   → Risk: MEDIUM — run tests for these flows

Implement tasks from an OpenSpec change.

Input: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.

Steps

1. Select the change

   If a name is provided, use it. Otherwise:

   • Infer from conversation context if the user mentioned a change
   • Auto-select if only one active change exists
   • If ambiguous, run openspec list --json to get available changes and use the AskUserQuestion tool to let the user select

   Always announce: "Using change: " and how to override (e.g., /opsx:apply <other>).

2. Check status to understand the schema

   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
   

   Parse the JSON to understand:

   • schemaName: The workflow being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
   • Which artifact contains the tasks (typically "tasks" for spec-driven, check status for others)

3. Get apply instructions

   openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json
   

   This returns:

   • contextFiles: artifact ID -> array of concrete file paths (varies by schema - could be proposal/specs/design/tasks or spec/tests/implementation/docs)
   • Progress (total, complete, remaining)
   • Task list with status
   • Dynamic instruction based on current state

   Handle states:

   • If state: "blocked" (missing artifacts): show message, suggest using openspec-continue-change
   • If state: "all_done": congratulate, suggest archive
   • Otherwise: proceed to implementation

4. Read context files

   Read every file path listed under contextFiles from the apply instructions output. The files depend on the schema being used:

   • spec-driven: proposal, specs, design, tasks
   • Other schemas: follow the contextFiles from CLI output

5. Show current progress

   Display:

   • Schema being used
   • Progress: "N/M tasks complete"
   • Remaining tasks overview
   • Dynamic instruction from CLI

6. Implement tasks (loop until done or blocked)

   For each pending task:

   • Show which task is being worked on
   • Make the code changes required
   • Keep changes minimal and focused
   • Mark task complete in the tasks file: - [ ] → - [x]
   • Continue to next task

   Pause if:

   • Task is unclear → ask for clarification
   • Implementation reveals a design issue → suggest updating artifacts
   • Error or blocker encountered → report and wait for guidance
   • User interrupts

7. On completion or pause, show status

   Display:

   • Tasks completed this session
   • Overall progress: "N/M tasks complete"
   • If all done: suggest archive
   • If paused: explain why and wait for guidance

Output During Implementation

## Implementing: <change-name> (schema: <schema-name>)

Working on task 3/7: <task description>
[...implementation happening...]
✓ Task complete

Working on task 4/7: <task description>
[...implementation happening...]
✓ Task complete

Output On Completion

## Implementation Complete

**Change:** <change-name>
**Schema:** <schema-name>
**Progress:** 7/7 tasks complete ✓

### Completed This Session
- [x] Task 1
- [x] Task 2
...

All tasks complete! Ready to archive this change.

Output On Pause (Issue Encountered)

## Implementation Paused

**Change:** <change-name>
**Schema:** <schema-name>
**Progress:** 4/7 tasks complete

### Issue Encountered
<description of the issue>

**Options:**
1. <option 1>
2. <option 2>
3. Other approach

What would you like to do?

Guardrails

• Keep going through tasks until done or blocked
• Always read context files before starting (from the apply instructions output)
• If task is ambiguous, pause and ask before implementing
• If implementation reveals issues, pause and suggest artifact updates
• Keep code changes minimal and scoped to each task
• Update task checkbox immediately after completing each task
• Pause on errors, blockers, or unclear requirements - don't guess
• Use contextFiles from CLI output, don't assume specific file names

Fluid Workflow Integration

This skill supports the "actions on a change" model:

• Can be invoked anytime: Before all artifacts are done (if tasks exist), after partial implementation, interleaved with other actions
• Allows artifact updates: If implementation reveals design issues, suggest updating artifacts - not phase-locked, work fluidly

Archive a completed change in the experimental workflow.

Input: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.

Steps

1. If no change name provided, prompt for selection

   Run openspec list --json to get available changes. Use the AskUserQuestion tool to let the user select.

   Show only active changes (not already archived). Include the schema used for each change if available.

   IMPORTANT: Do NOT guess or auto-select a change. Always let the user choose.

2. Check artifact completion status

   Run openspec status --change "<name>" --json to check artifact completion.

   Parse the JSON to understand:

   • schemaName: The workflow being used
   • artifacts: List of artifacts with their status (done or other)

   If any artifacts are not done:

   • Display warning listing incomplete artifacts
   • Use AskUserQuestion tool to confirm user wants to proceed
   • Proceed if user confirms

3. Check task completion status

   Read the tasks file (typically tasks.md) to check for incomplete tasks.

   Count tasks marked with - [ ] (incomplete) vs - [x] (complete).

   If incomplete tasks found:

   • Display warning showing count of incomplete tasks
   • Use AskUserQuestion tool to confirm user wants to proceed
   • Proceed if user confirms

   If no tasks file exists: Proceed without task-related warning.

4. Assess delta spec sync state

   Check for delta specs at openspec/changes/<name>/specs/. If none exist, proceed without sync prompt.

   If delta specs exist:

   • Compare each delta spec with its corresponding main spec at openspec/specs/<capability>/spec.md
   • Determine what changes would be applied (adds, modifications, removals, renames)
   • Show a combined summary before prompting

   Prompt options:

   • If changes needed: "Sync now (recommended)", "Archive without syncing"
   • If already synced: "Archive now", "Sync anyway", "Cancel"

   If user chooses sync, use Task tool (subagent_type: "general-purpose", prompt: "Use Skill tool to invoke openspec-sync-specs for change ''. Delta spec analysis: "). Proceed to archive regardless of choice.

5. Perform the archive

   Create the archive directory if it doesn't exist:

   mkdir -p openspec/changes/archive
   

   Generate target name using current date: YYYY-MM-DD-<change-name>

   Check if target already exists:

   • If yes: Fail with error, suggest renaming existing archive or using different date
   • If no: Move the change directory to archive

   mv openspec/changes/<name> openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>
   

6. Display summary

   Show archive completion summary including:

   • Change name
   • Schema that was used
   • Archive location
   • Whether specs were synced (if applicable)
   • Note about any warnings (incomplete artifacts/tasks)

Output On Success

## Archive Complete

**Change:** <change-name>
**Schema:** <schema-name>
**Archived to:** openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>/
**Specs:** ✓ Synced to main specs (or "No delta specs" or "Sync skipped")

All artifacts complete. All tasks complete.

Guardrails

• Always prompt for change selection if not provided
• Use artifact graph (openspec status --json) for completion checking
• Don't block archive on warnings - just inform and confirm
• Preserve .openspec.yaml when moving to archive (it moves with the directory)
• Show clear summary of what happened
• If sync is requested, use openspec-sync-specs approach (agent-driven)
• If delta specs exist, always run the sync assessment and show the combined summary before prompting

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 and create a change proposal. 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.

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

OpenSpec Awareness

You have full context of the OpenSpec system. Use it naturally, don't force it.

Check for context

At the start, quickly check what exists:

openspec list --json

This tells you:

• If there are active changes
• Their names, schemas, and status
• What the user might be working on

When no change exists

Think freely. When insights crystallize, you might offer:

• "This feels solid enough to start a change. Want me to create a proposal?"
• Or keep exploring - no pressure to formalize

When a change exists

If the user mentions a change or you detect one is relevant:

1. Read existing artifacts for context

   • openspec/changes/<name>/proposal.md
   • openspec/changes/<name>/design.md
   • openspec/changes/<name>/tasks.md
   • etc.

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	specs/<capability>/spec.md
   Requirement changed	specs/<capability>/spec.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 specs?"
   • "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)

Handling Different Entry Points

User brings a vague idea:

User: I'm thinking about adding real-time collaboration

You: Real-time collab is a big space. Let me think about this...

      COLLABORATION SPECTRUM
      ════════════════════════════════════════════

      Awareness          Coordination         Sync
          │                   │                 │
          ▼                   ▼                 ▼
      ┌────────┐         ┌────────┐        ┌────────┐
      │Presence│         │Cursors │        │  CRDT  │
      │  "3    │         │ Multi  │        │Conflict│
      │online" │         │ select │        │  free  │
      └────────┘         └────────┘        └────────┘
          │                   │                 │
       trivial            moderate           complex

      Where's your head at?

User brings a specific problem:

User: The auth system is a mess

You: [reads codebase]

     ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐
     │              CURRENT AUTH FLOW              │
     └─────────────────────────────────────────────┘
                        │
          ┌─────────────┼─────────────┐
          ▼             ▼             ▼
     ┌─────────┐  ┌─────────┐  ┌─────────┐
     │ Google  │  │  GitHub │  │  Email  │
     │  OAuth  │  │  OAuth  │  │  Magic  │
     └────┬────┘  └────┬────┘  └────┬────┘
          │             │             │
          └─────────────┼─────────────┘
                        ▼
                  ┌───────────┐
                  │  Session  │
                  └─────┬─────┘
                        │
                        ▼
                  ┌───────────┐
                  │   Perms   │
                  └───────────┘

     I see three tangles. Which one's burning?

User is stuck mid-implementation:

User: /opsx:explore add-auth-system
      The OAuth integration is more complex than expected

You: [reads change artifacts]

     You're on task 4: "Implement OAuth flow"

     Let me trace what's involved...

     [draws diagram, explores options, suggests paths]

     Want to update the design to reflect this?
     Or add a spike task to investigate?

User wants to compare options:

User: Should we use Postgres or SQLite?

You: Generic answer is boring. What's the context?

User: A CLI tool that tracks local dev environments

You: That changes everything.

     ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
     │          CLI TOOL DATA STORAGE                  │
     └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

     Key constraints:
     • No daemon running
     • Must work offline
     • Single user

                  SQLite          Postgres
     Deployment   embedded ✓      needs server ✗
     Offline      yes ✓           no ✗
     Single file  yes ✓           no ✗

     SQLite. Not even close.

     Unless... is there a sync component?

Ending Discovery

There's no required ending. Discovery might:

• Flow into a proposal: "Ready to start? I can create a change proposal."
• 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 it feels like things are crystallizing, you might summarize:

## What We Figured Out

**The problem**: [crystallized understanding]

**The approach**: [if one emerged]

**Open questions**: [if any remain]

**Next steps** (if ready):
- Create a change proposal
- Keep exploring: just keep talking

But this summary is optional. Sometimes the thinking IS the value.

Guardrails

• Don't implement - Never write code or implement features. Creating OpenSpec artifacts is fine, writing application code is not.
• Don't fake understanding - If something is unclear, dig deeper
• Don't rush - Discovery is thinking time, not task time
• Don't force structure - Let patterns emerge naturally
• Don't auto-capture - Offer to save insights, don't just do it
• Do visualize - A good diagram is worth many paragraphs
• Do explore the codebase - Ground discussions in reality
• Do question assumptions - Including the user's and your own

Propose a new change - create the change and generate all artifacts in one step.

I'll create a change with artifacts:

• proposal.md (what & why)
• design.md (how)
• tasks.md (implementation steps)

When ready to implement, run /opsx:apply

Input: The user's request should include a change name (kebab-case) OR a description of what they want to build.

Steps

1. If no clear input provided, ask what they want to build

   Use the AskUserQuestion tool (open-ended, no preset options) to ask:

   "What change do you want to work on? Describe what you want to build or fix."

   From their description, derive a kebab-case name (e.g., "add user authentication" → add-user-auth).

   IMPORTANT: Do NOT proceed without understanding what the user wants to build.

2. Create the change directory

   openspec new change "<name>"
   

   This creates a scaffolded change at openspec/changes/<name>/ with .openspec.yaml.

3. Get the artifact build order

   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
   

   Parse the JSON to get:

   • applyRequires: array of artifact IDs needed before implementation (e.g., ["tasks"])
   • artifacts: list of all artifacts with their status and dependencies

4. Create artifacts in sequence until apply-ready

   Use the TodoWrite tool to track progress through the artifacts.

   Loop through artifacts in dependency order (artifacts with no pending dependencies first):

   a. For each artifact that is ready (dependencies satisfied):

   • Get instructions:

     openspec instructions <artifact-id> --change "<name>" --json
     

   • The instructions JSON includes:
     • context: Project background (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
     • rules: Artifact-specific rules (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
     • template: The structure to use for your output file
     • instruction: Schema-specific guidance for this artifact type
     • outputPath: Where to write the artifact
     • dependencies: Completed artifacts to read for context
   • Read any completed dependency files for context
   • Create the artifact file using template as the structure
   • Apply context and rules as constraints - but do NOT copy them into the file
   • Show brief progress: "Created "

   b. Continue until all applyRequires artifacts are complete

   • After creating each artifact, re-run openspec status --change "<name>" --json
   • Check if every artifact ID in applyRequires has status: "done" in the artifacts array
   • Stop when all applyRequires artifacts are done

   c. If an artifact requires user input (unclear context):

   • Use AskUserQuestion tool to clarify
   • Then continue with creation

5. Show final status

   openspec status --change "<name>"
   

Output

After completing all artifacts, summarize:

• Change name and location
• List of artifacts created with brief descriptions
• What's ready: "All artifacts created! Ready for implementation."
• Prompt: "Run /opsx:apply or ask me to implement to start working on the tasks."

Artifact Creation Guidelines

• Follow the instruction field from openspec instructions for each artifact type
• The schema defines what each artifact should contain - follow it
• Read dependency artifacts for context before creating new ones
• Use template as the structure for your output file - fill in its sections
• IMPORTANT: context and rules are constraints for YOU, not content for the file
  • Do NOT copy <context>, <rules>, <project_context> blocks into the artifact
  • These guide what you write, but should never appear in the output

Guardrails

• Create ALL artifacts needed for implementation (as defined by schema's apply.requires)
• Always read dependency artifacts before creating a new one
• If context is critically unclear, ask the user - but prefer making reasonable decisions to keep momentum
• If a change with that name already exists, ask if user wants to continue it or create a new one
• Verify each artifact file exists after writing before proceeding to next

Implement tasks from an OpenSpec change.

Input: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.

Steps

1. Select the change

   If a name is provided, use it. Otherwise:

   • Infer from conversation context if the user mentioned a change
   • Auto-select if only one active change exists
   • If ambiguous, run openspec list --json to get available changes and use the AskUserQuestion tool to let the user select

   Always announce: "Using change: " and how to override (e.g., /opsx:apply <other>).

2. Check status to understand the schema

   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
   

   Parse the JSON to understand:

   • schemaName: The workflow being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
   • Which artifact contains the tasks (typically "tasks" for spec-driven, check status for others)

3. Get apply instructions

   openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json
   

   This returns:

   • contextFiles: artifact ID -> array of concrete file paths (varies by schema - could be proposal/specs/design/tasks or spec/tests/implementation/docs)
   • Progress (total, complete, remaining)
   • Task list with status
   • Dynamic instruction based on current state

   Handle states:

   • If state: "blocked" (missing artifacts): show message, suggest using openspec-continue-change
   • If state: "all_done": congratulate, suggest archive
   • Otherwise: proceed to implementation

4. Read context files

   Read every file path listed under contextFiles from the apply instructions output. The files depend on the schema being used:

   • spec-driven: proposal, specs, design, tasks
   • Other schemas: follow the contextFiles from CLI output

5. Show current progress

   Display:

   • Schema being used
   • Progress: "N/M tasks complete"
   • Remaining tasks overview
   • Dynamic instruction from CLI

6. Implement tasks (loop until done or blocked)

   For each pending task:

   • Show which task is being worked on
   • Make the code changes required
   • Keep changes minimal and focused
   • Mark task complete in the tasks file: - [ ] → - [x]
   • Continue to next task

   Pause if:

   • Task is unclear → ask for clarification
   • Implementation reveals a design issue → suggest updating artifacts
   • Error or blocker encountered → report and wait for guidance
   • User interrupts

7. On completion or pause, show status

   Display:

   • Tasks completed this session
   • Overall progress: "N/M tasks complete"
   • If all done: suggest archive
   • If paused: explain why and wait for guidance

Output During Implementation

## Implementing: <change-name> (schema: <schema-name>)

Working on task 3/7: <task description>
[...implementation happening...]
✓ Task complete

Working on task 4/7: <task description>
[...implementation happening...]
✓ Task complete

Output On Completion

## Implementation Complete

**Change:** <change-name>
**Schema:** <schema-name>
**Progress:** 7/7 tasks complete ✓

### Completed This Session
- [x] Task 1
- [x] Task 2
...

All tasks complete! Ready to archive this change.

Output On Pause (Issue Encountered)

## Implementation Paused

**Change:** <change-name>
**Schema:** <schema-name>
**Progress:** 4/7 tasks complete

### Issue Encountered
<description of the issue>

**Options:**
1. <option 1>
2. <option 2>
3. Other approach

What would you like to do?

Guardrails

• Keep going through tasks until done or blocked
• Always read context files before starting (from the apply instructions output)
• If task is ambiguous, pause and ask before implementing
• If implementation reveals issues, pause and suggest artifact updates
• Keep code changes minimal and scoped to each task
• Update task checkbox immediately after completing each task
• Pause on errors, blockers, or unclear requirements - don't guess
• Use contextFiles from CLI output, don't assume specific file names

Fluid Workflow Integration

This skill supports the "actions on a change" model:

• Can be invoked anytime: Before all artifacts are done (if tasks exist), after partial implementation, interleaved with other actions
• Allows artifact updates: If implementation reveals design issues, suggest updating artifacts - not phase-locked, work fluidly

Archive a completed change in the experimental workflow.

Input: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.

Steps

1. If no change name provided, prompt for selection

   Run openspec list --json to get available changes. Use the AskUserQuestion tool to let the user select.

   Show only active changes (not already archived). Include the schema used for each change if available.

   IMPORTANT: Do NOT guess or auto-select a change. Always let the user choose.

2. Check artifact completion status

   Run openspec status --change "<name>" --json to check artifact completion.

   Parse the JSON to understand:

   • schemaName: The workflow being used
   • artifacts: List of artifacts with their status (done or other)

   If any artifacts are not done:

   • Display warning listing incomplete artifacts
   • Use AskUserQuestion tool to confirm user wants to proceed
   • Proceed if user confirms

3. Check task completion status

   Read the tasks file (typically tasks.md) to check for incomplete tasks.

   Count tasks marked with - [ ] (incomplete) vs - [x] (complete).

   If incomplete tasks found:

   • Display warning showing count of incomplete tasks
   • Use AskUserQuestion tool to confirm user wants to proceed
   • Proceed if user confirms

   If no tasks file exists: Proceed without task-related warning.

4. Assess delta spec sync state

   Check for delta specs at openspec/changes/<name>/specs/. If none exist, proceed without sync prompt.

   If delta specs exist:

   • Compare each delta spec with its corresponding main spec at openspec/specs/<capability>/spec.md
   • Determine what changes would be applied (adds, modifications, removals, renames)
   • Show a combined summary before prompting

   Prompt options:

   • If changes needed: "Sync now (recommended)", "Archive without syncing"
   • If already synced: "Archive now", "Sync anyway", "Cancel"

   If user chooses sync, use Task tool (subagent_type: "general-purpose", prompt: "Use Skill tool to invoke openspec-sync-specs for change ''. Delta spec analysis: "). Proceed to archive regardless of choice.

5. Perform the archive

   Create the archive directory if it doesn't exist:

   mkdir -p openspec/changes/archive
   

   Generate target name using current date: YYYY-MM-DD-<change-name>

   Check if target already exists:

   • If yes: Fail with error, suggest renaming existing archive or using different date
   • If no: Move the change directory to archive

   mv openspec/changes/<name> openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>
   

6. Display summary

   Show archive completion summary including:

   • Change name
   • Schema that was used
   • Archive location
   • Whether specs were synced (if applicable)
   • Note about any warnings (incomplete artifacts/tasks)

Output On Success

## Archive Complete

**Change:** <change-name>
**Schema:** <schema-name>
**Archived to:** openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>/
**Specs:** ✓ Synced to main specs (or "No delta specs" or "Sync skipped")

All artifacts complete. All tasks complete.

Guardrails

• Always prompt for change selection if not provided
• Use artifact graph (openspec status --json) for completion checking
• Don't block archive on warnings - just inform and confirm
• Preserve .openspec.yaml when moving to archive (it moves with the directory)
• Show clear summary of what happened
• If sync is requested, use openspec-sync-specs approach (agent-driven)
• If delta specs exist, always run the sync assessment and show the combined summary before prompting

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 and create a change proposal. 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.

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

OpenSpec Awareness

You have full context of the OpenSpec system. Use it naturally, don't force it.

Check for context

At the start, quickly check what exists:

openspec list --json

This tells you:

• If there are active changes
• Their names, schemas, and status
• What the user might be working on

When no change exists

Think freely. When insights crystallize, you might offer:

• "This feels solid enough to start a change. Want me to create a proposal?"
• Or keep exploring - no pressure to formalize

When a change exists

If the user mentions a change or you detect one is relevant:

1. Read existing artifacts for context

   • openspec/changes/<name>/proposal.md
   • openspec/changes/<name>/design.md
   • openspec/changes/<name>/tasks.md
   • etc.

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	specs/<capability>/spec.md
   Requirement changed	specs/<capability>/spec.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 specs?"
   • "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)

Handling Different Entry Points

User brings a vague idea:

User: I'm thinking about adding real-time collaboration

You: Real-time collab is a big space. Let me think about this...

      COLLABORATION SPECTRUM
      ════════════════════════════════════════════

      Awareness          Coordination         Sync
          │                   │                 │
          ▼                   ▼                 ▼
      ┌────────┐         ┌────────┐        ┌────────┐
      │Presence│         │Cursors │        │  CRDT  │
      │  "3    │         │ Multi  │        │Conflict│
      │online" │         │ select │        │  free  │
      └────────┘         └────────┘        └────────┘
          │                   │                 │
       trivial            moderate           complex

      Where's your head at?

User brings a specific problem:

User: The auth system is a mess

You: [reads codebase]

     ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐
     │              CURRENT AUTH FLOW              │
     └─────────────────────────────────────────────┘
                        │
          ┌─────────────┼─────────────┐
          ▼             ▼             ▼
     ┌─────────┐  ┌─────────┐  ┌─────────┐
     │ Google  │  │  GitHub │  │  Email  │
     │  OAuth  │  │  OAuth  │  │  Magic  │
     └────┬────┘  └────┬────┘  └────┬────┘
          │             │             │
          └─────────────┼─────────────┘
                        ▼
                  ┌───────────┐
                  │  Session  │
                  └─────┬─────┘
                        │
                        ▼
                  ┌───────────┐
                  │   Perms   │
                  └───────────┘

     I see three tangles. Which one's burning?

User is stuck mid-implementation:

User: /opsx:explore add-auth-system
      The OAuth integration is more complex than expected

You: [reads change artifacts]

     You're on task 4: "Implement OAuth flow"

     Let me trace what's involved...

     [draws diagram, explores options, suggests paths]

     Want to update the design to reflect this?
     Or add a spike task to investigate?

User wants to compare options:

User: Should we use Postgres or SQLite?

You: Generic answer is boring. What's the context?

User: A CLI tool that tracks local dev environments

You: That changes everything.

     ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
     │          CLI TOOL DATA STORAGE                  │
     └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

     Key constraints:
     • No daemon running
     • Must work offline
     • Single user

                  SQLite          Postgres
     Deployment   embedded ✓      needs server ✗
     Offline      yes ✓           no ✗
     Single file  yes ✓           no ✗

     SQLite. Not even close.

     Unless... is there a sync component?

Ending Discovery

There's no required ending. Discovery might:

• Flow into a proposal: "Ready to start? I can create a change proposal."
• 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 it feels like things are crystallizing, you might summarize:

## What We Figured Out

**The problem**: [crystallized understanding]

**The approach**: [if one emerged]

**Open questions**: [if any remain]

**Next steps** (if ready):
- Create a change proposal
- Keep exploring: just keep talking

But this summary is optional. Sometimes the thinking IS the value.

Guardrails

• Don't implement - Never write code or implement features. Creating OpenSpec artifacts is fine, writing application code is not.
• Don't fake understanding - If something is unclear, dig deeper
• Don't rush - Discovery is thinking time, not task time
• Don't force structure - Let patterns emerge naturally
• Don't auto-capture - Offer to save insights, don't just do it
• Do visualize - A good diagram is worth many paragraphs
• Do explore the codebase - Ground discussions in reality
• Do question assumptions - Including the user's and your own

Propose a new change - create the change and generate all artifacts in one step.

I'll create a change with artifacts:

• proposal.md (what & why)
• design.md (how)
• tasks.md (implementation steps)

When ready to implement, run /opsx:apply

Input: The user's request should include a change name (kebab-case) OR a description of what they want to build.

Steps

1. If no clear input provided, ask what they want to build

   Use the AskUserQuestion tool (open-ended, no preset options) to ask:

   "What change do you want to work on? Describe what you want to build or fix."

   From their description, derive a kebab-case name (e.g., "add user authentication" → add-user-auth).

   IMPORTANT: Do NOT proceed without understanding what the user wants to build.

2. Create the change directory

   openspec new change "<name>"
   

   This creates a scaffolded change at openspec/changes/<name>/ with .openspec.yaml.

3. Get the artifact build order

   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
   

   Parse the JSON to get:

   • applyRequires: array of artifact IDs needed before implementation (e.g., ["tasks"])
   • artifacts: list of all artifacts with their status and dependencies

4. Create artifacts in sequence until apply-ready

   Use the TodoWrite tool to track progress through the artifacts.

   Loop through artifacts in dependency order (artifacts with no pending dependencies first):

   a. For each artifact that is ready (dependencies satisfied):

   • Get instructions:

     openspec instructions <artifact-id> --change "<name>" --json
     

   • The instructions JSON includes:
     • context: Project background (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
     • rules: Artifact-specific rules (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
     • template: The structure to use for your output file
     • instruction: Schema-specific guidance for this artifact type
     • outputPath: Where to write the artifact
     • dependencies: Completed artifacts to read for context
   • Read any completed dependency files for context
   • Create the artifact file using template as the structure
   • Apply context and rules as constraints - but do NOT copy them into the file
   • Show brief progress: "Created "

   b. Continue until all applyRequires artifacts are complete

   • After creating each artifact, re-run openspec status --change "<name>" --json
   • Check if every artifact ID in applyRequires has status: "done" in the artifacts array
   • Stop when all applyRequires artifacts are done

   c. If an artifact requires user input (unclear context):

   • Use AskUserQuestion tool to clarify
   • Then continue with creation

5. Show final status

   openspec status --change "<name>"
   

Output

After completing all artifacts, summarize:

• Change name and location
• List of artifacts created with brief descriptions
• What's ready: "All artifacts created! Ready for implementation."
• Prompt: "Run /opsx:apply or ask me to implement to start working on the tasks."

Artifact Creation Guidelines

• Follow the instruction field from openspec instructions for each artifact type
• The schema defines what each artifact should contain - follow it
• Read dependency artifacts for context before creating new ones
• Use template as the structure for your output file - fill in its sections
• IMPORTANT: context and rules are constraints for YOU, not content for the file
  • Do NOT copy <context>, <rules>, <project_context> blocks into the artifact
  • These guide what you write, but should never appear in the output

Guardrails

• Create ALL artifacts needed for implementation (as defined by schema's apply.requires)
• Always read dependency artifacts before creating a new one
• If context is critically unclear, ask the user - but prefer making reasonable decisions to keep momentum
• If a change with that name already exists, ask if user wants to continue it or create a new one
• Verify each artifact file exists after writing before proceeding to next