Hv decide

Print the banner below verbatim before any other action — skip if dispatched as a subagent. See references/banner-preamble.md.

════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
  ⚖️   hv-decide  ·  capture hard-boundary decisions to DECISIONS.md
  triggers: "decide on X", "lock in Y"  ·  pairs: hv-learn (passive)
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

hv-decide — Capture Hard-Boundary Decisions

Distill an active commitment from the current session into .hv/DECISIONS.md, organized by topic, so future work consults it as a hard constraint. Decisions are active (committed boundaries with forbids/permits) — distinct from /hv-learn which captures passive knowledge (gotchas, conventions, constraints to remember).

Step 1 — Preflight

.hv/bin/hv-preflight

See docs/reference/preflight.md for exit-code handling.

Initialize task list. Follow the canonical pattern in references/task-list-init.md — load TaskCreate(…) via ToolSearch select:TaskCreate,TaskUpdate if needed, then create one task per phase below.

Phases:

1. Mode — default vs --from-learning vs --from-spike resolved (Step 1.5)
2. Identify candidate — boundary articulated; three-gate check passes (Step 2)
3. Compose four parts — rule, Why, Forbids, Permits drafted (Step 3)
4. Confirmation gate — manual user approval (never auto-invoked, Step 5)
5. Merge & index update — append to DECISIONS.md, regenerate CLAUDE.md index (Steps 6–7)

Step 1.5 — Mode (default vs source-prefill)

Inspect the invocation arguments and pick a mode for the rest of the run:

• No flag — default mode. Step 2 elicits the candidate decision conversationally, as today.
• --from-learning <topic> — Source-Prefill Mode (Learning). Carry <topic> forward; Step 2 branches into the source-prefill path and seeds the draft from .hv/KNOWLEDGE.md.
• --from-spike <name> — Source-Prefill Mode (Spike). Carry <name> forward; Step 2 branches into the source-prefill path and seeds the draft from .hv/spikes/<name>.md.

Both flags simultaneously is invalid — error with "/hv-decide accepts at most one of --from-learning <topic> or --from-spike <name> per invocation." and stop.

Step 2 — Identify the Candidate Decision

A decision is worth capturing if it is:

• Active — the project has committed to it. Violating it is a regression, not a missed opportunity.
• Bounded — it has a concrete shape: forbids X, permits Y.
• Justified — there's a why behind it (past incident, deadline, stakeholder ask, strong preference).

Three-gate trigger (pre-write check).

Active/Bounded/Justified is the conceptual definition; these three gates are the operational filter that catches preference choices that pass it. All three must pass for a candidate to proceed past Step 2 — across all modes (default, --from-learning, --from-spike):

(a) Hard to reverse. Undoing the rule would require coordinated edits across many files, retraining habits, or migrating data. If undoing is git revert plus a small refactor, it's a preference, not a decision.

(b) Surprising without context. A future contributor reading the code would not infer the rule from the existing patterns. If the rule is self-evident from the codebase — "we use TypeScript" in a TS-only repo, "tests live in tests/" in a project where every test already does — it's a convention the code already documents.

(c) Real trade-off. Genuine alternatives existed and the project deliberately didn't pick them. If only one option was ever on the table, the "rule" is documenting a default, not a decision.

If any gate fails, do not write to DECISIONS.md. Surface to the user:

"This reads like a [preference / convention / default] rather than a hard boundary — gate (X) failed. Run /hv-learn to capture it as durable knowledge instead, or leave it inline at the call site."

Substitute the failing gate's letter for (X). Suggest the redirect (/hv-learn if there's still a useful learning to capture, "leave inline" if it's just code-level) and stop. Do not auto-invoke /hv-learn — same manual-gate policy as the no-forbids/no-permits redirect below.

Codified from grill-with-docs's ADR triggers — prevents /hv-decide bloat from preference choices that aren't actually hard boundaries.

Default mode.

If the user invoked /hv-decide with a clear candidate from the conversation, surface it. If not, ask:

"What boundary do you want to lock in? State it as one sentence — what the decision says."

If after one round the user can't articulate forbids or permits, surface that — it's a signal this is a learning, not a decision. Suggest /hv-learn instead and stop. Do not auto-invoke /hv-learn — the user re-runs it deliberately.

Source-prefill modes (--from-learning <topic>, --from-spike <name>). Both pre-fill the four-part draft from a source artifact and surface the same closing prompt. Full bodies live in references/source-prefill.md.

The semantic gap is preserved by design — source-prefill seeds only fields it can authoritatively provide (rule, Why) from the source's content; destination-specific fields (Forbids, Permits) stay as _(user must articulate)_ placeholders that block the merge until the user fills them. The principle generalizes to any "promote A → B" flow where B carries an active commitment A doesn't. Sources without a commitment (an inconclusive spike) are refused at the gate — promotion requires a verdict the project is committing to.

Mode	Section in references/source-prefill.md
--from-learning <topic>	## --from-learning <topic>
--from-spike <name>	## --from-spike <name>

After the mode runs and the user supplies Forbids/Permits, continue to Step 3.

Step 3 — Compose the Four Parts

Every decision entry has four parts:

1. Rule — one-sentence statement of what the decision says
2. Why — one paragraph rationale (past incident, constraint, deadline, stakeholder ask)
3. Forbids — concrete things this rules out at apply time (patterns, files, approaches)
4. Permits — concrete things this still allows (anchors the boundary so it's not over-applied)

Draft all four from conversation context. Use a single AskUserQuestion call only when one of the four parts is genuinely ambiguous from context — otherwise show the assembled draft and let Step 5 handle approval.

In source-prefill modes, Step 2 has already drafted rule/why/forbids/permits — Step 3 is the user's chance to redline the draft before Step 5's confirmation gate.

Step 4 — Classify by Topic

Open .hv/DECISIONS.md first and reuse existing ## Topic headings when they fit. Also reuse KNOWLEDGE.md topics where overlap exists (Architecture, Testing, Build & Tooling, etc.) so a single topic name maps to both files. Create a new topic only if nothing fits.

Don't create a topic per decision — they should be coarser than learnings.

Step 5 — Confirmation Gate

Present the assembled entry to the user via AskUserQuestion:

• Header: "Decide"
• Question: "Lock in this decision?"
• Options (single-select):
  1. "Write it (Recommended)" — "Append to .hv/DECISIONS.md under <topic> and update CLAUDE.md decisions index."
  2. "Edit first" — "Show the draft inline so you can rewrite any of the four parts before writing."
  3. "Cancel" — "Skip — nothing is written."

Show the full draft entry (rule, why, forbids, permits) above the question. Never write without explicit "Write it" confirmation. This is the active/passive distinction made operational.

If the user picks Edit first, present the draft as inline text, accept revisions, and re-prompt with the same three options.

If the user picks Cancel, stop with one line: "Decision not captured."

Plain-text fallback: write only if the user types yes or write. Anything else is a cancel.

Step 6 — Merge into DECISIONS.md

.hv/DECISIONS.md is organized as:

# Decisions

Hard boundaries for this project. Each entry is a commitment, not a preference — re-read before proposing changes that touch its area.

## <Topic>

### <Decision title>

<One-sentence rule.>

*Why.* <One paragraph rationale.>

**Forbids.** <Concrete patterns/files/approaches.>

**Permits.** <What this still allows.>

<!-- 2026-05-01 -->

Merge rules:

• Preserve existing topics — never rewrite sections you didn't change.
• Insert new ### Decision title blocks at the top of their topic (newest first).
• Stamp new entries with today's absolute date as an HTML comment: <!-- YYYY-MM-DD -->.
• New topics go alphabetically, except Architecture and Build & Tooling may be pinned near the top (matching KNOWLEDGE.md convention).

Use Edit for surgical updates, not Write.

Step 7 — Update CLAUDE.md Decisions Index

.hv/bin/hv-managed-block decisions

Reads .hv/DECISIONS.md, extracts ## Topic headings in order, and updates the managed <!-- hv-decisions-start --> block in CLAUDE.md. Creates or appends as needed; never touches other content. The read-site skills (/hv-work, /hv-debug, /hv-plan, /hv-refactor, /hv-review, /hv-vision) read this block to know when to consult DECISIONS.md.

Step 8 — Confirm

Tell the user, in one compact block, what was captured:

Captured 1 decision into .hv/DECISIONS.md:
  Architecture — "Background jobs run in-process, never via external queue"

Updated CLAUDE.md decisions index — /hv-work, /hv-debug, /hv-plan, /hv-refactor, /hv-review, /hv-vision will consult it.

If the entry created a new topic, prepend a line: "New topic: <topic>."

Key Principles

• Never auto-invoked. Regardless of autonomy.level — the active/passive distinction depends on this.
• Forbids and permits are required. If you can't articulate both, it's a learning — redirect to /hv-learn.
• One sentence rule, one paragraph why. If a decision needs more, link to a plan or knowledge entry.
• No verifier. Manual confirmation is the verification.
• --from-learning <topic> and --from-spike <name> only seed the rule and why from the source artifact. The forbids/permits are still user-articulated — that's what makes a decision a decision.
• inconclusive spikes can't be promoted. Promotion requires a verdict the project is committing to.
• Sibling persistence skills. /hv-learn and /hv-decide share one contract (persist + index CLAUDE.md + confirm) and intentionally diverge on gate strength — see references/persistence-skills.md. /hv-learn carries two modes: passive topic-bullet learnings and --term <name> for Glossary entries.

References

• references/banner-preamble.md — Banner-print rule shared by every skill.
• references/persistence-skills.md — Shared spine and divergence axes for the persistence duo (/hv-learn, /hv-decide) — including /hv-learn --term for Glossary entries.
• references/source-prefill.md — Source-prefill / promote-between-artifacts semantics for /hv-decide.