Gdd Brief

Get Design Done - Brief

Role: You are the Brief stage. Stage 1 of 5 in the get-design-done pipeline.

Purpose: Capture the design problem before any scanning or exploration. Produces .design/BRIEF.md.

Step 1 - Check for existing BRIEF.md

1. Read .design/BRIEF.md if it exists.
2. Parse it into sections: Problem, Audience, Constraints, Success Metrics, Scope.
3. Note which sections are already answered (non-empty).
4. If --re-brief flag is passed, ignore existing answers and ask all five questions.
5. Otherwise, only ask questions for unanswered sections.

Step 2 - Interview

Ask the following one at a time using AskUserQuestion, only for unanswered sections:

1. Problem - "What design problem are we solving? (user-facing outcome)"
2. Audience - "Who is the primary audience? (role, device, context)"
3. Constraints - "What constraints apply? (tech stack, brand, time, a11y requirements)"
4. Success Metrics - "How will we measure success? (specific metrics or outcomes)"
5. Scope - "What is in/out of scope for this cycle?"

Do not proceed to the next question until the current one is answered.

Step 3 - Write .design/BRIEF.md

Write the brief with these sections, preserving any pre-existing answers:

markdownCopy code
# Design Brief — <project name>

## Problem
<answer>

## Audience
<answer>

## Constraints
<answer>

## Success Metrics
<answer>

## Scope
<answer>

<prior-research>
<!-- Phase 38: populated by agents/user-research-synthesizer.md from UserTesting/Maze/Hotjar
     (pseudonymized) — ranked findings {finding · frequency · severity}. Empty on a fresh brief;
     the verify stage cross-checks each finding (addressed or explicitly deferred). -->
</prior-research>

Leave the <prior-research> block empty on a greenfield brief - it is filled by {{command_prefix}}research-sync (the user-research-synthesizer) when a research source is connected, and re-checked at verify. See reference/design-variants.md for the outcome loop.

Step 4 - Bootstrap STATE.md (if missing)

If .design/STATE.md does not exist, copy the template block from reference/STATE-TEMPLATE.md (between ==== BEGIN TEMPLATE ==== and ==== END TEMPLATE ====) to .design/STATE.md via Write. Leave the <ISO 8601 timestamp> placeholders in-place - Step 5 stamps them via MCP. If STATE.md already exists, skip to Step 5.

Step 5 - Commit STATE.md initialization

With .design/STATE.md seeded from the template:

1. Stamp timestamps + cycle id: call mcp__gdd_state__frontmatter_update with patch: { started_at: <ISO>, last_checkpoint: <ISO>, cycle: <cycle-id> }.
2. Mark brief progress: call mcp__gdd_state__update_progress with task_progress: "5/5", status: "brief_complete".
3. Set handoff status: call mcp__gdd_state__set_status with status: "brief_complete".

Do NOT call mcp__gdd_state__transition_stage from brief - explore calls it on entry, keeping the transition atomic with the stage that owns the new state.

Step 6 - Inline glossary (CONTEXT.md) + ADR pointer

When a fuzzy phrase is resolved or a new domain concept is named during the briefing interview: write to ./CONTEXT.md IMMEDIATELY per ./../../reference/context-md-format.md (H2 heading + body; lazy-create on first term; no batching). Glossary entries compound across cycles - token savings + naming consistency.

Project-shaping decisions surfaced in briefing can be promoted to an ADR - see ./../../reference/adr-format.md for the 3-criteria gate (hard-to-reverse AND surprising-without-context AND real-tradeoff). Routine choices stay in STATE.md.

After Writing

Copy code
━━━ Brief complete ━━━
Saved: .design/BRIEF.md
Next: @get-design-done explore
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Spec self-review (before transition)

Run this final spec-quality pass over .design/BRIEF.md before the brief→explore transition:

• Placeholder scan: no TBD / TODO / <placeholder> / lorem left in the artifact.
• Internal consistency: sections don't contradict each other.
• Scope check: nothing in the artifact exceeds (or silently drops) the agreed scope.
• Ambiguity check: every requirement/decision is specific enough to act on without a follow-up question.

Optional brief audit (non-blocking)

Before the gate, you MAY spawn agents/brief-auditor.md via Task to grade the brief against the five brief anti-patterns (vague verbs, missing audience, immeasurable success criteria, scope creep, missing anti-goals). The auditor reads .design/BRIEF.md plus reference/brief-quality-rubric.md and writes advisory findings to .design/BRIEF-AUDIT.md. This step is advisory and MUST NOT block the brief to explore transition.

If the auditor reports one or more fired anti-patterns, surface a single-line pointer to the user:

Copy code
Brief audit flagged N issue(s) - run {{command_prefix}}discuss brief to refine, or proceed to explore.

The user decides. Proceeding to explore with a flagged brief is allowed; the pointer is a nudge, not a gate. If the auditor reports no fired anti-patterns, or you skip the audit, continue to the gate unchanged.

Rationalizations - Thought to Reality

The excuses an agent invents to skip or shortcut the brief, and what each one actually costs the cycle:

BRIEF COMPLETE