fix(ce-ideate): sharpen bug intent, surprise-me dispatch, and drop authoring refs (#672)

plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-brainstorm/references/handoff.md

@@ -8,8 +8,8 @@ This content is loaded when Phase 4 begins — after the requirements document i
 
 The Phase 4 menu's visible option count varies by state: no requirements doc hides the review and Proof options, unresolved `Resolve Before Planning` hides `Plan implementation` and `Build it now`, a failing direct-to-work gate hides `Build it now`. Count the visible options for the current state and choose the rendering mode accordingly:
 
-- **4 or fewer visible:** use the platform's blocking question tool (`AskUserQuestion` in Claude Code — call `ToolSearch` with `select:AskUserQuestion` first if its schema isn't loaded; `request_user_input` in Codex; `ask_user` in Gemini, `ask_user` in Pi (requires the `pi-ask-user` extension)). This is the default per the plugin AGENTS.md "Interactive Question Tool Design" section.
+- **4 or fewer visible:** use the platform's blocking question tool (`AskUserQuestion` in Claude Code — call `ToolSearch` with `select:AskUserQuestion` first if its schema isn't loaded; `request_user_input` in Codex; `ask_user` in Gemini, `ask_user` in Pi (requires the `pi-ask-user` extension)). This is the default.
-- **5 or more visible:** render as a numbered list in chat. This is the narrow case-3 overflow exception documented in the same AGENTS.md section; trimming would hide legitimate choices (plan, review, Proof, build, refine, pause are all distinct destinations).
+- **5 or more visible:** render as a numbered list in chat. This is the narrow option-overflow fallback; trimming would hide legitimate choices (plan, review, Proof, build, refine, pause are all distinct destinations). Include a hint that free-form input is accepted ("Pick a number or describe what you want.") so the numbered list retains the blocking tool's open-endedness.
 
 Never silently skip the question.
 

plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-ideate/SKILL.md

@@ -78,11 +78,11 @@ Before classifying mode or dispatching any grounding, check whether the subject
 
 **Detection — issue-tracker intent (repo mode only; subject-identifying).**
 
-If the prompt's primary intent is analyzing issue patterns — phrases like `bugs`, `github issues`, `open issues`, `issue patterns`, `what users are reporting`, `bug reports`, `issue themes` — the subject is "issues in the tracker." Proceed to 0.3 with issue-tracker intent flagged.
+Issue-tracker intent requires an explicit reference to the tracker or to reports filed in it. Trigger only when the prompt uses phrases like `github issues`, `open issues`, `issue patterns`, `issue themes`, `what users are reporting`, or `bug reports` — the subject is "issues in the tracker." Proceed to 0.3 with issue-tracker intent flagged.
 
-Do NOT trigger on arguments that merely mention bugs as a focus: `bug in auth`, `fix the login issue`, `the signup bug` — these are focus hints, not requests to analyze the issue tracker.
+Do NOT trigger on arguments that merely mention bugs as a focus: `bug in auth`, `fix the login issue`, `the signup bug`, `top 3 bugs in authentication` — these are focus hints on regular ideation, not requests to analyze the issue tracker. A bare `bugs` with no tracker phrasing is handled by the vagueness check below, not here.
 
-When combined (e.g., `top 3 bugs in authentication`): detect issue-tracker intent first, volume override in 0.5, remainder is the focus hint. The focus narrows which issues matter; the volume override controls survivor count.
+When combined (e.g., `top 3 issue themes in authentication`, `biggest bug reports about checkout`): detect issue-tracker intent first, volume override in 0.5, remainder is the focus hint. The focus narrows which issues matter; the volume override controls survivor count.
 
 **Detection — subject identifiability.**
 
@@ -113,14 +113,16 @@ Use the platform's blocking question tool: `AskUserQuestion` in Claude Code (cal
 Routing:
 
 - **Specify** → accept the user's follow-up as the subject. Re-apply the identifiability check once. If still ambiguous, ask once more with "Surprise me" still on the menu. Do not cascade toward specificity about *how* to solve — only about *what* the subject is.
-- **Surprise me** → mark the run as **surprise-me mode**. The agent will discover subjects from Phase 1 material rather than carry a user-specified subject. This is a first-class mode — it changes how Phase 1 scans and how Phase 2 sub-agents operate (see those phases).
+- **Surprise me** → mark the run as **surprise-me mode**. The agent will discover subjects from Phase 1 material rather than carry a user-specified subject. This is a first-class mode — it changes how Phase 1 scans and how Phase 2 sub-agents operate (see those phases). **Dispatch routing for surprise-me is deterministic:** if CWD is inside a git repo, route to repo-grounded (the codebase supplies substance); otherwise route to elsewhere-software and require Phase 0.4 to collect at least one piece of substance (URL, description, draft, or paste) before dispatching — "surprise me" outside a repo is only viable once the user has supplied something to surprise them about. Skip Decision 1/2 in Phase 0.3: with no user subject there is no prompt content to weigh, and surprise-me never routes to elsewhere-non-software (no way to infer naming/narrative/personal intent without a subject). The user can correct by interrupting and re-invoking with a named subject.
 - **Cancel** → exit cleanly. Narrate that the user can rephrase and re-invoke.
 
 #### 0.3 Mode Classification
 
 Classify the **subject of ideation** (settled in 0.2) into one of three modes for dispatch routing. A user inside any repo can ideate about something unrelated to that repo; a user in `/tmp` can ideate about code they hold in their head.
 
-Make two sequential binary decisions, enumerating negative signals at each:
+**Surprise-me short-circuit.** When Phase 0.2 routed to surprise-me mode, skip the two-decision classification below and use the deterministic rule stated in 0.2: repo-grounded when CWD is inside a git repo, elsewhere-software otherwise. The ambiguity-confirmation step at the end of this section also does not fire for surprise-me — there is no user subject to be ambiguous about. State the chosen mode in one sentence and proceed to 0.4.
+
+For specified subjects, make two sequential binary decisions, enumerating negative signals at each:
 
 **Decision 1 — repo-grounded vs elsewhere.** Weigh prompt content first, topic-repo coherence second, and CWD repo presence as supporting evidence only.
 
@@ -147,7 +149,7 @@ State the inferred approach in one sentence at the top, using plain language the
 
 Do not prescribe correction phrases ("say X to switch"). State the inferred mode plainly and proceed. If the user disagrees, they will correct in their own words or interrupt to re-invoke — reclassify and re-run any affected routing when that happens.
 
-**Active confirmation on mode ambiguity.** Only fire when mode classification is genuinely ambiguous *after* 0.2 settled the subject — e.g., "our docs" could mean repo docs (repo-grounded) or public marketing docs (elsewhere-software). Most subjects settled in 0.2 classify cleanly here. When ambiguous, ask one confirmation question via the blocking tool following the Interactive Question Tool Design rules in the plugin AGENTS.md (self-contained labels, max 4, third person, front-loaded distinguishing word, no leaked internal mode names); otherwise the one-sentence inferred-mode statement is sufficient — do not ask.
+**Active confirmation on mode ambiguity.** Only fire when mode classification is genuinely ambiguous *after* 0.2 settled the subject — e.g., "our docs" could mean repo docs (repo-grounded) or public marketing docs (elsewhere-software). Most subjects settled in 0.2 classify cleanly here. When ambiguous, ask one confirmation question via the blocking tool with two self-contained labels naming the two candidate interpretations in plain language (e.g., "Treat as repo docs in this codebase" vs "Treat as public marketing docs") — never leak internal mode names. Otherwise the one-sentence inferred-mode statement is sufficient; do not ask.
 
 **Routing rule (non-software mode).** When Decision 2 = non-software, still run Phase 1 Elsewhere-mode grounding (user-context synthesis + web-research by default; skip phrases honored). Learnings-researcher is skipped by default in this mode — the CWD's `docs/solutions/` rarely transfers to naming, narrative, personal, or non-digital business topics; see Phase 1 for the full rationale. Then load `references/universal-ideation.md` and follow it in place of Phase 2's software frame dispatch and the Phase 6 menu narrative. This load is non-optional — the file contains the domain-agnostic generation frames, critique rubric, and wrap-up menu that replace Phase 2 and the post-ideation menu for this mode, and none of those details live in this main body. Improvising from memory produces the wrong facilitation for non-software topics. Do not run the repo-specific codebase scan at any point. The §6.5 Proof Failure Ladder in `references/post-ideation-workflow.md` still applies — load and follow it whenever a Proof save (the elsewhere-mode default for Save and end) fails, so the local-save fallback path stays reachable in non-software elsewhere runs.
 
@@ -163,6 +165,8 @@ Apply the discrimination test: would swapping one piece of the user's stated con
 
 Build on what the user already provided rather than starting from a template. Default to free-form questions; use single-select only when the answer space is small and discrete. After each answer, re-apply the test before asking another. Stop on dismissive responses ("idk just go") — treat genuine "no context" answers as real answers and note context is thin in the summary so Phase 2 can compensate with broader generation.
 
+**Surprise-me exception.** When the run is in surprise-me mode and routed to elsewhere-software (per 0.2's deterministic routing for no-repo CWDs), at least one piece of substance is required — there is no subject AND no repo, so Phase 1 and 2 agents would have nothing to discover subjects from. Dismissive responses are not acceptable here; if the user still has no context after one ask, tell them the run needs a URL, description, or paste to proceed and end cleanly so they can re-invoke with material.
+
 When the user provides rich context up front (a paste, a brief, an existing draft, a URL), confirm understanding in one line and skip this step entirely.
 
 If this step materially changes the topic (not just adds context but shifts the subject), re-run 0.2 and 0.3 against the refined scope before dispatching Phase 1 — classify on what's actually being ideated on, not the scope at first read.

plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-ideate/references/post-ideation-workflow.md

@@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ Ask what should happen next using the platform's blocking question tool: `AskUse
 
 **Question:** "What should the agent do next?"
 
-Offer these four options (each label is self-contained per the Interactive Question Tool Design rules in the plugin AGENTS.md — the distinguishing word is front-loaded so options stay distinct when truncated):
+Offer these four options (labels are self-contained with the distinguishing word front-loaded so options stay distinct when truncated):
 
 1. **Refine the ideation in conversation (or stop here — no save)** — add ideas, re-evaluate, or deepen analysis. No file or network side effects; ending the conversation at any point after this pick is a valid no-save exit.
 2. **Open and iterate in Proof** — save the ideation to Proof and enter the proof skill's HITL review loop: iterate via comments in the Proof editor; reviewed edits sync back to `docs/ideation/` in repo mode.

plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-proof/references/hitl-review.md

@@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ Ask the user with the platform's blocking question tool: `AskUserQuestion` in Cl
 
 **Question:** "Proof review pass done. What's next?"
 
-Offer options that cover these intents — use concrete user-facing labels, not agent-internal jargon (no "end-sync", "ingest pass", etc.). Only include the options that fit the current state. Keep labels imperative and third-person (no "I'll" / "I'm" — it is ambiguous in a tool-mediated menu whether the speaker is the user or the agent) and keep the `[short label] — [description]` shape consistent across every option. A "still working, come back later" option is not offered: the blocking question already waits, so that option would be a no-op wrapper (per the Interactive Question Tool Design rules in `plugins/compound-engineering/AGENTS.md`).
+Offer options that cover these intents — use concrete user-facing labels, not agent-internal jargon (no "end-sync", "ingest pass", etc.). Only include the options that fit the current state. Keep labels imperative and third-person (no "I'll" / "I'm" — it is ambiguous in a tool-mediated menu whether the speaker is the user or the agent) and keep the `[short label] — [description]` shape consistent across every option. A "still working, come back later" option is not offered: the blocking question already waits, so that option would be a no-op wrapper.
 
 - **Discuss** → `Discuss — walk through the open threads in terminal`
   Talk through open threads in the terminal; the agent echoes decisions back to Proof threads. Only useful when escalations are open.