These examples teach the style of reasoning. They are not a lookup table. Two phrases that look similar may resolve to different plans depending on register, prior direction, and constraints. Always run the full procedure in intent-reasoning.md; use these only as calibration.

Each example shows: phrase → restatement → movement → gaps → questions → command sequence → reasoning. Some examples deliberately ask zero questions; some ask the maximum two; some show the user pushing back on an assumption.

Example 1 — "make it better"

Phrase: "make it better"

Restatement:

register: inherit from PRODUCT.md (assume product from existing site)
expressive axis: not moved
tone: not moved
density: not moved
distinctiveness: not moved
audience: not moved
constraints: not stated

Movement: None of the directional axes. The phrase is a quality demand, not a directional one.

Gaps: What does "better" mean to the user? But the agent does not ask this. "Better" has a default meaning in stardust: pass impeccable's critique and audit cleanly. Asking would be pedantic.

Questions: None.

Plan:

$impeccable critique stardust/current/ — score the existing site, surface P0/P1 issues.
npx impeccable detect --json --fast stardust/current/ — deterministic anti-pattern scan.
For each P0 finding, pick the appropriate refine/fix command (harden, clarify, optimize).
$impeccable polish — final pre-ship pass.

Reasoning shown to user: "Better' has no direction in your phrase, so I default to making the existing site pass impeccable's critique and audit. If you want me to also push the design somewhere (bolder, quieter, more distinctive), say so."

Example 2 — "make it more expressive"

Phrase: "make it more expressive"

Restatement:

expressive axis: moved (current → +1 step toward drenched)
distinctiveness: implicitly moved (toward distinctive)
everything else: not moved

Gaps: Audience and register.

Questions:

Who's the audience? (a) existing customers, (b) prospects we don't have yet, (c) other — please describe.

Should this stay within the existing brand palette, or are we open to swapping it? (a) keep palette, (b) open to new palette.

Plan (assuming user picks "prospects we don't have" + "open to new palette"):

$stardust direct — write the resolved direction to stardust/direction.md.
$impeccable shape stardust/current/index.html — produce a Design Brief with the scene sentence anchored on the new audience.
$impeccable craft — primary expressive pass.
$impeccable colorize — palette swap, recommended pick from stardust's library if user wants.
$impeccable typeset — type voice that matches the expressive move.
$impeccable critique — verify we landed in the intended quadrant without slipping into AI-default territory.
$impeccable polish.

Example 3 — "make it more expressive for a young audience"

Phrase: "make it more expressive for a young audience"

Restatement:

expressive axis: moved toward drenched
distinctiveness: moved toward distinctive
audience: partially captured ("young")
everything else: not moved

Gaps: "Young" is too coarse — Gen Z college students and 26-year-old junior PMs are both "young" but want different things.

Questions:

Sharpen "young" — pick the closest: (a) Gen Z college / first-job, (b) millennial professionals 25-35, (c) digital-native parents 30-40, (d) other — describe.

Should the design feel native to a specific cultural reference set? (Examples: indie publishing, gaming, streetwear, K-pop visual culture.) Optional — say "skip" if you don't want to pin one.

Plan (after answers): identical shape to Example 2, but the scene sentence in shape is filled with the resolved audience and reference set. colorize and typeset are constrained by the cultural reference set.

Example 4 — "less corporate"

Phrase: "less corporate"

Restatement:

distinctiveness: moved toward distinctive (away from familiar)
tone: implicitly moved away from serious
expressive axis: not moved (deliberately — "less corporate" is not the same as "louder")

Movement note: This phrase is mostly about what to remove, not what to add. Distinguish from "more expressive" which is additive.

Gaps: None worth a question — the prompt is unambiguous in dimensional terms.

Questions: None.

Plan:

$impeccable distill stardust/current/ — strip corporate-default patterns (hero metric template, identical card grids, gray-on-color).
$impeccable typeset — replace corporate-default font reflexes (no Inter, no Plus Jakarta Sans, no DM Sans) with something with a point of view.
$impeccable colorize — replace corporate palette with something that carries tone.
$impeccable critique — confirm distinctiveness moved without sacrificing legibility.
$impeccable polish.

Example 5 — "make it more accessible"

Phrase: "make it more accessible"

Restatement:

constraint set: a11y-first pinned
everything else: not moved

Movement note: Accessibility is a constraint, not a direction. The plan is audit-driven.

Questions: None.

Plan:

$impeccable audit stardust/current/ — score and find P0/P1 a11y issues.
$impeccable harden — i18n, edge cases, focus management, keyboard reachability.
$impeccable clarify — UX copy and labels, error messages with aria-* wiring.
$impeccable polish — final alignment with system tokens.

Example 6 — "more Linear, less Salesforce"

Phrase: "more Linear, less Salesforce"

Restatement:

register: pinned product (both anchors are product-register tools)
expressive axis: moved toward committed (Linear) from restrained (legacy enterprise)
density: moved toward packed (Linear is dense)
distinctiveness: moved toward distinctive
audience: implied — power users of category-leading tools
constraints: anchor references = Linear, anti-references = Salesforce

Movement note: Anchor + anti-reference pairs are dense signal. Capture both verbatim in the brief.

Questions: None.

Plan:

$impeccable shape stardust/current/ — brief with anchor Linear, anti-reference Salesforce.
$impeccable layout — density move.
$impeccable typeset — Linear-style restrained-but-distinctive type.
$impeccable craft — execute the brief.
$impeccable critique + $impeccable polish.

Example 7 — "modernise it"

Phrase: "modernise it"

Restatement:

The phrase is suspect. "Modern" is the most common AI-slop trigger — it pattern-matches to the default training reflex (cyan/purple gradients, glassmorphism, dark blue, neon).
Treat as: distinctiveness moved toward distinctive, but with a divergence-toolkit guardrail clamped on.

Gaps: What does "modern" mean to this user? But asking abstractly will not help. Better: surface concrete reflexes the agent will avoid and let the user push back.

Questions:

I'll avoid the AI-default modern look (gradients on text, glass cards, neon-on-dark). Is that what you want — or do you specifically want one of those? (a) avoid them, (b) actually I want [X], (c) other.

Pick a non-category anchor reference if possible — something outside SaaS/tech that you find modern. (Optional — say "skip".)

Plan (after "avoid them"):

npx impeccable detect --json — flag any existing slop.
$impeccable shape — brief with anti-references = the slop list.
$impeccable distill — strip dated patterns first.
$impeccable typeset — replace dated type with current expressive type (avoiding the impeccable reflex-reject list).
$impeccable colorize — non-cliché palette pick.
$impeccable critique + $impeccable polish.

Example 8 — "I want it to feel premium"

Phrase: "I want it to feel premium"

Restatement:

distinctiveness: moved toward distinctive
density: implicit move toward airy (premium often = restraint)
tone: implicit move toward serious
expressive axis: ambiguous — premium can be restrained (Hermès web) or drenched (Bottega Veneta)

Gaps: The expressive axis fork is the whole question.

Questions:

Premium-by-restraint or premium-by-presence? (a) restrained — quiet confidence, lots of negative space (b) committed/drenched — high-presence, designed surfaces, big type.

Plan: branches on the answer. Restrained → quieter + distill + polish. Committed → bolder + typeset + craft + polish. Both include a colorize step to land on a non-default palette.

Example 9 — user pushes back on the plan

Phrase: "make it bolder"

Plan offered:

$impeccable bolder
$impeccable typeset
$impeccable colorize
$impeccable polish

User reply: "Skip the type and color changes — just push the layout."

Resolution: Replace the plan with $impeccable layout + $impeccable polish. Update direction.md to record that type and color are pinned to their current values per user override. Run the new plan.

Example 10 — phrase is too vague to act on

Phrase: "I want it to be amazing"

Restatement: moves no dimension at all; "amazing" is a quality demand without direction and without a default like "better" has.

Questions: Two ceilings, picked for highest leverage.

Pick a direction we should push: (a) make it more distinctive, (b) make it more accessible, (c) make it more performant, (d) something else — describe in one sentence.

Optional: a reference site you find amazing.

Plan: deferred until the user answers. This is the only case where asking-then-stopping is correct.