# Teams & Spec-Driven Development with Flow-Next

This page maps the AI-native software development lifecycle (SDLC) to Flow-Next commands. If your team is asking *"where does our Agile fit when we adopt this?"*, start here.

The vocabulary on this page — *handover objects*, *Delegate / Review / Own*, *lifecycle steps [1]–[9]* — comes from the [AI-x-SDLC Starter-Kit methodology guide](https://github.com/gmickel/AI-x-SDLC-Starter-Kit/blob/main/guides/methodology.md). That document is the *theory*. This page is the *implementation* — the same lifecycle, mapped to concrete `flowctl` commands and `.flow/` artefacts.

> **Solo dev?** You can skip most of this page. The single-developer flow is `prospect → capture → plan → work → make-pr`, covered in the [root README](../../../README.md). This page is for teams running multiple humans + multiple agents against the same repo.

---

## Table of Contents

- [Lifecycle map](#lifecycle-map)
- [Handover objects](#handover-objects)
- [Roles and ownership](#roles-and-ownership)
- [Stage-by-stage walkthrough](#stage-by-stage-walkthrough)
- [Delegate / Review / Own per phase](#delegate--review--own-per-phase)
- [Team patterns](#team-patterns)
  - [Spec-as-PR](#spec-as-pr)
  - [Parallel work from one spec](#parallel-work-from-one-spec)
  - [Frozen-at-handover](#frozen-at-handover)
  - [Symmetric interview](#symmetric-interview)
  - [Decision records](#decision-records)
  - [Strategy alignment](#strategy-alignment)
- [Multi-developer coordination](#multi-developer-coordination)
- [Autonomous mode (Ralph) in a team](#autonomous-mode-ralph-in-a-team)
- [What flow-next does *not* replace](#what-flow-next-does-not-replace)
- [Adoption ladder](#adoption-ladder)
- [Where to go next](#where-to-go-next)

---

## Lifecycle map

The starter-kit methodology defines a nine-step lifecycle from rough idea to merged code. Each step has a concrete Flow-Next surface:

```mermaid
flowchart LR
    Idea([💡 Idea]) --> Prospect[/flow-next:prospect/]
    Prospect --> Capture[/flow-next:capture/]
    Idea --> Capture
    Capture --> Interview[/flow-next:interview/]
    Interview -.scoped operation.-> InterviewScope{{"--scope=business · --scope=technical · --scope=both<br/>(default: --scope=technical)"}}
    Interview --> PlanReview[/flow-next:plan-review/]
    PlanReview --> Plan[/flow-next:plan/]
    Plan --> Work[/flow-next:work/]
    Work --> ImplReview[/flow-next:impl-review/]
    ImplReview -->|SHIP| SpecCompletionReview[/flow-next:spec-completion-review/]
    ImplReview -->|NEEDS_WORK| Work
    SpecCompletionReview --> MakePR[/flow-next:make-pr/]
    MakePR --> ResolvePR[/flow-next:resolve-pr/]
    ResolvePR --> Merged([🚀 Merged])

    Merged -.maintenance.-> Audit[/flow-next:audit/]
    Audit -.-> Memory[(.flow/memory/)]
```

The map is not strictly linear. `/prospect` is optional. `/capture` and `/interview` are interchangeable entry points depending on whether the spec emerged from conversation (`/capture`) or needs structured discovery (`/interview`). `/flow-next:interview` is a **scoped operation** — one node in the lifecycle, but the same skill runs for the business layer (`--scope=business`) and the technical layer (`--scope=technical`) against the same `.flow/specs/<id>.md` file. Teams adopting the symmetric pattern traverse this node twice; solo devs running the default `--scope=technical` pass through once. The implementation review loop (`/work` ↔ `/impl-review`) iterates until SHIP. Maintenance (`/audit`) runs out-of-band against `.flow/memory/`.

---

## Handover objects

The methodology calls a *handover object* a named, reviewable artefact that carries the full context of a step so the next person doesn't have to re-derive it. Six handovers exist between idea and merge. Flow-Next produces a concrete artefact for each.

| # | Handover | Flow-Next artefact path | Produced by | Verified by |
|---|----------|-------------------------|-------------|-------------|
| 1 | Spec — business-layer complete (PO → tech lead) | `.flow/specs/<spec-id>.md` (business sections filled; technical sections may carry `*Pending technical-scope interview pass.*` placeholders) | `/flow-next:capture` or `/flow-next:interview --scope=business` | `/flow-next:plan-review` |
| 2 | Spec — fully complete (tech lead → developer) | same `.flow/specs/<spec-id>.md` after `/flow-next:interview --scope=technical` fills the technical sections | `/flow-next:interview --scope=technical` | `/flow-next:plan-review` |
| 3 | Implementation plan (spec → tasks) | `.flow/tasks/<spec-id>.M.md` | `/flow-next:plan` | `/flow-next:plan-review` |
| 4 | Working implementation (tasks → code) | task `done_summary` + evidence commits | `/flow-next:work` (worker subagent) | `/flow-next:impl-review` |
| 5 | Cross-model code review | `.flow/review-receipts/<branch>.json` | `/flow-next:impl-review` | `/flow-next:spec-completion-review` |
| 6 | PR-as-cognitive-aid | rendered PR body (9 input streams) | `/flow-next:make-pr` | human reviewer + `/flow-next:resolve-pr` |

All six properties of a real handover object hold:

1. **Reviewable on its own.** A spec without code, a plan without an implementation, a PR body without a diff — each artefact stands alone as a reviewable unit.
2. **Cross-model reviewed.** `/flow-next:plan-review` and `/flow-next:impl-review` run a *different* model (RepoPrompt / Codex / Copilot) over the artefact before handover. See the [root README — Commands](../../../README.md#commands) for review backends, or [flow-next.dev](https://flow-next.dev) for the narrative walkthrough.
3. **Verifiable against the prior artefact.** R-IDs in the spec are tracked through `satisfies: [R1, R3]` frontmatter on tasks and through commit-message references; `/flow-next:make-pr` emits an R-ID coverage table that maps every R# to the satisfying task and evidence commit.
4. **Frozen at handover.** Spec acceptance criteria are numbered `**R1:**`, `**R2:**`, ... and **never renumbered** after the first review cycle (deletions leave gaps). Anyone reading R5 in a six-month-old commit is reading the same R5 today.

The artefact chain is the conversation that did not happen. Pre-agentic Agile relied on standups, refinement, design reviews, and hallway conversation to keep a 2–3 week implementation aligned. Flow-Next runs that implementation in a few hours per task — those touchpoints are gone, and the artefact chain replaces them.

---

## Roles and ownership

| Role | Triggers | Reviews | Notes |
|------|----------|---------|-------|
| **Product Owner / PM** | `/flow-next:capture`, `/flow-next:interview --scope=business` | `.flow/specs/<id>.md` after capture; `/flow-next:plan-review` output | The PO drafts the spec from a `prospect`-promoted candidate or directly from conversation via `capture`. |
| **Tech lead / Senior eng** | `/flow-next:interview --scope=technical` (optionally `--strategy --docs` for doc-aware mode), `/flow-next:plan` | Tasks under `.flow/tasks/`; review-backend choice (`flowctl review-backend`) | Owns the technical layer of the spec, the plan, and which review backend gates `/work`. |
| **Implementing eng (human or agent)** | `/flow-next:work`, `/flow-next:impl-review` | Per-task `done_summary` + evidence | Re-anchors before each task (re-reads spec + git state). Worker subagent gets fresh context per task. |
| **Reviewer** | `/flow-next:resolve-pr` (after PR review threads land) | PR body produced by `/flow-next:make-pr`, the diff itself | Reads the cognitive-aid body first; uses R-ID coverage + Critical Changes + Where to Look as the reading order. |
| **Maintainer / on-call** | `/flow-next:audit`, `/flow-next:memory-migrate` | `.flow/memory/` entries | Periodic review of stale memory; Keep / Update / Consolidate / Replace / Delete per entry. |

In a *one-pizza pod* (3–5 people), one human can carry several roles simultaneously — PO drafts and is also the reviewer. The role table above tells you *which command corresponds to which hat*, not how many humans you need.

---

## Stage-by-stage walkthrough

### [1] Idea / rough prose

> *"We should add a contact form. Or maybe rate-limit the existing one. Not sure yet."*

Two entry points:

- **`/flow-next:prospect [focus hint]`** — generates ranked candidate ideas grounded in the repo (recent files, open specs, memory, CHANGELOG, `STRATEGY.md`). Use when there is no specific idea yet, only a focus hint. See the [root README — Commands](../../../README.md#commands) row for `/flow-next:prospect`, or [flow-next.dev](https://flow-next.dev) for the narrative.
- **`/flow-next:capture`** — synthesizes a free-form discussion into a spec. Use when the idea has already taken shape in conversation (often after `prospect promote`).

Both produce a spec at `.flow/specs/<id>.md`. Survives `rm -rf .flow/` only if `STRATEGY.md` / `GLOSSARY.md` / `knowledge/decisions/` already capture the rationale; otherwise the rationale lives in the spec body.

### [2] Spec, business-layer complete — Handover #1

`/flow-next:capture` source-tags every acceptance criterion as `[user]` (verbatim from the user), `[paraphrase]` (rephrased), or `[inferred]` (the agent inferred it). The mandatory read-back loop shows the full draft + tally before writing — the `[inferred]` count tells the user how much of the spec the agent invented, and they can reject it.

For specs that emerge from a longer back-and-forth, run `/flow-next:interview <spec-id> --scope=business` instead. The interview focuses on **business requirements** at this stage — problem framing, target user, success metrics, MVP boundary, what-NOT-to-build, business constraints. The codebase is read-only context, not the subject of questions.

The handover is a *state* of the spec, not a second spec. The same `.flow/specs/<spec-id>.md` file evolves through layers — `--scope=business` writes the business sections (and leaves `*Pending technical-scope interview pass.*` placeholders under the technical sections so the read-back shows what is intentionally empty).

Hand the spec off to the tech lead by linking it. (For *Spec-as-PR*, see [Team patterns](#team-patterns) below — open the spec file on a feature branch as a draft PR before any code lands.)

### [3] Spec, fully complete — Handover #2

The tech lead runs `/flow-next:interview <spec-id> --scope=technical`. This is the **same skill** as the business-layer interview, run on the **same spec file** — same tool, same structure, same review loop. The only thing that changes is the layer being completed. The technical pass reads the business sections first (when populated) and cites them as constraint context before asking any technical question. (See [Symmetric interview](#symmetric-interview).)

`--scope=technical` is the default when no scope flag is passed — solo devs running the single-pass workflow keep their pre-1.1.0 behavior. Teams adopting the symmetric pattern opt in explicitly via `--scope=business` then `--scope=technical` (or `--scope=both` for a single combined pass).

Optional `--strategy --docs` flags activate doc-aware mode (orthogonal to scope): the interview pulls from `STRATEGY.md` (active tracks), `GLOSSARY.md` (canonical vocabulary), and `knowledge/decisions/` (load-bearing past choices). When the user's wording diverges from the canonical glossary term, the interview surfaces the conflict in a `## Glossary Conflicts` spec section rather than silently rewriting. Same shape for strategy: a `## Strategy Conflicts` section parallel to glossary, ≤1 strategy-conflict question per turn.

Run `/flow-next:plan-review <spec-id>` before handover. A different model (RepoPrompt / Codex / Copilot) reads the fully-completed spec and reports gaps, ambiguities, and hidden assumptions. The disagreement surface between the writing model and the review model is where the gaps live.

### [4] Implementation plan — Handover #3

`/flow-next:plan <spec-id>` reads the spec, scans the codebase via parallel scouts (repo-scout, context-scout, docs-scout, practice-scout, github-scout, ...), and decomposes the spec into ordered tasks with explicit dependencies.

Tasks are sized to fit one `/flow-next:work` iteration (~100k tokens of fresh context). If a task wouldn't fit, the planner splits it. R-IDs from the spec are propagated into per-task `satisfies: [R1, R3]` frontmatter — a task says exactly which acceptance criteria it advances.

Run `/flow-next:plan-review` again on the plan itself. The plan is a separate handover object from the spec; review it as a separate handover.

### [5] Working implementation — Handover #4

`/flow-next:work <spec-id>` loops over ready tasks. Each task runs in a **worker subagent with fresh context** (no token bleed from prior tasks). Before each task, the worker re-anchors: re-reads the spec, the task, and `git log` since branch base.

Per-task output: an evidence record (commits, tests, files touched) plus a `done_summary` block. The summary is the conversation the worker had with itself about *why* it made the choices it made — load-bearing for `/make-pr` to write the Decisions section without confabulating.

Branch strategy is a per-team choice:

| Choice | Best for | Trade-off |
|--------|----------|-----------|
| `--branch=current` | One spec at a time, single dev | No isolation between specs |
| `--branch=new` (default) | Multiple in-flight specs, single dev | One PR per spec |
| `--branch=worktree` | Parallel specs + parallel workers | Disk overhead; CI parallelism |

### [6] Cross-model code review — Handover #5

`/flow-next:impl-review` runs a different model over the diff against the spec. Default backend is configured at the team level via `flowctl review-backend`; per-task overrides via task frontmatter; per-invocation overrides via `--review` flag.

Backends: `rp` (RepoPrompt), `codex` (Codex CLI), `copilot` (GitHub Copilot CLI), `none`. Spec-form: `codex:gpt-5.5:high`, `copilot:claude-opus-4.5:high`, etc. See [`docs/flowctl.md`](flowctl.md) for the `flowctl review-backend` command reference.

The review surfaces findings on five confidence anchors (0 / 25 / 50 / 75 / 100) and gates `<75` except P0 @ 50+. Findings classified `introduced` vs `pre_existing` — only `introduced` counts toward the verdict. Receipts at `.flow/review-receipts/<branch>.json` carry `unaddressed: [R-IDs]`, `suppressed_count`, `verdict_before_validate`, etc. The receipt is itself a handover artefact.

Opt-in flags for hardened review: `--validate` (validator pass on `NEEDS_WORK` to drop confirmed false positives), `--deep` (security + adversarial + performance passes), `--interactive` (per-finding Apply/Defer/Skip walkthrough).

### [7] Drift audit

`/flow-next:spec-completion-review <spec-id>` is the closing gate at end-of-spec. It verifies the *combined* implementation (across all tasks) satisfies the spec — was anything dropped? Were R-IDs left uncovered? Did the plan diverge from the spec along the way?

Configure as a required gate via `--require-completion-review` (in `flowctl next`). The work skill blocks spec-close until spec-completion-review returns SHIP. The fix loop happens internally — the skill keeps iterating until it passes or escalates.

### [8] PR-as-cognitive-aid — Handover #6

`/flow-next:make-pr <spec-id>` synthesizes nine input streams into a structured PR body:

1. Spec with R-IDs
2. Per-task `done_summary` + evidence commits
3. `decisions/` memory (architectural choices made during the spec)
4. `bug/` memory (workarounds + reasoning)
5. `architecture-patterns/` memory (new conventions)
6. Glossary changes (terms added/renamed)
7. Strategy alignment (which active tracks the spec served)
8. Deferred review findings (`.flow/review-deferred/<branch>.md`)
9. The `git diff` itself

Body sections: TL;DR · R-ID coverage table · Critical changes (high-churn / cross-module / public-interface / security-sensitive / behavior-visible) · Decisions · Memory · Glossary/strategy deltas · Open items · Where to look (reviewer-focus list).

Mermaid codefences emit when the diff crosses ≥2 modules (max 3 diagrams × 12 nodes; markdown codefence — GitHub / GitLab / Gitea render natively). Default `--draft` if open items > 0 or under Ralph; `--ready` overrides.

The PR body is the cognitive-aid handover. **Don't ask a human to skim a 10K-line diff** — ask the agent to produce a body that surfaces *where the human should focus*. See the [root README — Commands](../../../README.md#commands) row for `/flow-next:make-pr`, or [flow-next.dev](https://flow-next.dev) for the narrative walkthrough.

### [9] Human review + merge

The reviewer reads the PR body before the diff. Reading order:

1. **TL;DR** — does the change match what the team agreed to?
2. **R-ID coverage** — every acceptance criterion has a satisfying task and an evidence commit, or it's flagged as uncovered with a ⚠️.
3. **Critical changes** — focus the reading on these files first; the body explicitly tells the reviewer *which lines matter*.
4. **Decisions** — every load-bearing architectural choice has a decision record under `knowledge/decisions/` with trade-offs and alternatives.
5. **Where to look** — concrete `path:line` references the reviewer should read in the diff itself.

When review threads land, run `/flow-next:resolve-pr <PR#>`. The skill fetches threads, triages by validity, dispatches per-thread resolver agents (parallel on Claude Code, serial on Codex / Copilot / Droid), and replies + resolves via GraphQL. See the [root README — Commands](../../../README.md#commands) row for `/flow-next:resolve-pr`, or [flow-next.dev](https://flow-next.dev) for the narrative.

### Maintenance — `/flow-next:audit`

After merge, the new code creates new memory entries (decisions, patterns, bugs). Old memory drifts. `/flow-next:audit` walks `.flow/memory/`, reviews each entry against current code, and decides Keep / Update / Consolidate / Replace / Delete per entry.

Memory garbage collection is itself a handover object — between *current* and *future* you. See [`docs/memory-schema.md`](memory-schema.md) for the categorized memory tree, frontmatter schemas, and audit lifecycle.

---

## Delegate / Review / Own per phase

Adapted from the methodology guide's *Delegate → Review → Own* framework, with the Flow-Next surface for each phase:

| Phase | Delegate (agent first pass) | Review (human validates) | Own (human strategic) | Flow-Next surface |
|-------|------------------------------|--------------------------|------------------------|-------------------|
| **Plan** | Maps spec to codebase, identifies dependencies, surfaces ambiguities | Validates estimates, completeness, non-obvious risks | Prioritization, sequencing, tradeoffs | `/flow-next:plan` + `/flow-next:plan-review` |
| **Design** | Scaffolds, generates boilerplate, translates mockups | Components follow conventions, accessibility | Design system, UX patterns, architecture | Decision records under `knowledge/decisions/` |
| **Build** | Drafts implementations, tests, docs | Design choices, performance, security, domain alignment | New abstractions, cross-cutting changes, ambiguity | `/flow-next:work` (worker subagent) |
| **Test** | Generates cases, identifies edge cases, suggests failures | Tests aren't stubbed, runnable by agents, coverage | Coverage aligned with specs, adversarial thinking | Evidence requirements in spec; per-task evidence record |
| **Review** | Initial code review, catches P0/P1 before human | Architectural alignment, conventions, requirements match | Final review, merge decision | `/flow-next:impl-review` (cross-model) → `/flow-next:make-pr` |
| **Deploy** | Generates release notes, identifies breaking changes | Smoke validation, customer-facing copy | Production responsibility, incident response | `/flow-next:make-pr` → `/flow-next:resolve-pr` |
| **Maintain** | Reviews stale memory, drift, dead conventions | Per-entry classification | Direction of `STRATEGY.md`, what stays load-bearing | `/flow-next:audit` |

The pattern is the same in every row: **first pass is delegated to the agent, validation is the reviewing human's job, and strategic decisions stay with the owner**. Flow-Next is the structure that makes this concrete — every command in the right column corresponds to one of the three columns on the left.

---

## Team patterns

### Spec-as-PR

The strongest pattern emerging across teams running spec-driven development:

```
1. Create branch: feature/<slug>
2. Run /flow-next:capture or /flow-next:interview to write .flow/specs/<id>.md
3. Open PR with ONLY the spec — no code yet
4. Team reviews the spec (PM, eng, design)
5. Address comments, iterate via /flow-next:interview <spec-id>
6. Merge spec PR (spec is now frozen on main)
7. Implementation PRs reference the merged spec
```

**Why review the spec before code?** Reviewing a 50-line spec is higher-leverage than reviewing a 500-line implementation. Catching a wrong requirement at spec time costs minutes; in code review it costs hours; post-merge it costs days. (Vocabulary: see [methodology guide — Spec-as-PR](https://github.com/gmickel/AI-x-SDLC-Starter-Kit/blob/main/guides/methodology.md#spec-as-pr-the-team-review-workflow).)

Use `/flow-next:plan-review <spec-id>` to run a cross-model review *before* opening the PR — surface the gaps the writing model missed before human reviewers spend time on them.

### Parallel work from one spec

When the spec decomposes into independent tasks, multiple agents (or humans + agents) can implement them in parallel:

| Pattern | How |
|---------|-----|
| Decompose at spec level | `/flow-next:plan` writes per-task `requires: [task-ids]` frontmatter. Independent tasks are ready immediately; dependent tasks wait. |
| Module boundaries in spec | Spec sections name the module: "Auth API" and "Auth UI" become separate task clusters with the API contract between them. Each cluster runs in its own worker subagent (fresh context) without coordination overhead. |
| Cross-task evidence | Per-task `done_summary` is the breadcrumb the next task reads to re-anchor. No standup needed. |
| Worktree-per-cluster | `/flow-next:work --branch=worktree` isolates clusters at the filesystem level. Each cluster's worker has its own checkout — no merge conflicts during the build. |

The anti-pattern is two agents working on overlapping files from the same spec without coordination. The fix is **clearer boundaries in the spec itself**, not better merge conflict resolution. If the boundaries are unclear, run `/flow-next:interview <spec-id>` to add them.

### Frozen-at-handover

Spec acceptance criteria are numbered `**R1:**`, `**R2:**`, ... in creation order. **They are never renumbered.** Deletions leave gaps (`R1, R3, R5`); new criteria take the next unused number. Tasks reference R-IDs via `satisfies: [R1, R3]` frontmatter. Commits reference R-IDs in the message body. PRs render an R-ID coverage table mapping `R# → task → commit`.

The invariant: once a spec has been reviewed once, **R5 means the same thing forever**. A reviewer reading R5 in a six-month-old commit, a new team member reading R5 in the spec, and `/flow-next:make-pr` emitting "R5 — covered by fn-12.3" all refer to the same acceptance criterion.

This is what *frozen at handover* means in practice — the receiving party gets a stable artefact, and changes are visible (a new R-ID appears) rather than silent.

### Symmetric interview

`/flow-next:interview` is run by both the PO (business layer, `--scope=business`) and the tech lead (technical layer, `--scope=technical`, optionally `--strategy --docs` for doc-aware mode). Same skill, same shape, same review loop, **same `.flow/specs/<spec-id>.md` file**. The only thing that changes is the layer being completed.

`--scope=technical` is the **default** when no scope flag is passed. Solo devs running the single-pass workflow keep their pre-1.1.0 behavior — zero new prompts, zero breaking change. Teams adopting the symmetric pattern opt in explicitly:

```
IDEA / ROUGH PROSE  (PO scribbles)
        │
        ▼
/flow-next:interview --scope=business    ← business layer
   (problem framing, target user, success metrics,
    MVP boundary, business constraints, what-NOT-to-build;
    reads STRATEGY.md / GLOSSARY.md / project docs
    before drafting questions)
        │
        ▼
.flow/specs/<spec-id>.md                  ← business sections filled;
   (technical sections carry                  technical sections carry
    *Pending technical-scope interview          placeholders awaiting the
    pass.* placeholders)                       technical pass
        │
        ▼
/flow-next:plan-review                    ← cross-model review of the
                                              spec at business-layer
                                              completion
        │
        ▼
HANDOVER #1 — spec biz-layer complete → tech lead
   (same .flow/specs/<spec-id>.md file,
    just at a different completion state)
        │
        ▼
/flow-next:interview --scope=technical    ← technical layer
   (codebase + GLOSSARY.md + STRATEGY.md +
    knowledge/decisions/; reads the spec's
    business sections first and cites them
    as constraint context)
        │
        ▼
.flow/specs/<spec-id>.md                  ← business sections preserved
   (now fully populated)                       byte-for-byte; technical
                                              sections filled; R-IDs
                                              appended, never renumbered
        │
        ▼
/flow-next:plan-review                    ← cross-model review of the
                                              fully complete spec
        │
        ▼
HANDOVER #2 — spec fully complete → developer
   (same .flow/specs/<spec-id>.md file)
```

For a single-invocation variant, `/flow-next:interview <spec-id> --scope=both` runs the business pass first, writes the business sections, then continues seamlessly into the technical pass with the just-written business content as input. Short aliases: `--biz` ≡ `--scope=business`, `--tech` ≡ `--scope=technical`.

**Supplementary design docs are separate artefacts, NOT the spec.** When a topic needs a longer-form treatment than the spec body can carry — an architecture deep-dive, an ADR, a `docs/design/<topic>.md` — write it as a separate file and cross-link from the spec. The spec at `.flow/specs/<spec-id>.md` remains the single source of truth for R-IDs and acceptance; supplementary docs are referenced from it but do not extend it. The "one spec, evolving through layers" rule governs only what lives **inside** `.flow/specs/<spec-id>.md` — supplementary design docs are explicitly out of scope.

**One pattern to teach.** POs don't learn a "PO tool" and devs a "dev tool". Same prompt, same review loop, same template, same file. Coaching cost halves.

(Detailed reasoning + adoption-velocity argument: see [methodology guide — Symmetric Interview](https://github.com/gmickel/AI-x-SDLC-Starter-Kit/blob/main/guides/methodology.md#the-symmetric-interview-pattern).)

### Decision records

When a load-bearing architectural choice is made during `/work` or `/interview`, the host agent prompts (under doc-aware mode) to write a decision record to `.flow/memory/knowledge/decisions/<slug>.md`. The record carries:

- `decision_status`: `proposed` | `accepted` | `superseded`
- `superseded_by`: id of the replacing decision (when superseded)
- `alternatives_considered`: prose listing what was on the table and why each alternative was rejected
- A 1–3 sentence body on trade-offs, irreversibility, and surprise factor

Decision records survive `rm -rf .flow/` because they live in the same memory tree as bug entries — they are the project's, not flow-next's. See [`docs/memory-schema.md`](memory-schema.md) for the directory tree (including the `knowledge/decisions/` subtree) and frontmatter schema.

`/flow-next:make-pr` reads decision records during the spec lifecycle and surfaces them in the PR body's Decisions section. Reviewers read decisions *first*, before the diff — that is the highest-leverage section for catching architectural drift.

### Strategy alignment

`/flow-next:strategy` writes a repo-root `STRATEGY.md` (peer of `GLOSSARY.md` / `README.md`, never under `.flow/`). Five required sections (`Target problem` / `Our approach` / `Who it's for` / `Key metrics` / `Tracks`) plus two optional (`Milestones` / `Not working on`).

Active tracks become an *advisory* signal flowing into downstream skills:

- `/flow-next:prospect` injects the active tracks into candidate generation; rejection taxonomy includes `out-of-scope-vs-strategy`.
- `/flow-next:plan` emits a `## Strategy Alignment` spec section listing which active tracks the plan serves; drift surfaces as a `## Strategy drift flagged for review` block.
- `/flow-next:interview` surfaces conflicts in a `## Strategy Conflicts` spec section parallel to `## Glossary Conflicts`.
- `/flow-next:capture` source-tags strategy-derived acceptance criteria as `[strategy:<track-name>]`; refuses to write a spec contradicting an active track without `--override-strategy` (which prompts for a decision record).
- `/flow-next:sync` plan-sync surfaces drift in a `## Strategy drift flagged for review` heading; `/flow-next:make-pr` surfaces a `## Strategy Alignment` block in the PR body.

**Read-only and advisory.** Downstream skills *never auto-supersede* an active track. They surface conflicts and ask the human. See [`docs/strategy.md`](strategy.md) for the `STRATEGY.md` shape, foreign-file refusal, and how downstream skills consume it.

---

## Multi-developer coordination

What `.flow/` looks like with N developers in parallel:

- **Spec-level isolation.** Each spec is `fn-<N>-<slug>` with its markdown at `.flow/specs/fn-<N>-<slug>.md`, sidecar JSON at `.flow/specs/fn-<N>-<slug>.json`, and its own task tree under `.flow/tasks/fn-<N>-<slug>.M.json|md`. Two devs working on `fn-12-...` and `fn-15-...` never touch each other's files.
- **Task-level dependencies.** Within a spec, `requires: [task-ids]` frontmatter is the contract. A task is *ready* when all its requires have status `done`. `flowctl ready --spec fn-12-...` lists ready tasks.
- **Branch strategy.** Per-spec branch is the default (`--branch=new`). Worktrees scale to several specs in flight (`--branch=worktree`). Current-branch is for solo, single-spec work.
- **Worker isolation.** Each task runs in a worker subagent with fresh context. The worker reads only what it needs — it does not see the conversation in the spawning session, and it does not see the other tasks. This is what enables N tasks to run in parallel without context-bleed.
- **Memory tree as shared state.** `.flow/memory/` is the only multi-writer surface. The convention: bug entries are auto-written by Ralph on review-loop iteration; knowledge entries (`decisions/`, `architecture-patterns/`, `conventions/`) are written by humans or by `/work` with explicit confirmation. `/flow-next:audit` reconciles drift periodically.
- **`.flow/` lives in the repo.** Commit it. Code review it. The spec PRs and implementation PRs both touch `.flow/` — that's intentional. The team's `.flow/` evolves alongside the code.

**Conflict resolution:** when two specs evolve overlapping memory entries (same `<slug>` under `bug/runtime-errors/`, for example), the second writer creates the entry with a `related_to: [first-id]` frontmatter pointer rather than overwriting. `/flow-next:audit` later surfaces the pair for Consolidate.

---

## Autonomous mode (Ralph) in a team

Ralph is the *factory of agents* mode — the loop runs overnight against a queued spec, with cross-model review gates and receipt-based proof-of-work. See [docs/ralph.md](ralph.md).

In a team setting:

- **Ralph runs against one spec at a time** on its own branch (typically a worktree to avoid touching the dev's working tree).
- **`/flow-next:make-pr` is the terminus.** Ralph defaults to `--draft` so the human owns the merge decision. The PR body is the morning-review surface — read the cognitive-aid sections, scan the diff, merge or comment.
- **Ralph is *not* Spec-as-PR.** The spec must already exist (frozen, reviewed, merged) before Ralph runs against it. Otherwise Ralph drifts on every iteration as the spec moves under it.
- **Ralph is *not* a replacement for `/work`.** Use Ralph for well-scoped, mechanical-feeling specs (refactors, test backfills, lint cleanup, mechanical migrations). Use `/work` for design-heavy or architectural specs where the human stays in the loop.
- **Ralph fits the methodology's iterative-loop *vs* factory-of-agents distinction.** Iterative-loop = `/work` with a human at the keyboard. Factory = Ralph. The choice is per-spec, not per-team.

Ralph emits run logs to `scripts/ralph/runs/<run>/` — receipts, verbose logs, the Claude session jsonl. The morning-review workflow lives in [ralph.md — Morning Review Workflow](ralph.md#morning-review-workflow).

---

## What flow-next does *not* replace

To be clear about scope:

- **Domain experts** still feed the system with knowledge. Flow-Next captures and curates; it does not source domain knowledge.
- **Product thinkers** still shape the vision. `/flow-next:strategy` writes down the strategy, but humans decide what the strategy *is*.
- **Stakeholders** still review and redirect. The PR body makes review fast; it does not make stakeholders unnecessary.
- **Junior developers** still exist. Their growth path changes (curation and verification, not generation), but Flow-Next does not replace mentorship or pairing.
- **Prioritization meetings.** *Which spec do we work on next?* — humans. `/prospect` ranks candidates; humans pick.
- **Architectural meetings.** Load-bearing tradeoffs that span multiple specs. `/strategy` and `knowledge/decisions/` are the *artefact*; the discussion still happens between humans.
- **Incident response.** When something breaks in production, the loop is human-led with the agent as a tool. `/flow-next:diagnose` (when it ships) will be a structured aid, not a replacement.
- **Customer conversations.** Specs come from customer pain. Flow-Next is downstream of that.

The collaboration doesn't disappear. The *ceremony tax* does. Standups, refinement meetings, design reviews — those are replaced by the artefact chain. The conversations that remain are the ones humans should still own.

---

## Adoption ladder

Don't try to roll out all 18 commands at once. Layer them in.

### Week 1: Prove it works

Turn on three commands. Use them on one spec.

- `/flow-next:capture` — write the spec from a discussion the team had this week.
- `/flow-next:plan` — break the spec into tasks.
- `/flow-next:work` — implement.

Skip review for the first spec. Skip Ralph. The goal is to feel the lifecycle on a real piece of work.

### Month 1: Establish the pattern

Add cross-model review and the PR-as-cognitive-aid surface.

- Configure `flowctl review-backend` at the team level (`codex` or `copilot` is the lowest-friction starting point).
- Run `/flow-next:plan-review` after every `/plan`. Surface gaps before they reach `/work`.
- Run `/flow-next:impl-review` after every `/work` task. Use the SHIP/NEEDS_WORK gate to drive iteration.
- Use `/flow-next:make-pr` for every PR. The team gets used to reading the cognitive-aid body before the diff.

By the end of month 1, every spec has been through the full handover chain at least once.

### Quarter 1: Scale the model

Add the patterns that scale across multiple in-flight specs + multiple developers.

- Adopt **Spec-as-PR** as the team norm — every spec gets reviewed and merged before any code lands.
- Adopt **R-ID frozen-at-handover** as the team norm — never renumber, always reference, always trace.
- Run `/flow-next:strategy` and write the repo's `STRATEGY.md`. Let the active tracks flow into `/prospect`, `/plan`, and `/interview`.
- Start writing **decision records** under `knowledge/decisions/` for load-bearing choices. The PR body's Decisions section gets richer; review velocity goes up.
- Schedule periodic `/flow-next:audit` runs against `.flow/memory/`. Once a month is plenty for most teams.
- Pilot **Ralph** on a single mechanical spec (test backfill, lint migration, dependency bump). Watch the morning review. Decide whether to expand.

By the end of quarter 1, the team has crossed from *using a tool* to *running a methodology*.

---

## Where to go next

- **Theory.** [AI-x-SDLC-Starter-Kit methodology guide](https://github.com/gmickel/AI-x-SDLC-Starter-Kit/blob/main/guides/methodology.md) — *why* the lifecycle changes, the touch-point collapse, the productivity disconnect, the cultural-debt problem.
- **Command reference.** [`docs/flowctl.md`](flowctl.md) — every `flowctl` subcommand, every flag, every JSON shape. The [root README — Commands](../../../README.md#commands) table covers the user-facing slash commands.
- **Autonomous mode.** [docs/ralph.md](ralph.md) — Ralph architecture, configuration, morning review workflow.
- **CLI reference.** [docs/flowctl.md](flowctl.md) — every `flowctl` subcommand and JSON shape.
- **Memory schema.** [`docs/memory-schema.md`](memory-schema.md) — categories, frontmatter, audit lifecycle.
- **Glossary + strategy.** [`docs/glossary.md`](glossary.md) and [`docs/strategy.md`](strategy.md).
