Clarify phase requirements through structured Socratic questioning with quantitative ambiguity scoring.

Position in workflow: spec-phase → discuss-phase → plan-phase → execute-phase → verify

How it works:

1. Load phase context (PROJECT.md, REQUIREMENTS.md, ROADMAP.md, STATE.md)
2. Scout the codebase — understand current state before asking questions
3. Run Socratic interview loop (up to 6 rounds, rotating perspectives)
4. Score ambiguity across 4 weighted dimensions after each round
5. Gate: ambiguity ≤ 0.20 AND all dimensions meet minimums → write SPEC.md
6. Commit SPEC.md — discuss-phase picks it up automatically on next run

Output: {phase_dir}/{padded_phase}-SPEC.md — falsifiable requirements that lock "what/why" before discuss-phase handles "how"

<execution_context> @/.claude/gsd-core/workflows/spec-phase.md @/.claude/gsd-core/templates/spec.md </execution_context>

<runtime_note> Copilot (VS Code): Use vscode_askquestions wherever this workflow calls AskUserQuestion. They are equivalent. </runtime_note>

Phase number: $ARGUMENTS (required)

Flags:

• --auto — Skip interactive questions; Claude selects recommended defaults and writes SPEC.md
• --text — Use plain-text numbered lists instead of TUI menus (required for /rc remote sessions)

Context files are resolved in-workflow using init phase-op.

Execute end-to-end.

MANDATORY: Read the workflow file BEFORE taking any action. The workflow contains the complete step-by-step process including the Socratic interview loop, ambiguity scoring gate, and SPEC.md generation. Do not improvise from the objective summary above.

<success_criteria>

• Codebase scouted for current state before questioning begins
• All 4 ambiguity dimensions scored after each interview round
• Gate passed: ambiguity ≤ 0.20 AND all dimension minimums met
• SPEC.md written with falsifiable requirements, explicit boundaries, and acceptance criteria
• SPEC.md committed atomically
• User knows they can now run /gsd-discuss-phase which will load SPEC.md automatically </success_criteria>