Rite pressure test

/rite-pressure-test: diverge then converge

Use when the idea (not just the requirements) is rough. Generate options, then commit to one, so /rite-spec has a real direction to specify.

A thinking stance, not a build phase: capturing thinking is not implementing. Write workspace/ticket artifacts freely; source edits wait for /rite-build, via /rite-spec.

Read .claude/skills/devrites-lib/reference/standards/core.md first: its operating rules (no silent assumptions, prefer existing conventions) shape the divergence. The other rule files load on demand.

Diverge (widen)

• Load the rejected-direction entries from .devrites/learnings.md first. A recorded rejection re-enters the option set only with new evidence against its recorded why: name that evidence when you bring one back.
• Generate 3-5 genuinely different approaches to the underlying goal, not variations of one. Cover at least: the obvious approach, a simpler/smaller approach, and a different-shape approach (different data model, flow, or boundary).
• Generate from named lenses so each option exists for a reason, not to pad the count: inversion (do the opposite), constraint-removal (what if the hard limit vanished), audience-shift (build it for a different user), 10× (what if it had to handle ten times the scale or scope), expert-lens (how a specialist in the domain would do it). Borrow the structure of an analogous product, not its surface. "Uber for X" copies the veneer, not the mechanism that made it work.
• For each: one-line description, what it optimizes for, rough cost, main risk.
• Stay concrete: name real entities, flows, and surfaces, not abstractions.

Converge (commit)

• Weigh options against the goal, constraints, and existing codebase conventions.
• Painkiller or vitamin? Score each on whether it removes a real, felt pain (a painkiller users seek out) or is merely nice-to-have (a vitamin they forget). Prefer the painkiller: a vitamin dressed as a painkiller is the most common ideation trap.
• Rank the differentiation, strongest to weakest: a new capability > a 10× improvement > a new audience > a new context > better UX > cheaper. The higher an option sits, the more defensible the direction.
• Recommend one, with the reason and the key trade-off accepted.
• Note what would change the recommendation (the decision's hinge).

Boundaries

• This is exploration, not specification. Output a direction, not a finished spec: /rite-spec writes the spec.
• Don't over-explore: 3-5 options, one pass of convergence. If the user already knows the direction, skip this and go straight to /rite-spec. If the effort is too foggy for one pass, start an investigation map at .devrites/work/<slug>/investigation-map.md with Destination, Decisions so far, Not yet specified, Out of scope, plus one frontier question per session.
• Ask the user to pick when two options are close and the choice changes the product.
• Name a "Not doing" list: the good options you deliberately cut. It's the highest-value output of convergence: it hands /rite-spec its scope boundary and stops the rejected ideas from creeping back in later. When a cut is durable (rejected for a reason that outlives this feature) offer to record it: devrites-engine learnings add <slug> "<direction>: <why>" rejected-direction.

Output

Reply-contract exception: pre-workspace ideation utility. It skips devrites-engine progress, but follows the compact labels and single-next-action rule from devrites-lib/reference/reply-contract.md.

Done: pressure test complete for <goal>.
Changed: workspace only
Evidence: options compared <n>; recommendation <option>; hinge <condition>
Open: <none | unresolved premise>
Next: /rite-spec <feature>
Record: not applicable
↻ Hygiene: /clear before starting the lifecycle