Initial commit: OpenSpec setup and stock-deep-evaluation change

Set up OpenSpec spec-driven workflow and fully specify the first change,
stock-deep-evaluation: a Next.js/TS app for thorough single-stock
evaluation (valuation reasoning, macro factors, entry/exit points,
stop-loss) with a pluggable data layer and Claude analysis agent.

Includes proposal, design, specs (market-data, equity-evaluation,
analysis-agent, evaluation-app), tasks, and the DE gold-standard example.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

.claude/commands/opsx/apply.md

@@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
+---
+name: "OPSX: Apply"
+description: Implement tasks from an OpenSpec change (Experimental)
+category: Workflow
+tags: [workflow, artifacts, experimental]
+---
+
+Implement tasks from an OpenSpec change.
+
+**Input**: Optionally specify a change name (e.g., `/opsx:apply add-auth`). If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
+
+**Steps**
+
+1. **Select the change**
+
+   If a name is provided, use it. Otherwise:
+   - Infer from conversation context if the user mentioned a change
+   - Auto-select if only one active change exists
+   - If ambiguous, run `openspec list --json` to get available changes and use the **AskUserQuestion tool** to let the user select
+
+   Always announce: "Using change: <name>" and how to override (e.g., `/opsx:apply <other>`).
+
+2. **Check status to understand the schema**
+   ```bash
+   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
+   ```
+   Parse the JSON to understand:
+   - `schemaName`: The workflow being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
+   - Which artifact contains the tasks (typically "tasks" for spec-driven, check status for others)
+
+3. **Get apply instructions**
+
+   ```bash
+   openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json
+   ```
+
+   This returns:
+   - Context file paths (varies by schema)
+   - Progress (total, complete, remaining)
+   - Task list with status
+   - Dynamic instruction based on current state
+
+   **Handle states:**
+   - If `state: "blocked"` (missing artifacts): show message, suggest using `/opsx:continue`
+   - If `state: "all_done"`: congratulate, suggest archive
+   - Otherwise: proceed to implementation
+
+4. **Read context files**
+
+   Read the files listed in `contextFiles` from the apply instructions output.
+   The files depend on the schema being used:
+   - **spec-driven**: proposal, specs, design, tasks
+   - Other schemas: follow the contextFiles from CLI output
+
+5. **Show current progress**
+
+   Display:
+   - Schema being used
+   - Progress: "N/M tasks complete"
+   - Remaining tasks overview
+   - Dynamic instruction from CLI
+
+6. **Implement tasks (loop until done or blocked)**
+
+   For each pending task:
+   - Show which task is being worked on
+   - Make the code changes required
+   - Keep changes minimal and focused
+   - Mark task complete in the tasks file: `- [ ]` → `- [x]`
+   - Continue to next task
+
+   **Pause if:**
+   - Task is unclear → ask for clarification
+   - Implementation reveals a design issue → suggest updating artifacts
+   - Error or blocker encountered → report and wait for guidance
+   - User interrupts
+
+7. **On completion or pause, show status**
+
+   Display:
+   - Tasks completed this session
+   - Overall progress: "N/M tasks complete"
+   - If all done: suggest archive
+   - If paused: explain why and wait for guidance
+
+**Output During Implementation**
+
+```
+## Implementing: <change-name> (schema: <schema-name>)
+
+Working on task 3/7: <task description>
+[...implementation happening...]
+✓ Task complete
+
+Working on task 4/7: <task description>
+[...implementation happening...]
+✓ Task complete
+```
+
+**Output On Completion**
+
+```
+## Implementation Complete
+
+**Change:** <change-name>
+**Schema:** <schema-name>
+**Progress:** 7/7 tasks complete ✓
+
+### Completed This Session
+- [x] Task 1
+- [x] Task 2
+...
+
+All tasks complete! You can archive this change with `/opsx:archive`.
+```
+
+**Output On Pause (Issue Encountered)**
+
+```
+## Implementation Paused
+
+**Change:** <change-name>
+**Schema:** <schema-name>
+**Progress:** 4/7 tasks complete
+
+### Issue Encountered
+<description of the issue>
+
+**Options:**
+1. <option 1>
+2. <option 2>
+3. Other approach
+
+What would you like to do?
+```
+
+**Guardrails**
+- Keep going through tasks until done or blocked
+- Always read context files before starting (from the apply instructions output)
+- If task is ambiguous, pause and ask before implementing
+- If implementation reveals issues, pause and suggest artifact updates
+- Keep code changes minimal and scoped to each task
+- Update task checkbox immediately after completing each task
+- Pause on errors, blockers, or unclear requirements - don't guess
+- Use contextFiles from CLI output, don't assume specific file names
+
+**Fluid Workflow Integration**
+
+This skill supports the "actions on a change" model:
+
+- **Can be invoked anytime**: Before all artifacts are done (if tasks exist), after partial implementation, interleaved with other actions
+- **Allows artifact updates**: If implementation reveals design issues, suggest updating artifacts - not phase-locked, work fluidly

.claude/commands/opsx/archive.md

@@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
+---
+name: "OPSX: Archive"
+description: Archive a completed change in the experimental workflow
+category: Workflow
+tags: [workflow, archive, experimental]
+---
+
+Archive a completed change in the experimental workflow.
+
+**Input**: Optionally specify a change name after `/opsx:archive` (e.g., `/opsx:archive add-auth`). If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
+
+**Steps**
+
+1. **If no change name provided, prompt for selection**
+
+   Run `openspec list --json` to get available changes. Use the **AskUserQuestion tool** to let the user select.
+
+   Show only active changes (not already archived).
+   Include the schema used for each change if available.
+
+   **IMPORTANT**: Do NOT guess or auto-select a change. Always let the user choose.
+
+2. **Check artifact completion status**
+
+   Run `openspec status --change "<name>" --json` to check artifact completion.
+
+   Parse the JSON to understand:
+   - `schemaName`: The workflow being used
+   - `artifacts`: List of artifacts with their status (`done` or other)
+
+   **If any artifacts are not `done`:**
+   - Display warning listing incomplete artifacts
+   - Prompt user for confirmation to continue
+   - Proceed if user confirms
+
+3. **Check task completion status**
+
+   Read the tasks file (typically `tasks.md`) to check for incomplete tasks.
+
+   Count tasks marked with `- [ ]` (incomplete) vs `- [x]` (complete).
+
+   **If incomplete tasks found:**
+   - Display warning showing count of incomplete tasks
+   - Prompt user for confirmation to continue
+   - Proceed if user confirms
+
+   **If no tasks file exists:** Proceed without task-related warning.
+
+4. **Assess delta spec sync state**
+
+   Check for delta specs at `openspec/changes/<name>/specs/`. If none exist, proceed without sync prompt.
+
+   **If delta specs exist:**
+   - Compare each delta spec with its corresponding main spec at `openspec/specs/<capability>/spec.md`
+   - Determine what changes would be applied (adds, modifications, removals, renames)
+   - Show a combined summary before prompting
+
+   **Prompt options:**
+   - If changes needed: "Sync now (recommended)", "Archive without syncing"
+   - If already synced: "Archive now", "Sync anyway", "Cancel"
+
+   If user chooses sync, execute `/opsx:sync` logic. Proceed to archive regardless of choice.
+
+5. **Perform the archive**
+
+   Create the archive directory if it doesn't exist:
+   ```bash
+   mkdir -p openspec/changes/archive
+   ```
+
+   Generate target name using current date: `YYYY-MM-DD-<change-name>`
+
+   **Check if target already exists:**
+   - If yes: Fail with error, suggest renaming existing archive or using different date
+   - If no: Move the change directory to archive
+
+   ```bash
+   mv openspec/changes/<name> openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>
+   ```
+
+6. **Display summary**
+
+   Show archive completion summary including:
+   - Change name
+   - Schema that was used
+   - Archive location
+   - Spec sync status (synced / sync skipped / no delta specs)
+   - Note about any warnings (incomplete artifacts/tasks)
+
+**Output On Success**
+
+```
+## Archive Complete
+
+**Change:** <change-name>
+**Schema:** <schema-name>
+**Archived to:** openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>/
+**Specs:** ✓ Synced to main specs
+
+All artifacts complete. All tasks complete.
+```
+
+**Output On Success (No Delta Specs)**
+
+```
+## Archive Complete
+
+**Change:** <change-name>
+**Schema:** <schema-name>
+**Archived to:** openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>/
+**Specs:** No delta specs
+
+All artifacts complete. All tasks complete.
+```
+
+**Output On Success With Warnings**
+
+```
+## Archive Complete (with warnings)
+
+**Change:** <change-name>
+**Schema:** <schema-name>
+**Archived to:** openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>/
+**Specs:** Sync skipped (user chose to skip)
+
+**Warnings:**
+- Archived with 2 incomplete artifacts
+- Archived with 3 incomplete tasks
+- Delta spec sync was skipped (user chose to skip)
+
+Review the archive if this was not intentional.
+```
+
+**Output On Error (Archive Exists)**
+
+```
+## Archive Failed
+
+**Change:** <change-name>
+**Target:** openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>/
+
+Target archive directory already exists.
+
+**Options:**
+1. Rename the existing archive
+2. Delete the existing archive if it's a duplicate
+3. Wait until a different date to archive
+```
+
+**Guardrails**
+- Always prompt for change selection if not provided
+- Use artifact graph (openspec status --json) for completion checking
+- Don't block archive on warnings - just inform and confirm
+- Preserve .openspec.yaml when moving to archive (it moves with the directory)
+- Show clear summary of what happened
+- If sync is requested, use /opsx:sync approach (agent-driven)
+- If delta specs exist, always run the sync assessment and show the combined summary before prompting

.claude/commands/opsx/bulk-archive.md

@@ -0,0 +1,242 @@
+---
+name: "OPSX: Bulk Archive"
+description: Archive multiple completed changes at once
+category: Workflow
+tags: [workflow, archive, experimental, bulk]
+---
+
+Archive multiple completed changes in a single operation.
+
+This skill allows you to batch-archive changes, handling spec conflicts intelligently by checking the codebase to determine what's actually implemented.
+
+**Input**: None required (prompts for selection)
+
+**Steps**
+
+1. **Get active changes**
+
+   Run `openspec list --json` to get all active changes.
+
+   If no active changes exist, inform user and stop.
+
+2. **Prompt for change selection**
+
+   Use **AskUserQuestion tool** with multi-select to let user choose changes:
+   - Show each change with its schema
+   - Include an option for "All changes"
+   - Allow any number of selections (1+ works, 2+ is the typical use case)
+
+   **IMPORTANT**: Do NOT auto-select. Always let the user choose.
+
+3. **Batch validation - gather status for all selected changes**
+
+   For each selected change, collect:
+
+   a. **Artifact status** - Run `openspec status --change "<name>" --json`
+      - Parse `schemaName` and `artifacts` list
+      - Note which artifacts are `done` vs other states
+
+   b. **Task completion** - Read `openspec/changes/<name>/tasks.md`
+      - Count `- [ ]` (incomplete) vs `- [x]` (complete)
+      - If no tasks file exists, note as "No tasks"
+
+   c. **Delta specs** - Check `openspec/changes/<name>/specs/` directory
+      - List which capability specs exist
+      - For each, extract requirement names (lines matching `### Requirement: <name>`)
+
+4. **Detect spec conflicts**
+
+   Build a map of `capability -> [changes that touch it]`:
+
+   ```
+   auth -> [change-a, change-b]  <- CONFLICT (2+ changes)
+   api  -> [change-c]            <- OK (only 1 change)
+   ```
+
+   A conflict exists when 2+ selected changes have delta specs for the same capability.
+
+5. **Resolve conflicts agentically**
+
+   **For each conflict**, investigate the codebase:
+
+   a. **Read the delta specs** from each conflicting change to understand what each claims to add/modify
+
+   b. **Search the codebase** for implementation evidence:
+      - Look for code implementing requirements from each delta spec
+      - Check for related files, functions, or tests
+
+   c. **Determine resolution**:
+      - If only one change is actually implemented -> sync that one's specs
+      - If both implemented -> apply in chronological order (older first, newer overwrites)
+      - If neither implemented -> skip spec sync, warn user
+
+   d. **Record resolution** for each conflict:
+      - Which change's specs to apply
+      - In what order (if both)
+      - Rationale (what was found in codebase)
+
+6. **Show consolidated status table**
+
+   Display a table summarizing all changes:
+
+   ```
+   | Change               | Artifacts | Tasks | Specs   | Conflicts | Status |
+   |---------------------|-----------|-------|---------|-----------|--------|
+   | schema-management   | Done      | 5/5   | 2 delta | None      | Ready  |
+   | project-config      | Done      | 3/3   | 1 delta | None      | Ready  |
+   | add-oauth           | Done      | 4/4   | 1 delta | auth (!)  | Ready* |
+   | add-verify-skill    | 1 left    | 2/5   | None    | None      | Warn   |
+   ```
+
+   For conflicts, show the resolution:
+   ```
+   * Conflict resolution:
+     - auth spec: Will apply add-oauth then add-jwt (both implemented, chronological order)
+   ```
+
+   For incomplete changes, show warnings:
+   ```
+   Warnings:
+   - add-verify-skill: 1 incomplete artifact, 3 incomplete tasks
+   ```
+
+7. **Confirm batch operation**
+
+   Use **AskUserQuestion tool** with a single confirmation:
+
+   - "Archive N changes?" with options based on status
+   - Options might include:
+     - "Archive all N changes"
+     - "Archive only N ready changes (skip incomplete)"
+     - "Cancel"
+
+   If there are incomplete changes, make clear they'll be archived with warnings.
+
+8. **Execute archive for each confirmed change**
+
+   Process changes in the determined order (respecting conflict resolution):
+
+   a. **Sync specs** if delta specs exist:
+      - Use the openspec-sync-specs approach (agent-driven intelligent merge)
+      - For conflicts, apply in resolved order
+      - Track if sync was done
+
+   b. **Perform the archive**:
+      ```bash
+      mkdir -p openspec/changes/archive
+      mv openspec/changes/<name> openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>
+      ```
+
+   c. **Track outcome** for each change:
+      - Success: archived successfully
+      - Failed: error during archive (record error)
+      - Skipped: user chose not to archive (if applicable)
+
+9. **Display summary**
+
+   Show final results:
+
+   ```
+   ## Bulk Archive Complete
+
+   Archived 3 changes:
+   - schema-management-cli -> archive/2026-01-19-schema-management-cli/
+   - project-config -> archive/2026-01-19-project-config/
+   - add-oauth -> archive/2026-01-19-add-oauth/
+
+   Skipped 1 change:
+   - add-verify-skill (user chose not to archive incomplete)
+
+   Spec sync summary:
+   - 4 delta specs synced to main specs
+   - 1 conflict resolved (auth: applied both in chronological order)
+   ```
+
+   If any failures:
+   ```
+   Failed 1 change:
+   - some-change: Archive directory already exists
+   ```
+
+**Conflict Resolution Examples**
+
+Example 1: Only one implemented
+```
+Conflict: specs/auth/spec.md touched by [add-oauth, add-jwt]
+
+Checking add-oauth:
+- Delta adds "OAuth Provider Integration" requirement
+- Searching codebase... found src/auth/oauth.ts implementing OAuth flow
+
+Checking add-jwt:
+- Delta adds "JWT Token Handling" requirement
+- Searching codebase... no JWT implementation found
+
+Resolution: Only add-oauth is implemented. Will sync add-oauth specs only.
+```
+
+Example 2: Both implemented
+```
+Conflict: specs/api/spec.md touched by [add-rest-api, add-graphql]
+
+Checking add-rest-api (created 2026-01-10):
+- Delta adds "REST Endpoints" requirement
+- Searching codebase... found src/api/rest.ts
+
+Checking add-graphql (created 2026-01-15):
+- Delta adds "GraphQL Schema" requirement
+- Searching codebase... found src/api/graphql.ts
+
+Resolution: Both implemented. Will apply add-rest-api specs first,
+then add-graphql specs (chronological order, newer takes precedence).
+```
+
+**Output On Success**
+
+```
+## Bulk Archive Complete
+
+Archived N changes:
+- <change-1> -> archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<change-1>/
+- <change-2> -> archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<change-2>/
+
+Spec sync summary:
+- N delta specs synced to main specs
+- No conflicts (or: M conflicts resolved)
+```
+
+**Output On Partial Success**
+
+```
+## Bulk Archive Complete (partial)
+
+Archived N changes:
+- <change-1> -> archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<change-1>/
+
+Skipped M changes:
+- <change-2> (user chose not to archive incomplete)
+
+Failed K changes:
+- <change-3>: Archive directory already exists
+```
+
+**Output When No Changes**
+
+```
+## No Changes to Archive
+
+No active changes found. Use `/opsx:new` to create a new change.
+```
+
+**Guardrails**
+- Allow any number of changes (1+ is fine, 2+ is the typical use case)
+- Always prompt for selection, never auto-select
+- Detect spec conflicts early and resolve by checking codebase
+- When both changes are implemented, apply specs in chronological order
+- Skip spec sync only when implementation is missing (warn user)
+- Show clear per-change status before confirming
+- Use single confirmation for entire batch
+- Track and report all outcomes (success/skip/fail)
+- Preserve .openspec.yaml when moving to archive
+- Archive directory target uses current date: YYYY-MM-DD-<name>
+- If archive target exists, fail that change but continue with others

.claude/commands/opsx/continue.md

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+---
+name: "OPSX: Continue"
+description: Continue working on a change - create the next artifact (Experimental)
+category: Workflow
+tags: [workflow, artifacts, experimental]
+---
+
+Continue working on a change by creating the next artifact.
+
+**Input**: Optionally specify a change name after `/opsx:continue` (e.g., `/opsx:continue add-auth`). If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
+
+**Steps**
+
+1. **If no change name provided, prompt for selection**
+
+   Run `openspec list --json` to get available changes sorted by most recently modified. Then use the **AskUserQuestion tool** to let the user select which change to work on.
+
+   Present the top 3-4 most recently modified changes as options, showing:
+   - Change name
+   - Schema (from `schema` field if present, otherwise "spec-driven")
+   - Status (e.g., "0/5 tasks", "complete", "no tasks")
+   - How recently it was modified (from `lastModified` field)
+
+   Mark the most recently modified change as "(Recommended)" since it's likely what the user wants to continue.
+
+   **IMPORTANT**: Do NOT guess or auto-select a change. Always let the user choose.
+
+2. **Check current status**
+   ```bash
+   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
+   ```
+   Parse the JSON to understand current state. The response includes:
+   - `schemaName`: The workflow schema being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
+   - `artifacts`: Array of artifacts with their status ("done", "ready", "blocked")
+   - `isComplete`: Boolean indicating if all artifacts are complete
+
+3. **Act based on status**:
+
+   ---
+
+   **If all artifacts are complete (`isComplete: true`)**:
+   - Congratulate the user
+   - Show final status including the schema used
+   - Suggest: "All artifacts created! You can now implement this change with `/opsx:apply` or archive it with `/opsx:archive`."
+   - STOP
+
+   ---
+
+   **If artifacts are ready to create** (status shows artifacts with `status: "ready"`):
+   - Pick the FIRST artifact with `status: "ready"` from the status output
+   - Get its instructions:
+     ```bash
+     openspec instructions <artifact-id> --change "<name>" --json
+     ```
+   - Parse the JSON. The key fields are:
+     - `context`: Project background (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
+     - `rules`: Artifact-specific rules (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
+     - `template`: The structure to use for your output file
+     - `instruction`: Schema-specific guidance
+     - `outputPath`: Where to write the artifact
+     - `dependencies`: Completed artifacts to read for context
+   - **Create the artifact file**:
+     - Read any completed dependency files for context
+     - Use `template` as the structure - fill in its sections
+     - Apply `context` and `rules` as constraints when writing - but do NOT copy them into the file
+     - Write to the output path specified in instructions
+   - Show what was created and what's now unlocked
+   - STOP after creating ONE artifact
+
+   ---
+
+   **If no artifacts are ready (all blocked)**:
+   - This shouldn't happen with a valid schema
+   - Show status and suggest checking for issues
+
+4. **After creating an artifact, show progress**
+   ```bash
+   openspec status --change "<name>"
+   ```
+
+**Output**
+
+After each invocation, show:
+- Which artifact was created
+- Schema workflow being used
+- Current progress (N/M complete)
+- What artifacts are now unlocked
+- Prompt: "Run `/opsx:continue` to create the next artifact"
+
+**Artifact Creation Guidelines**
+
+The artifact types and their purpose depend on the schema. Use the `instruction` field from the instructions output to understand what to create.
+
+Common artifact patterns:
+
+**spec-driven schema** (proposal → specs → design → tasks):
+- **proposal.md**: Ask user about the change if not clear. Fill in Why, What Changes, Capabilities, Impact.
+  - The Capabilities section is critical - each capability listed will need a spec file.
+- **specs/<capability>/spec.md**: Create one spec per capability listed in the proposal's Capabilities section (use the capability name, not the change name).
+- **design.md**: Document technical decisions, architecture, and implementation approach.
+- **tasks.md**: Break down implementation into checkboxed tasks.
+
+For other schemas, follow the `instruction` field from the CLI output.
+
+**Guardrails**
+- Create ONE artifact per invocation
+- Always read dependency artifacts before creating a new one
+- Never skip artifacts or create out of order
+- If context is unclear, ask the user before creating
+- Verify the artifact file exists after writing before marking progress
+- Use the schema's artifact sequence, don't assume specific artifact names
+- **IMPORTANT**: `context` and `rules` are constraints for YOU, not content for the file
+  - Do NOT copy `<context>`, `<rules>`, `<project_context>` blocks into the artifact
+  - These guide what you write, but should never appear in the output

.claude/commands/opsx/explore.md

@@ -0,0 +1,174 @@
+---
+name: "OPSX: Explore"
+description: "Enter explore mode - think through ideas, investigate problems, clarify requirements"
+category: Workflow
+tags: [workflow, explore, experimental, thinking]
+---
+
+Enter explore mode. Think deeply. Visualize freely. Follow the conversation wherever it goes.
+
+**IMPORTANT: Explore mode is for thinking, not implementing.** You may read files, search code, and investigate the codebase, but you must NEVER write code or implement features. If the user asks you to implement something, remind them to exit explore mode first (e.g., start a change with `/opsx:new` or `/opsx:ff`). You MAY create OpenSpec artifacts (proposals, designs, specs) if the user asks—that's capturing thinking, not implementing.
+
+**This is a stance, not a workflow.** There are no fixed steps, no required sequence, no mandatory outputs. You're a thinking partner helping the user explore.
+
+**Input**: The argument after `/opsx:explore` is whatever the user wants to think about. Could be:
+- A vague idea: "real-time collaboration"
+- A specific problem: "the auth system is getting unwieldy"
+- A change name: "add-dark-mode" (to explore in context of that change)
+- A comparison: "postgres vs sqlite for this"
+- Nothing (just enter explore mode)
+
+---
+
+## The Stance
+
+- **Curious, not prescriptive** - Ask questions that emerge naturally, don't follow a script
+- **Open threads, not interrogations** - Surface multiple interesting directions and let the user follow what resonates. Don't funnel them through a single path of questions.
+- **Visual** - Use ASCII diagrams liberally when they'd help clarify thinking
+- **Adaptive** - Follow interesting threads, pivot when new information emerges
+- **Patient** - Don't rush to conclusions, let the shape of the problem emerge
+- **Grounded** - Explore the actual codebase when relevant, don't just theorize
+
+---
+
+## What You Might Do
+
+Depending on what the user brings, you might:
+
+**Explore the problem space**
+- Ask clarifying questions that emerge from what they said
+- Challenge assumptions
+- Reframe the problem
+- Find analogies
+
+**Investigate the codebase**
+- Map existing architecture relevant to the discussion
+- Find integration points
+- Identify patterns already in use
+- Surface hidden complexity
+
+**Compare options**
+- Brainstorm multiple approaches
+- Build comparison tables
+- Sketch tradeoffs
+- Recommend a path (if asked)
+
+**Visualize**
+```
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│     Use ASCII diagrams liberally        │
+├─────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│                                         │
+│   ┌────────┐         ┌────────┐        │
+│   │ State  │────────▶│ State  │        │
+│   │   A    │         │   B    │        │
+│   └────────┘         └────────┘        │
+│                                         │
+│   System diagrams, state machines,      │
+│   data flows, architecture sketches,    │
+│   dependency graphs, comparison tables  │
+│                                         │
+└─────────────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+**Surface risks and unknowns**
+- Identify what could go wrong
+- Find gaps in understanding
+- Suggest spikes or investigations
+
+---
+
+## OpenSpec Awareness
+
+You have full context of the OpenSpec system. Use it naturally, don't force it.
+
+### Check for context
+
+At the start, quickly check what exists:
+```bash
+openspec list --json
+```
+
+This tells you:
+- If there are active changes
+- Their names, schemas, and status
+- What the user might be working on
+
+If the user mentioned a specific change name, read its artifacts for context.
+
+### When no change exists
+
+Think freely. When insights crystallize, you might offer:
+
+- "This feels solid enough to start a change. Want me to create one?"
+  → Can transition to `/opsx:new` or `/opsx:ff`
+- Or keep exploring - no pressure to formalize
+
+### When a change exists
+
+If the user mentions a change or you detect one is relevant:
+
+1. **Read existing artifacts for context**
+   - `openspec/changes/<name>/proposal.md`
+   - `openspec/changes/<name>/design.md`
+   - `openspec/changes/<name>/tasks.md`
+   - etc.
+
+2. **Reference them naturally in conversation**
+   - "Your design mentions using Redis, but we just realized SQLite fits better..."
+   - "The proposal scopes this to premium users, but we're now thinking everyone..."
+
+3. **Offer to capture when decisions are made**
+
+   | Insight Type | Where to Capture |
+   |--------------|------------------|
+   | New requirement discovered | `specs/<capability>/spec.md` |
+   | Requirement changed | `specs/<capability>/spec.md` |
+   | Design decision made | `design.md` |
+   | Scope changed | `proposal.md` |
+   | New work identified | `tasks.md` |
+   | Assumption invalidated | Relevant artifact |
+
+   Example offers:
+   - "That's a design decision. Capture it in design.md?"
+   - "This is a new requirement. Add it to specs?"
+   - "This changes scope. Update the proposal?"
+
+4. **The user decides** - Offer and move on. Don't pressure. Don't auto-capture.
+
+---
+
+## What You Don't Have To Do
+
+- Follow a script
+- Ask the same questions every time
+- Produce a specific artifact
+- Reach a conclusion
+- Stay on topic if a tangent is valuable
+- Be brief (this is thinking time)
+
+---
+
+## Ending Discovery
+
+There's no required ending. Discovery might:
+
+- **Flow into action**: "Ready to start? `/opsx:new` or `/opsx:ff`"
+- **Result in artifact updates**: "Updated design.md with these decisions"
+- **Just provide clarity**: User has what they need, moves on
+- **Continue later**: "We can pick this up anytime"
+
+When things crystallize, you might offer a summary - but it's optional. Sometimes the thinking IS the value.
+
+---
+
+## Guardrails
+
+- **Don't implement** - Never write code or implement features. Creating OpenSpec artifacts is fine, writing application code is not.
+- **Don't fake understanding** - If something is unclear, dig deeper
+- **Don't rush** - Discovery is thinking time, not task time
+- **Don't force structure** - Let patterns emerge naturally
+- **Don't auto-capture** - Offer to save insights, don't just do it
+- **Do visualize** - A good diagram is worth many paragraphs
+- **Do explore the codebase** - Ground discussions in reality
+- **Do question assumptions** - Including the user's and your own

.claude/commands/opsx/ff.md

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+---
+name: "OPSX: Fast Forward"
+description: Create a change and generate all artifacts needed for implementation in one go
+category: Workflow
+tags: [workflow, artifacts, experimental]
+---
+
+Fast-forward through artifact creation - generate everything needed to start implementation.
+
+**Input**: The argument after `/opsx:ff` is the change name (kebab-case), OR a description of what the user wants to build.
+
+**Steps**
+
+1. **If no input provided, ask what they want to build**
+
+   Use the **AskUserQuestion tool** (open-ended, no preset options) to ask:
+   > "What change do you want to work on? Describe what you want to build or fix."
+
+   From their description, derive a kebab-case name (e.g., "add user authentication" → `add-user-auth`).
+
+   **IMPORTANT**: Do NOT proceed without understanding what the user wants to build.
+
+2. **Create the change directory**
+   ```bash
+   openspec new change "<name>"
+   ```
+   This creates a scaffolded change at `openspec/changes/<name>/`.
+
+3. **Get the artifact build order**
+   ```bash
+   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
+   ```
+   Parse the JSON to get:
+   - `applyRequires`: array of artifact IDs needed before implementation (e.g., `["tasks"]`)
+   - `artifacts`: list of all artifacts with their status and dependencies
+
+4. **Create artifacts in sequence until apply-ready**
+
+   Use the **TodoWrite tool** to track progress through the artifacts.
+
+   Loop through artifacts in dependency order (artifacts with no pending dependencies first):
+
+   a. **For each artifact that is `ready` (dependencies satisfied)**:
+      - Get instructions:
+        ```bash
+        openspec instructions <artifact-id> --change "<name>" --json
+        ```
+      - The instructions JSON includes:
+        - `context`: Project background (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
+        - `rules`: Artifact-specific rules (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
+        - `template`: The structure to use for your output file
+        - `instruction`: Schema-specific guidance for this artifact type
+        - `outputPath`: Where to write the artifact
+        - `dependencies`: Completed artifacts to read for context
+      - Read any completed dependency files for context
+      - Create the artifact file using `template` as the structure
+      - Apply `context` and `rules` as constraints - but do NOT copy them into the file
+      - Show brief progress: "✓ Created <artifact-id>"
+
+   b. **Continue until all `applyRequires` artifacts are complete**
+      - After creating each artifact, re-run `openspec status --change "<name>" --json`
+      - Check if every artifact ID in `applyRequires` has `status: "done"` in the artifacts array
+      - Stop when all `applyRequires` artifacts are done
+
+   c. **If an artifact requires user input** (unclear context):
+      - Use **AskUserQuestion tool** to clarify
+      - Then continue with creation
+
+5. **Show final status**
+   ```bash
+   openspec status --change "<name>"
+   ```
+
+**Output**
+
+After completing all artifacts, summarize:
+- Change name and location
+- List of artifacts created with brief descriptions
+- What's ready: "All artifacts created! Ready for implementation."
+- Prompt: "Run `/opsx:apply` to start implementing."
+
+**Artifact Creation Guidelines**
+
+- Follow the `instruction` field from `openspec instructions` for each artifact type
+- The schema defines what each artifact should contain - follow it
+- Read dependency artifacts for context before creating new ones
+- Use the `template` as a starting point, filling in based on context
+
+**Guardrails**
+- Create ALL artifacts needed for implementation (as defined by schema's `apply.requires`)
+- Always read dependency artifacts before creating a new one
+- If context is critically unclear, ask the user - but prefer making reasonable decisions to keep momentum
+- If a change with that name already exists, ask if user wants to continue it or create a new one
+- Verify each artifact file exists after writing before proceeding to next

.claude/commands/opsx/new.md

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+---
+name: "OPSX: New"
+description: Start a new change using the experimental artifact workflow (OPSX)
+category: Workflow
+tags: [workflow, artifacts, experimental]
+---
+
+Start a new change using the experimental artifact-driven approach.
+
+**Input**: The argument after `/opsx:new` is the change name (kebab-case), OR a description of what the user wants to build.
+
+**Steps**
+
+1. **If no input provided, ask what they want to build**
+
+   Use the **AskUserQuestion tool** (open-ended, no preset options) to ask:
+   > "What change do you want to work on? Describe what you want to build or fix."
+
+   From their description, derive a kebab-case name (e.g., "add user authentication" → `add-user-auth`).
+
+   **IMPORTANT**: Do NOT proceed without understanding what the user wants to build.
+
+2. **Determine the workflow schema**
+
+   Use the default schema (omit `--schema`) unless the user explicitly requests a different workflow.
+
+   **Use a different schema only if the user mentions:**
+   - A specific schema name → use `--schema <name>`
+   - "show workflows" or "what workflows" → run `openspec schemas --json` and let them choose
+
+   **Otherwise**: Omit `--schema` to use the default.
+
+3. **Create the change directory**
+   ```bash
+   openspec new change "<name>"
+   ```
+   Add `--schema <name>` only if the user requested a specific workflow.
+   This creates a scaffolded change at `openspec/changes/<name>/` with the selected schema.
+
+4. **Show the artifact status**
+   ```bash
+   openspec status --change "<name>"
+   ```
+   This shows which artifacts need to be created and which are ready (dependencies satisfied).
+
+5. **Get instructions for the first artifact**
+   The first artifact depends on the schema. Check the status output to find the first artifact with status "ready".
+   ```bash
+   openspec instructions <first-artifact-id> --change "<name>"
+   ```
+   This outputs the template and context for creating the first artifact.
+
+6. **STOP and wait for user direction**
+
+**Output**
+
+After completing the steps, summarize:
+- Change name and location
+- Schema/workflow being used and its artifact sequence
+- Current status (0/N artifacts complete)
+- The template for the first artifact
+- Prompt: "Ready to create the first artifact? Run `/opsx:continue` or just describe what this change is about and I'll draft it."
+
+**Guardrails**
+- Do NOT create any artifacts yet - just show the instructions
+- Do NOT advance beyond showing the first artifact template
+- If the name is invalid (not kebab-case), ask for a valid name
+- If a change with that name already exists, suggest using `/opsx:continue` instead
+- Pass --schema if using a non-default workflow

.claude/commands/opsx/onboard.md

@@ -0,0 +1,525 @@
+---
+name: "OPSX: Onboard"
+description: Guided onboarding - walk through a complete OpenSpec workflow cycle with narration
+category: Workflow
+tags: [workflow, onboarding, tutorial, learning]
+---
+
+Guide the user through their first complete OpenSpec workflow cycle. This is a teaching experience—you'll do real work in their codebase while explaining each step.
+
+---
+
+## Preflight
+
+Before starting, check if OpenSpec is initialized:
+
+```bash
+openspec status --json 2>&1 || echo "NOT_INITIALIZED"
+```
+
+**If not initialized:**
+> OpenSpec isn't set up in this project yet. Run `openspec init` first, then come back to `/opsx:onboard`.
+
+Stop here if not initialized.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 1: Welcome
+
+Display:
+
+```
+## Welcome to OpenSpec!
+
+I'll walk you through a complete change cycle—from idea to implementation—using a real task in your codebase. Along the way, you'll learn the workflow by doing it.
+
+**What we'll do:**
+1. Pick a small, real task in your codebase
+2. Explore the problem briefly
+3. Create a change (the container for our work)
+4. Build the artifacts: proposal → specs → design → tasks
+5. Implement the tasks
+6. Archive the completed change
+
+**Time:** ~15-20 minutes
+
+Let's start by finding something to work on.
+```
+
+---
+
+## Phase 2: Task Selection
+
+### Codebase Analysis
+
+Scan the codebase for small improvement opportunities. Look for:
+
+1. **TODO/FIXME comments** - Search for `TODO`, `FIXME`, `HACK`, `XXX` in code files
+2. **Missing error handling** - `catch` blocks that swallow errors, risky operations without try-catch
+3. **Functions without tests** - Cross-reference `src/` with test directories
+4. **Type issues** - `any` types in TypeScript files (`: any`, `as any`)
+5. **Debug artifacts** - `console.log`, `console.debug`, `debugger` statements in non-debug code
+6. **Missing validation** - User input handlers without validation
+
+Also check recent git activity:
+```bash
+git log --oneline -10 2>/dev/null || echo "No git history"
+```
+
+### Present Suggestions
+
+From your analysis, present 3-4 specific suggestions:
+
+```
+## Task Suggestions
+
+Based on scanning your codebase, here are some good starter tasks:
+
+**1. [Most promising task]**
+   Location: `src/path/to/file.ts:42`
+   Scope: ~1-2 files, ~20-30 lines
+   Why it's good: [brief reason]
+
+**2. [Second task]**
+   Location: `src/another/file.ts`
+   Scope: ~1 file, ~15 lines
+   Why it's good: [brief reason]
+
+**3. [Third task]**
+   Location: [location]
+   Scope: [estimate]
+   Why it's good: [brief reason]
+
+**4. Something else?**
+   Tell me what you'd like to work on.
+
+Which task interests you? (Pick a number or describe your own)
+```
+
+**If nothing found:** Fall back to asking what the user wants to build:
+> I didn't find obvious quick wins in your codebase. What's something small you've been meaning to add or fix?
+
+### Scope Guardrail
+
+If the user picks or describes something too large (major feature, multi-day work):
+
+```
+That's a valuable task, but it's probably larger than ideal for your first OpenSpec run-through.
+
+For learning the workflow, smaller is better—it lets you see the full cycle without getting stuck in implementation details.
+
+**Options:**
+1. **Slice it smaller** - What's the smallest useful piece of [their task]? Maybe just [specific slice]?
+2. **Pick something else** - One of the other suggestions, or a different small task?
+3. **Do it anyway** - If you really want to tackle this, we can. Just know it'll take longer.
+
+What would you prefer?
+```
+
+Let the user override if they insist—this is a soft guardrail.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 3: Explore Demo
+
+Once a task is selected, briefly demonstrate explore mode:
+
+```
+Before we create a change, let me quickly show you **explore mode**—it's how you think through problems before committing to a direction.
+```
+
+Spend 1-2 minutes investigating the relevant code:
+- Read the file(s) involved
+- Draw a quick ASCII diagram if it helps
+- Note any considerations
+
+```
+## Quick Exploration
+
+[Your brief analysis—what you found, any considerations]
+
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│   [Optional: ASCII diagram if helpful]  │
+└─────────────────────────────────────────┘
+
+Explore mode (`/opsx:explore`) is for this kind of thinking—investigating before implementing. You can use it anytime you need to think through a problem.
+
+Now let's create a change to hold our work.
+```
+
+**PAUSE** - Wait for user acknowledgment before proceeding.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 4: Create the Change
+
+**EXPLAIN:**
+```
+## Creating a Change
+
+A "change" in OpenSpec is a container for all the thinking and planning around a piece of work. It lives in `openspec/changes/<name>/` and holds your artifacts—proposal, specs, design, tasks.
+
+Let me create one for our task.
+```
+
+**DO:** Create the change with a derived kebab-case name:
+```bash
+openspec new change "<derived-name>"
+```
+
+**SHOW:**
+```
+Created: `openspec/changes/<name>/`
+
+The folder structure:
+```
+openspec/changes/<name>/
+├── proposal.md    ← Why we're doing this (empty, we'll fill it)
+├── design.md      ← How we'll build it (empty)
+├── specs/         ← Detailed requirements (empty)
+└── tasks.md       ← Implementation checklist (empty)
+```
+
+Now let's fill in the first artifact—the proposal.
+```
+
+---
+
+## Phase 5: Proposal
+
+**EXPLAIN:**
+```
+## The Proposal
+
+The proposal captures **why** we're making this change and **what** it involves at a high level. It's the "elevator pitch" for the work.
+
+I'll draft one based on our task.
+```
+
+**DO:** Draft the proposal content (don't save yet):
+
+```
+Here's a draft proposal:
+
+---
+
+## Why
+
+[1-2 sentences explaining the problem/opportunity]
+
+## What Changes
+
+[Bullet points of what will be different]
+
+## Capabilities
+
+### New Capabilities
+- `<capability-name>`: [brief description]
+
+### Modified Capabilities
+<!-- If modifying existing behavior -->
+
+## Impact
+
+- `src/path/to/file.ts`: [what changes]
+- [other files if applicable]
+
+---
+
+Does this capture the intent? I can adjust before we save it.
+```
+
+**PAUSE** - Wait for user approval/feedback.
+
+After approval, save the proposal:
+```bash
+openspec instructions proposal --change "<name>" --json
+```
+Then write the content to `openspec/changes/<name>/proposal.md`.
+
+```
+Proposal saved. This is your "why" document—you can always come back and refine it as understanding evolves.
+
+Next up: specs.
+```
+
+---
+
+## Phase 6: Specs
+
+**EXPLAIN:**
+```
+## Specs
+
+Specs define **what** we're building in precise, testable terms. They use a requirement/scenario format that makes expected behavior crystal clear.
+
+For a small task like this, we might only need one spec file.
+```
+
+**DO:** Create the spec file:
+```bash
+mkdir -p openspec/changes/<name>/specs/<capability-name>
+```
+
+Draft the spec content:
+
+```
+Here's the spec:
+
+---
+
+## ADDED Requirements
+
+### Requirement: <Name>
+
+<Description of what the system should do>
+
+#### Scenario: <Scenario name>
+
+- **WHEN** <trigger condition>
+- **THEN** <expected outcome>
+- **AND** <additional outcome if needed>
+
+---
+
+This format—WHEN/THEN/AND—makes requirements testable. You can literally read them as test cases.
+```
+
+Save to `openspec/changes/<name>/specs/<capability>/spec.md`.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 7: Design
+
+**EXPLAIN:**
+```
+## Design
+
+The design captures **how** we'll build it—technical decisions, tradeoffs, approach.
+
+For small changes, this might be brief. That's fine—not every change needs deep design discussion.
+```
+
+**DO:** Draft design.md:
+
+```
+Here's the design:
+
+---
+
+## Context
+
+[Brief context about the current state]
+
+## Goals / Non-Goals
+
+**Goals:**
+- [What we're trying to achieve]
+
+**Non-Goals:**
+- [What's explicitly out of scope]
+
+## Decisions
+
+### Decision 1: [Key decision]
+
+[Explanation of approach and rationale]
+
+---
+
+For a small task, this captures the key decisions without over-engineering.
+```
+
+Save to `openspec/changes/<name>/design.md`.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 8: Tasks
+
+**EXPLAIN:**
+```
+## Tasks
+
+Finally, we break the work into implementation tasks—checkboxes that drive the apply phase.
+
+These should be small, clear, and in logical order.
+```
+
+**DO:** Generate tasks based on specs and design:
+
+```
+Here are the implementation tasks:
+
+---
+
+## 1. [Category or file]
+
+- [ ] 1.1 [Specific task]
+- [ ] 1.2 [Specific task]
+
+## 2. Verify
+
+- [ ] 2.1 [Verification step]
+
+---
+
+Each checkbox becomes a unit of work in the apply phase. Ready to implement?
+```
+
+**PAUSE** - Wait for user to confirm they're ready to implement.
+
+Save to `openspec/changes/<name>/tasks.md`.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 9: Apply (Implementation)
+
+**EXPLAIN:**
+```
+## Implementation
+
+Now we implement each task, checking them off as we go. I'll announce each one and occasionally note how the specs/design informed the approach.
+```
+
+**DO:** For each task:
+
+1. Announce: "Working on task N: [description]"
+2. Implement the change in the codebase
+3. Reference specs/design naturally: "The spec says X, so I'm doing Y"
+4. Mark complete in tasks.md: `- [ ]` → `- [x]`
+5. Brief status: "✓ Task N complete"
+
+Keep narration light—don't over-explain every line of code.
+
+After all tasks:
+
+```
+## Implementation Complete
+
+All tasks done:
+- [x] Task 1
+- [x] Task 2
+- [x] ...
+
+The change is implemented! One more step—let's archive it.
+```
+
+---
+
+## Phase 10: Archive
+
+**EXPLAIN:**
+```
+## Archiving
+
+When a change is complete, we archive it. This moves it from `openspec/changes/` to `openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>/`.
+
+Archived changes become your project's decision history—you can always find them later to understand why something was built a certain way.
+```
+
+**DO:**
+```bash
+openspec archive "<name>"
+```
+
+**SHOW:**
+```
+Archived to: `openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>/`
+
+The change is now part of your project's history. The code is in your codebase, the decision record is preserved.
+```
+
+---
+
+## Phase 11: Recap & Next Steps
+
+```
+## Congratulations!
+
+You just completed a full OpenSpec cycle:
+
+1. **Explore** - Thought through the problem
+2. **New** - Created a change container
+3. **Proposal** - Captured WHY
+4. **Specs** - Defined WHAT in detail
+5. **Design** - Decided HOW
+6. **Tasks** - Broke it into steps
+7. **Apply** - Implemented the work
+8. **Archive** - Preserved the record
+
+This same rhythm works for any size change—a small fix or a major feature.
+
+---
+
+## Command Reference
+
+| Command | What it does |
+|---------|--------------|
+| `/opsx:explore` | Think through problems before/during work |
+| `/opsx:new` | Start a new change, step through artifacts |
+| `/opsx:ff` | Fast-forward: create all artifacts at once |
+| `/opsx:continue` | Continue working on an existing change |
+| `/opsx:apply` | Implement tasks from a change |
+| `/opsx:verify` | Verify implementation matches artifacts |
+| `/opsx:archive` | Archive a completed change |
+
+---
+
+## What's Next?
+
+Try `/opsx:new` or `/opsx:ff` on something you actually want to build. You've got the rhythm now!
+```
+
+---
+
+## Graceful Exit Handling
+
+### User wants to stop mid-way
+
+If the user says they need to stop, want to pause, or seem disengaged:
+
+```
+No problem! Your change is saved at `openspec/changes/<name>/`.
+
+To pick up where we left off later:
+- `/opsx:continue <name>` - Resume artifact creation
+- `/opsx:apply <name>` - Jump to implementation (if tasks exist)
+
+The work won't be lost. Come back whenever you're ready.
+```
+
+Exit gracefully without pressure.
+
+### User just wants command reference
+
+If the user says they just want to see the commands or skip the tutorial:
+
+```
+## OpenSpec Quick Reference
+
+| Command | What it does |
+|---------|--------------|
+| `/opsx:explore` | Think through problems (no code changes) |
+| `/opsx:new <name>` | Start a new change, step by step |
+| `/opsx:ff <name>` | Fast-forward: all artifacts at once |
+| `/opsx:continue <name>` | Continue an existing change |
+| `/opsx:apply <name>` | Implement tasks |
+| `/opsx:verify <name>` | Verify implementation |
+| `/opsx:archive <name>` | Archive when done |
+
+Try `/opsx:new` to start your first change, or `/opsx:ff` if you want to move fast.
+```
+
+Exit gracefully.
+
+---
+
+## Guardrails
+
+- **Follow the EXPLAIN → DO → SHOW → PAUSE pattern** at key transitions (after explore, after proposal draft, after tasks, after archive)
+- **Keep narration light** during implementation—teach without lecturing
+- **Don't skip phases** even if the change is small—the goal is teaching the workflow
+- **Pause for acknowledgment** at marked points, but don't over-pause
+- **Handle exits gracefully**—never pressure the user to continue
+- **Use real codebase tasks**—don't simulate or use fake examples
+- **Adjust scope gently**—guide toward smaller tasks but respect user choice

.claude/commands/opsx/sync.md

@@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
+---
+name: "OPSX: Sync"
+description: Sync delta specs from a change to main specs
+category: Workflow
+tags: [workflow, specs, experimental]
+---
+
+Sync delta specs from a change to main specs.
+
+This is an **agent-driven** operation - you will read delta specs and directly edit main specs to apply the changes. This allows intelligent merging (e.g., adding a scenario without copying the entire requirement).
+
+**Input**: Optionally specify a change name after `/opsx:sync` (e.g., `/opsx:sync add-auth`). If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
+
+**Steps**
+
+1. **If no change name provided, prompt for selection**
+
+   Run `openspec list --json` to get available changes. Use the **AskUserQuestion tool** to let the user select.
+
+   Show changes that have delta specs (under `specs/` directory).
+
+   **IMPORTANT**: Do NOT guess or auto-select a change. Always let the user choose.
+
+2. **Find delta specs**
+
+   Look for delta spec files in `openspec/changes/<name>/specs/*/spec.md`.
+
+   Each delta spec file contains sections like:
+   - `## ADDED Requirements` - New requirements to add
+   - `## MODIFIED Requirements` - Changes to existing requirements
+   - `## REMOVED Requirements` - Requirements to remove
+   - `## RENAMED Requirements` - Requirements to rename (FROM:/TO: format)
+
+   If no delta specs found, inform user and stop.
+
+3. **For each delta spec, apply changes to main specs**
+
+   For each capability with a delta spec at `openspec/changes/<name>/specs/<capability>/spec.md`:
+
+   a. **Read the delta spec** to understand the intended changes
+
+   b. **Read the main spec** at `openspec/specs/<capability>/spec.md` (may not exist yet)
+
+   c. **Apply changes intelligently**:
+
+      **ADDED Requirements:**
+      - If requirement doesn't exist in main spec → add it
+      - If requirement already exists → update it to match (treat as implicit MODIFIED)
+
+      **MODIFIED Requirements:**
+      - Find the requirement in main spec
+      - Apply the changes - this can be:
+        - Adding new scenarios (don't need to copy existing ones)
+        - Modifying existing scenarios
+        - Changing the requirement description
+      - Preserve scenarios/content not mentioned in the delta
+
+      **REMOVED Requirements:**
+      - Remove the entire requirement block from main spec
+
+      **RENAMED Requirements:**
+      - Find the FROM requirement, rename to TO
+
+   d. **Create new main spec** if capability doesn't exist yet:
+      - Create `openspec/specs/<capability>/spec.md`
+      - Add Purpose section (can be brief, mark as TBD)
+      - Add Requirements section with the ADDED requirements
+
+4. **Show summary**
+
+   After applying all changes, summarize:
+   - Which capabilities were updated
+   - What changes were made (requirements added/modified/removed/renamed)
+
+**Delta Spec Format Reference**
+
+```markdown
+## ADDED Requirements
+
+### Requirement: New Feature
+The system SHALL do something new.
+
+#### Scenario: Basic case
+- **WHEN** user does X
+- **THEN** system does Y
+
+## MODIFIED Requirements
+
+### Requirement: Existing Feature
+#### Scenario: New scenario to add
+- **WHEN** user does A
+- **THEN** system does B
+
+## REMOVED Requirements
+
+### Requirement: Deprecated Feature
+
+## RENAMED Requirements
+
+- FROM: `### Requirement: Old Name`
+- TO: `### Requirement: New Name`
+```
+
+**Key Principle: Intelligent Merging**
+
+Unlike programmatic merging, you can apply **partial updates**:
+- To add a scenario, just include that scenario under MODIFIED - don't copy existing scenarios
+- The delta represents *intent*, not a wholesale replacement
+- Use your judgment to merge changes sensibly
+
+**Output On Success**
+
+```
+## Specs Synced: <change-name>
+
+Updated main specs:
+
+**<capability-1>**:
+- Added requirement: "New Feature"
+- Modified requirement: "Existing Feature" (added 1 scenario)
+
+**<capability-2>**:
+- Created new spec file
+- Added requirement: "Another Feature"
+
+Main specs are now updated. The change remains active - archive when implementation is complete.
+```
+
+**Guardrails**
+- Read both delta and main specs before making changes
+- Preserve existing content not mentioned in delta
+- If something is unclear, ask for clarification
+- Show what you're changing as you go
+- The operation should be idempotent - running twice should give same result

.claude/commands/opsx/verify.md

@@ -0,0 +1,164 @@
+---
+name: "OPSX: Verify"
+description: Verify implementation matches change artifacts before archiving
+category: Workflow
+tags: [workflow, verify, experimental]
+---
+
+Verify that an implementation matches the change artifacts (specs, tasks, design).
+
+**Input**: Optionally specify a change name after `/opsx:verify` (e.g., `/opsx:verify add-auth`). If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
+
+**Steps**
+
+1. **If no change name provided, prompt for selection**
+
+   Run `openspec list --json` to get available changes. Use the **AskUserQuestion tool** to let the user select.
+
+   Show changes that have implementation tasks (tasks artifact exists).
+   Include the schema used for each change if available.
+   Mark changes with incomplete tasks as "(In Progress)".
+
+   **IMPORTANT**: Do NOT guess or auto-select a change. Always let the user choose.
+
+2. **Check status to understand the schema**
+   ```bash
+   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
+   ```
+   Parse the JSON to understand:
+   - `schemaName`: The workflow being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
+   - Which artifacts exist for this change
+
+3. **Get the change directory and load artifacts**
+
+   ```bash
+   openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json
+   ```
+
+   This returns the change directory and context files. Read all available artifacts from `contextFiles`.
+
+4. **Initialize verification report structure**
+
+   Create a report structure with three dimensions:
+   - **Completeness**: Track tasks and spec coverage
+   - **Correctness**: Track requirement implementation and scenario coverage
+   - **Coherence**: Track design adherence and pattern consistency
+
+   Each dimension can have CRITICAL, WARNING, or SUGGESTION issues.
+
+5. **Verify Completeness**
+
+   **Task Completion**:
+   - If tasks.md exists in contextFiles, read it
+   - Parse checkboxes: `- [ ]` (incomplete) vs `- [x]` (complete)
+   - Count complete vs total tasks
+   - If incomplete tasks exist:
+     - Add CRITICAL issue for each incomplete task
+     - Recommendation: "Complete task: <description>" or "Mark as done if already implemented"
+
+   **Spec Coverage**:
+   - If delta specs exist in `openspec/changes/<name>/specs/`:
+     - Extract all requirements (marked with "### Requirement:")
+     - For each requirement:
+       - Search codebase for keywords related to the requirement
+       - Assess if implementation likely exists
+     - If requirements appear unimplemented:
+       - Add CRITICAL issue: "Requirement not found: <requirement name>"
+       - Recommendation: "Implement requirement X: <description>"
+
+6. **Verify Correctness**
+
+   **Requirement Implementation Mapping**:
+   - For each requirement from delta specs:
+     - Search codebase for implementation evidence
+     - If found, note file paths and line ranges
+     - Assess if implementation matches requirement intent
+     - If divergence detected:
+       - Add WARNING: "Implementation may diverge from spec: <details>"
+       - Recommendation: "Review <file>:<lines> against requirement X"
+
+   **Scenario Coverage**:
+   - For each scenario in delta specs (marked with "#### Scenario:"):
+     - Check if conditions are handled in code
+     - Check if tests exist covering the scenario
+     - If scenario appears uncovered:
+       - Add WARNING: "Scenario not covered: <scenario name>"
+       - Recommendation: "Add test or implementation for scenario: <description>"
+
+7. **Verify Coherence**
+
+   **Design Adherence**:
+   - If design.md exists in contextFiles:
+     - Extract key decisions (look for sections like "Decision:", "Approach:", "Architecture:")
+     - Verify implementation follows those decisions
+     - If contradiction detected:
+       - Add WARNING: "Design decision not followed: <decision>"
+       - Recommendation: "Update implementation or revise design.md to match reality"
+   - If no design.md: Skip design adherence check, note "No design.md to verify against"
+
+   **Code Pattern Consistency**:
+   - Review new code for consistency with project patterns
+   - Check file naming, directory structure, coding style
+   - If significant deviations found:
+     - Add SUGGESTION: "Code pattern deviation: <details>"
+     - Recommendation: "Consider following project pattern: <example>"
+
+8. **Generate Verification Report**
+
+   **Summary Scorecard**:
+   ```
+   ## Verification Report: <change-name>
+
+   ### Summary
+   | Dimension    | Status           |
+   |--------------|------------------|
+   | Completeness | X/Y tasks, N reqs|
+   | Correctness  | M/N reqs covered |
+   | Coherence    | Followed/Issues  |
+   ```
+
+   **Issues by Priority**:
+
+   1. **CRITICAL** (Must fix before archive):
+      - Incomplete tasks
+      - Missing requirement implementations
+      - Each with specific, actionable recommendation
+
+   2. **WARNING** (Should fix):
+      - Spec/design divergences
+      - Missing scenario coverage
+      - Each with specific recommendation
+
+   3. **SUGGESTION** (Nice to fix):
+      - Pattern inconsistencies
+      - Minor improvements
+      - Each with specific recommendation
+
+   **Final Assessment**:
+   - If CRITICAL issues: "X critical issue(s) found. Fix before archiving."
+   - If only warnings: "No critical issues. Y warning(s) to consider. Ready for archive (with noted improvements)."
+   - If all clear: "All checks passed. Ready for archive."
+
+**Verification Heuristics**
+
+- **Completeness**: Focus on objective checklist items (checkboxes, requirements list)
+- **Correctness**: Use keyword search, file path analysis, reasonable inference - don't require perfect certainty
+- **Coherence**: Look for glaring inconsistencies, don't nitpick style
+- **False Positives**: When uncertain, prefer SUGGESTION over WARNING, WARNING over CRITICAL
+- **Actionability**: Every issue must have a specific recommendation with file/line references where applicable
+
+**Graceful Degradation**
+
+- If only tasks.md exists: verify task completion only, skip spec/design checks
+- If tasks + specs exist: verify completeness and correctness, skip design
+- If full artifacts: verify all three dimensions
+- Always note which checks were skipped and why
+
+**Output Format**
+
+Use clear markdown with:
+- Table for summary scorecard
+- Grouped lists for issues (CRITICAL/WARNING/SUGGESTION)
+- Code references in format: `file.ts:123`
+- Specific, actionable recommendations
+- No vague suggestions like "consider reviewing"

.claude/skills/openspec-apply-change/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
+---
+name: openspec-apply-change
+description: Implement tasks from an OpenSpec change. Use when the user wants to start implementing, continue implementation, or work through tasks.
+license: MIT
+compatibility: Requires openspec CLI.
+metadata:
+  author: openspec
+  version: "1.0"
+  generatedBy: "1.1.1"
+---
+
+Implement tasks from an OpenSpec change.
+
+**Input**: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
+
+**Steps**
+
+1. **Select the change**
+
+   If a name is provided, use it. Otherwise:
+   - Infer from conversation context if the user mentioned a change
+   - Auto-select if only one active change exists
+   - If ambiguous, run `openspec list --json` to get available changes and use the **AskUserQuestion tool** to let the user select
+
+   Always announce: "Using change: <name>" and how to override (e.g., `/opsx:apply <other>`).
+
+2. **Check status to understand the schema**
+   ```bash
+   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
+   ```
+   Parse the JSON to understand:
+   - `schemaName`: The workflow being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
+   - Which artifact contains the tasks (typically "tasks" for spec-driven, check status for others)
+
+3. **Get apply instructions**
+
+   ```bash
+   openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json
+   ```
+
+   This returns:
+   - Context file paths (varies by schema - could be proposal/specs/design/tasks or spec/tests/implementation/docs)
+   - Progress (total, complete, remaining)
+   - Task list with status
+   - Dynamic instruction based on current state
+
+   **Handle states:**
+   - If `state: "blocked"` (missing artifacts): show message, suggest using openspec-continue-change
+   - If `state: "all_done"`: congratulate, suggest archive
+   - Otherwise: proceed to implementation
+
+4. **Read context files**
+
+   Read the files listed in `contextFiles` from the apply instructions output.
+   The files depend on the schema being used:
+   - **spec-driven**: proposal, specs, design, tasks
+   - Other schemas: follow the contextFiles from CLI output
+
+5. **Show current progress**
+
+   Display:
+   - Schema being used
+   - Progress: "N/M tasks complete"
+   - Remaining tasks overview
+   - Dynamic instruction from CLI
+
+6. **Implement tasks (loop until done or blocked)**
+
+   For each pending task:
+   - Show which task is being worked on
+   - Make the code changes required
+   - Keep changes minimal and focused
+   - Mark task complete in the tasks file: `- [ ]` → `- [x]`
+   - Continue to next task
+
+   **Pause if:**
+   - Task is unclear → ask for clarification
+   - Implementation reveals a design issue → suggest updating artifacts
+   - Error or blocker encountered → report and wait for guidance
+   - User interrupts
+
+7. **On completion or pause, show status**
+
+   Display:
+   - Tasks completed this session
+   - Overall progress: "N/M tasks complete"
+   - If all done: suggest archive
+   - If paused: explain why and wait for guidance
+
+**Output During Implementation**
+
+```
+## Implementing: <change-name> (schema: <schema-name>)
+
+Working on task 3/7: <task description>
+[...implementation happening...]
+✓ Task complete
+
+Working on task 4/7: <task description>
+[...implementation happening...]
+✓ Task complete
+```
+
+**Output On Completion**
+
+```
+## Implementation Complete
+
+**Change:** <change-name>
+**Schema:** <schema-name>
+**Progress:** 7/7 tasks complete ✓
+
+### Completed This Session
+- [x] Task 1
+- [x] Task 2
+...
+
+All tasks complete! Ready to archive this change.
+```
+
+**Output On Pause (Issue Encountered)**
+
+```
+## Implementation Paused
+
+**Change:** <change-name>
+**Schema:** <schema-name>
+**Progress:** 4/7 tasks complete
+
+### Issue Encountered
+<description of the issue>
+
+**Options:**
+1. <option 1>
+2. <option 2>
+3. Other approach
+
+What would you like to do?
+```
+
+**Guardrails**
+- Keep going through tasks until done or blocked
+- Always read context files before starting (from the apply instructions output)
+- If task is ambiguous, pause and ask before implementing
+- If implementation reveals issues, pause and suggest artifact updates
+- Keep code changes minimal and scoped to each task
+- Update task checkbox immediately after completing each task
+- Pause on errors, blockers, or unclear requirements - don't guess
+- Use contextFiles from CLI output, don't assume specific file names
+
+**Fluid Workflow Integration**
+
+This skill supports the "actions on a change" model:
+
+- **Can be invoked anytime**: Before all artifacts are done (if tasks exist), after partial implementation, interleaved with other actions
+- **Allows artifact updates**: If implementation reveals design issues, suggest updating artifacts - not phase-locked, work fluidly

.claude/skills/openspec-archive-change/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+---
+name: openspec-archive-change
+description: Archive a completed change in the experimental workflow. Use when the user wants to finalize and archive a change after implementation is complete.
+license: MIT
+compatibility: Requires openspec CLI.
+metadata:
+  author: openspec
+  version: "1.0"
+  generatedBy: "1.1.1"
+---
+
+Archive a completed change in the experimental workflow.
+
+**Input**: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
+
+**Steps**
+
+1. **If no change name provided, prompt for selection**
+
+   Run `openspec list --json` to get available changes. Use the **AskUserQuestion tool** to let the user select.
+
+   Show only active changes (not already archived).
+   Include the schema used for each change if available.
+
+   **IMPORTANT**: Do NOT guess or auto-select a change. Always let the user choose.
+
+2. **Check artifact completion status**
+
+   Run `openspec status --change "<name>" --json` to check artifact completion.
+
+   Parse the JSON to understand:
+   - `schemaName`: The workflow being used
+   - `artifacts`: List of artifacts with their status (`done` or other)
+
+   **If any artifacts are not `done`:**
+   - Display warning listing incomplete artifacts
+   - Use **AskUserQuestion tool** to confirm user wants to proceed
+   - Proceed if user confirms
+
+3. **Check task completion status**
+
+   Read the tasks file (typically `tasks.md`) to check for incomplete tasks.
+
+   Count tasks marked with `- [ ]` (incomplete) vs `- [x]` (complete).
+
+   **If incomplete tasks found:**
+   - Display warning showing count of incomplete tasks
+   - Use **AskUserQuestion tool** to confirm user wants to proceed
+   - Proceed if user confirms
+
+   **If no tasks file exists:** Proceed without task-related warning.
+
+4. **Assess delta spec sync state**
+
+   Check for delta specs at `openspec/changes/<name>/specs/`. If none exist, proceed without sync prompt.
+
+   **If delta specs exist:**
+   - Compare each delta spec with its corresponding main spec at `openspec/specs/<capability>/spec.md`
+   - Determine what changes would be applied (adds, modifications, removals, renames)
+   - Show a combined summary before prompting
+
+   **Prompt options:**
+   - If changes needed: "Sync now (recommended)", "Archive without syncing"
+   - If already synced: "Archive now", "Sync anyway", "Cancel"
+
+   If user chooses sync, execute /opsx:sync logic (use the openspec-sync-specs skill). Proceed to archive regardless of choice.
+
+5. **Perform the archive**
+
+   Create the archive directory if it doesn't exist:
+   ```bash
+   mkdir -p openspec/changes/archive
+   ```
+
+   Generate target name using current date: `YYYY-MM-DD-<change-name>`
+
+   **Check if target already exists:**
+   - If yes: Fail with error, suggest renaming existing archive or using different date
+   - If no: Move the change directory to archive
+
+   ```bash
+   mv openspec/changes/<name> openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>
+   ```
+
+6. **Display summary**
+
+   Show archive completion summary including:
+   - Change name
+   - Schema that was used
+   - Archive location
+   - Whether specs were synced (if applicable)
+   - Note about any warnings (incomplete artifacts/tasks)
+
+**Output On Success**
+
+```
+## Archive Complete
+
+**Change:** <change-name>
+**Schema:** <schema-name>
+**Archived to:** openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>/
+**Specs:** ✓ Synced to main specs (or "No delta specs" or "Sync skipped")
+
+All artifacts complete. All tasks complete.
+```
+
+**Guardrails**
+- Always prompt for change selection if not provided
+- Use artifact graph (openspec status --json) for completion checking
+- Don't block archive on warnings - just inform and confirm
+- Preserve .openspec.yaml when moving to archive (it moves with the directory)
+- Show clear summary of what happened
+- If sync is requested, use openspec-sync-specs approach (agent-driven)
+- If delta specs exist, always run the sync assessment and show the combined summary before prompting

.claude/skills/openspec-bulk-archive-change/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,246 @@
+---
+name: openspec-bulk-archive-change
+description: Archive multiple completed changes at once. Use when archiving several parallel changes.
+license: MIT
+compatibility: Requires openspec CLI.
+metadata:
+  author: openspec
+  version: "1.0"
+  generatedBy: "1.1.1"
+---
+
+Archive multiple completed changes in a single operation.
+
+This skill allows you to batch-archive changes, handling spec conflicts intelligently by checking the codebase to determine what's actually implemented.
+
+**Input**: None required (prompts for selection)
+
+**Steps**
+
+1. **Get active changes**
+
+   Run `openspec list --json` to get all active changes.
+
+   If no active changes exist, inform user and stop.
+
+2. **Prompt for change selection**
+
+   Use **AskUserQuestion tool** with multi-select to let user choose changes:
+   - Show each change with its schema
+   - Include an option for "All changes"
+   - Allow any number of selections (1+ works, 2+ is the typical use case)
+
+   **IMPORTANT**: Do NOT auto-select. Always let the user choose.
+
+3. **Batch validation - gather status for all selected changes**
+
+   For each selected change, collect:
+
+   a. **Artifact status** - Run `openspec status --change "<name>" --json`
+      - Parse `schemaName` and `artifacts` list
+      - Note which artifacts are `done` vs other states
+
+   b. **Task completion** - Read `openspec/changes/<name>/tasks.md`
+      - Count `- [ ]` (incomplete) vs `- [x]` (complete)
+      - If no tasks file exists, note as "No tasks"
+
+   c. **Delta specs** - Check `openspec/changes/<name>/specs/` directory
+      - List which capability specs exist
+      - For each, extract requirement names (lines matching `### Requirement: <name>`)
+
+4. **Detect spec conflicts**
+
+   Build a map of `capability -> [changes that touch it]`:
+
+   ```
+   auth -> [change-a, change-b]  <- CONFLICT (2+ changes)
+   api  -> [change-c]            <- OK (only 1 change)
+   ```
+
+   A conflict exists when 2+ selected changes have delta specs for the same capability.
+
+5. **Resolve conflicts agentically**
+
+   **For each conflict**, investigate the codebase:
+
+   a. **Read the delta specs** from each conflicting change to understand what each claims to add/modify
+
+   b. **Search the codebase** for implementation evidence:
+      - Look for code implementing requirements from each delta spec
+      - Check for related files, functions, or tests
+
+   c. **Determine resolution**:
+      - If only one change is actually implemented -> sync that one's specs
+      - If both implemented -> apply in chronological order (older first, newer overwrites)
+      - If neither implemented -> skip spec sync, warn user
+
+   d. **Record resolution** for each conflict:
+      - Which change's specs to apply
+      - In what order (if both)
+      - Rationale (what was found in codebase)
+
+6. **Show consolidated status table**
+
+   Display a table summarizing all changes:
+
+   ```
+   | Change               | Artifacts | Tasks | Specs   | Conflicts | Status |
+   |---------------------|-----------|-------|---------|-----------|--------|
+   | schema-management   | Done      | 5/5   | 2 delta | None      | Ready  |
+   | project-config      | Done      | 3/3   | 1 delta | None      | Ready  |
+   | add-oauth           | Done      | 4/4   | 1 delta | auth (!)  | Ready* |
+   | add-verify-skill    | 1 left    | 2/5   | None    | None      | Warn   |
+   ```
+
+   For conflicts, show the resolution:
+   ```
+   * Conflict resolution:
+     - auth spec: Will apply add-oauth then add-jwt (both implemented, chronological order)
+   ```
+
+   For incomplete changes, show warnings:
+   ```
+   Warnings:
+   - add-verify-skill: 1 incomplete artifact, 3 incomplete tasks
+   ```
+
+7. **Confirm batch operation**
+
+   Use **AskUserQuestion tool** with a single confirmation:
+
+   - "Archive N changes?" with options based on status
+   - Options might include:
+     - "Archive all N changes"
+     - "Archive only N ready changes (skip incomplete)"
+     - "Cancel"
+
+   If there are incomplete changes, make clear they'll be archived with warnings.
+
+8. **Execute archive for each confirmed change**
+
+   Process changes in the determined order (respecting conflict resolution):
+
+   a. **Sync specs** if delta specs exist:
+      - Use the openspec-sync-specs approach (agent-driven intelligent merge)
+      - For conflicts, apply in resolved order
+      - Track if sync was done
+
+   b. **Perform the archive**:
+      ```bash
+      mkdir -p openspec/changes/archive
+      mv openspec/changes/<name> openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>
+      ```
+
+   c. **Track outcome** for each change:
+      - Success: archived successfully
+      - Failed: error during archive (record error)
+      - Skipped: user chose not to archive (if applicable)
+
+9. **Display summary**
+
+   Show final results:
+
+   ```
+   ## Bulk Archive Complete
+
+   Archived 3 changes:
+   - schema-management-cli -> archive/2026-01-19-schema-management-cli/
+   - project-config -> archive/2026-01-19-project-config/
+   - add-oauth -> archive/2026-01-19-add-oauth/
+
+   Skipped 1 change:
+   - add-verify-skill (user chose not to archive incomplete)
+
+   Spec sync summary:
+   - 4 delta specs synced to main specs
+   - 1 conflict resolved (auth: applied both in chronological order)
+   ```
+
+   If any failures:
+   ```
+   Failed 1 change:
+   - some-change: Archive directory already exists
+   ```
+
+**Conflict Resolution Examples**
+
+Example 1: Only one implemented
+```
+Conflict: specs/auth/spec.md touched by [add-oauth, add-jwt]
+
+Checking add-oauth:
+- Delta adds "OAuth Provider Integration" requirement
+- Searching codebase... found src/auth/oauth.ts implementing OAuth flow
+
+Checking add-jwt:
+- Delta adds "JWT Token Handling" requirement
+- Searching codebase... no JWT implementation found
+
+Resolution: Only add-oauth is implemented. Will sync add-oauth specs only.
+```
+
+Example 2: Both implemented
+```
+Conflict: specs/api/spec.md touched by [add-rest-api, add-graphql]
+
+Checking add-rest-api (created 2026-01-10):
+- Delta adds "REST Endpoints" requirement
+- Searching codebase... found src/api/rest.ts
+
+Checking add-graphql (created 2026-01-15):
+- Delta adds "GraphQL Schema" requirement
+- Searching codebase... found src/api/graphql.ts
+
+Resolution: Both implemented. Will apply add-rest-api specs first,
+then add-graphql specs (chronological order, newer takes precedence).
+```
+
+**Output On Success**
+
+```
+## Bulk Archive Complete
+
+Archived N changes:
+- <change-1> -> archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<change-1>/
+- <change-2> -> archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<change-2>/
+
+Spec sync summary:
+- N delta specs synced to main specs
+- No conflicts (or: M conflicts resolved)
+```
+
+**Output On Partial Success**
+
+```
+## Bulk Archive Complete (partial)
+
+Archived N changes:
+- <change-1> -> archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<change-1>/
+
+Skipped M changes:
+- <change-2> (user chose not to archive incomplete)
+
+Failed K changes:
+- <change-3>: Archive directory already exists
+```
+
+**Output When No Changes**
+
+```
+## No Changes to Archive
+
+No active changes found. Use `/opsx:new` to create a new change.
+```
+
+**Guardrails**
+- Allow any number of changes (1+ is fine, 2+ is the typical use case)
+- Always prompt for selection, never auto-select
+- Detect spec conflicts early and resolve by checking codebase
+- When both changes are implemented, apply specs in chronological order
+- Skip spec sync only when implementation is missing (warn user)
+- Show clear per-change status before confirming
+- Use single confirmation for entire batch
+- Track and report all outcomes (success/skip/fail)
+- Preserve .openspec.yaml when moving to archive
+- Archive directory target uses current date: YYYY-MM-DD-<name>
+- If archive target exists, fail that change but continue with others

.claude/skills/openspec-continue-change/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
+---
+name: openspec-continue-change
+description: Continue working on an OpenSpec change by creating the next artifact. Use when the user wants to progress their change, create the next artifact, or continue their workflow.
+license: MIT
+compatibility: Requires openspec CLI.
+metadata:
+  author: openspec
+  version: "1.0"
+  generatedBy: "1.1.1"
+---
+
+Continue working on a change by creating the next artifact.
+
+**Input**: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
+
+**Steps**
+
+1. **If no change name provided, prompt for selection**
+
+   Run `openspec list --json` to get available changes sorted by most recently modified. Then use the **AskUserQuestion tool** to let the user select which change to work on.
+
+   Present the top 3-4 most recently modified changes as options, showing:
+   - Change name
+   - Schema (from `schema` field if present, otherwise "spec-driven")
+   - Status (e.g., "0/5 tasks", "complete", "no tasks")
+   - How recently it was modified (from `lastModified` field)
+
+   Mark the most recently modified change as "(Recommended)" since it's likely what the user wants to continue.
+
+   **IMPORTANT**: Do NOT guess or auto-select a change. Always let the user choose.
+
+2. **Check current status**
+   ```bash
+   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
+   ```
+   Parse the JSON to understand current state. The response includes:
+   - `schemaName`: The workflow schema being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
+   - `artifacts`: Array of artifacts with their status ("done", "ready", "blocked")
+   - `isComplete`: Boolean indicating if all artifacts are complete
+
+3. **Act based on status**:
+
+   ---
+
+   **If all artifacts are complete (`isComplete: true`)**:
+   - Congratulate the user
+   - Show final status including the schema used
+   - Suggest: "All artifacts created! You can now implement this change or archive it."
+   - STOP
+
+   ---
+
+   **If artifacts are ready to create** (status shows artifacts with `status: "ready"`):
+   - Pick the FIRST artifact with `status: "ready"` from the status output
+   - Get its instructions:
+     ```bash
+     openspec instructions <artifact-id> --change "<name>" --json
+     ```
+   - Parse the JSON. The key fields are:
+     - `context`: Project background (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
+     - `rules`: Artifact-specific rules (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
+     - `template`: The structure to use for your output file
+     - `instruction`: Schema-specific guidance
+     - `outputPath`: Where to write the artifact
+     - `dependencies`: Completed artifacts to read for context
+   - **Create the artifact file**:
+     - Read any completed dependency files for context
+     - Use `template` as the structure - fill in its sections
+     - Apply `context` and `rules` as constraints when writing - but do NOT copy them into the file
+     - Write to the output path specified in instructions
+   - Show what was created and what's now unlocked
+   - STOP after creating ONE artifact
+
+   ---
+
+   **If no artifacts are ready (all blocked)**:
+   - This shouldn't happen with a valid schema
+   - Show status and suggest checking for issues
+
+4. **After creating an artifact, show progress**
+   ```bash
+   openspec status --change "<name>"
+   ```
+
+**Output**
+
+After each invocation, show:
+- Which artifact was created
+- Schema workflow being used
+- Current progress (N/M complete)
+- What artifacts are now unlocked
+- Prompt: "Want to continue? Just ask me to continue or tell me what to do next."
+
+**Artifact Creation Guidelines**
+
+The artifact types and their purpose depend on the schema. Use the `instruction` field from the instructions output to understand what to create.
+
+Common artifact patterns:
+
+**spec-driven schema** (proposal → specs → design → tasks):
+- **proposal.md**: Ask user about the change if not clear. Fill in Why, What Changes, Capabilities, Impact.
+  - The Capabilities section is critical - each capability listed will need a spec file.
+- **specs/<capability>/spec.md**: Create one spec per capability listed in the proposal's Capabilities section (use the capability name, not the change name).
+- **design.md**: Document technical decisions, architecture, and implementation approach.
+- **tasks.md**: Break down implementation into checkboxed tasks.
+
+For other schemas, follow the `instruction` field from the CLI output.
+
+**Guardrails**
+- Create ONE artifact per invocation
+- Always read dependency artifacts before creating a new one
+- Never skip artifacts or create out of order
+- If context is unclear, ask the user before creating
+- Verify the artifact file exists after writing before marking progress
+- Use the schema's artifact sequence, don't assume specific artifact names
+- **IMPORTANT**: `context` and `rules` are constraints for YOU, not content for the file
+  - Do NOT copy `<context>`, `<rules>`, `<project_context>` blocks into the artifact
+  - These guide what you write, but should never appear in the output

.claude/skills/openspec-explore/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,290 @@
+---
+name: openspec-explore
+description: Enter explore mode - a thinking partner for exploring ideas, investigating problems, and clarifying requirements. Use when the user wants to think through something before or during a change.
+license: MIT
+compatibility: Requires openspec CLI.
+metadata:
+  author: openspec
+  version: "1.0"
+  generatedBy: "1.1.1"
+---
+
+Enter explore mode. Think deeply. Visualize freely. Follow the conversation wherever it goes.
+
+**IMPORTANT: Explore mode is for thinking, not implementing.** You may read files, search code, and investigate the codebase, but you must NEVER write code or implement features. If the user asks you to implement something, remind them to exit explore mode first (e.g., start a change with `/opsx:new` or `/opsx:ff`). You MAY create OpenSpec artifacts (proposals, designs, specs) if the user asks—that's capturing thinking, not implementing.
+
+**This is a stance, not a workflow.** There are no fixed steps, no required sequence, no mandatory outputs. You're a thinking partner helping the user explore.
+
+---
+
+## The Stance
+
+- **Curious, not prescriptive** - Ask questions that emerge naturally, don't follow a script
+- **Open threads, not interrogations** - Surface multiple interesting directions and let the user follow what resonates. Don't funnel them through a single path of questions.
+- **Visual** - Use ASCII diagrams liberally when they'd help clarify thinking
+- **Adaptive** - Follow interesting threads, pivot when new information emerges
+- **Patient** - Don't rush to conclusions, let the shape of the problem emerge
+- **Grounded** - Explore the actual codebase when relevant, don't just theorize
+
+---
+
+## What You Might Do
+
+Depending on what the user brings, you might:
+
+**Explore the problem space**
+- Ask clarifying questions that emerge from what they said
+- Challenge assumptions
+- Reframe the problem
+- Find analogies
+
+**Investigate the codebase**
+- Map existing architecture relevant to the discussion
+- Find integration points
+- Identify patterns already in use
+- Surface hidden complexity
+
+**Compare options**
+- Brainstorm multiple approaches
+- Build comparison tables
+- Sketch tradeoffs
+- Recommend a path (if asked)
+
+**Visualize**
+```
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│     Use ASCII diagrams liberally        │
+├─────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│                                         │
+│   ┌────────┐         ┌────────┐        │
+│   │ State  │────────▶│ State  │        │
+│   │   A    │         │   B    │        │
+│   └────────┘         └────────┘        │
+│                                         │
+│   System diagrams, state machines,      │
+│   data flows, architecture sketches,    │
+│   dependency graphs, comparison tables  │
+│                                         │
+└─────────────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+**Surface risks and unknowns**
+- Identify what could go wrong
+- Find gaps in understanding
+- Suggest spikes or investigations
+
+---
+
+## OpenSpec Awareness
+
+You have full context of the OpenSpec system. Use it naturally, don't force it.
+
+### Check for context
+
+At the start, quickly check what exists:
+```bash
+openspec list --json
+```
+
+This tells you:
+- If there are active changes
+- Their names, schemas, and status
+- What the user might be working on
+
+### When no change exists
+
+Think freely. When insights crystallize, you might offer:
+
+- "This feels solid enough to start a change. Want me to create one?"
+  → Can transition to `/opsx:new` or `/opsx:ff`
+- Or keep exploring - no pressure to formalize
+
+### When a change exists
+
+If the user mentions a change or you detect one is relevant:
+
+1. **Read existing artifacts for context**
+   - `openspec/changes/<name>/proposal.md`
+   - `openspec/changes/<name>/design.md`
+   - `openspec/changes/<name>/tasks.md`
+   - etc.
+
+2. **Reference them naturally in conversation**
+   - "Your design mentions using Redis, but we just realized SQLite fits better..."
+   - "The proposal scopes this to premium users, but we're now thinking everyone..."
+
+3. **Offer to capture when decisions are made**
+
+   | Insight Type | Where to Capture |
+   |--------------|------------------|
+   | New requirement discovered | `specs/<capability>/spec.md` |
+   | Requirement changed | `specs/<capability>/spec.md` |
+   | Design decision made | `design.md` |
+   | Scope changed | `proposal.md` |
+   | New work identified | `tasks.md` |
+   | Assumption invalidated | Relevant artifact |
+
+   Example offers:
+   - "That's a design decision. Capture it in design.md?"
+   - "This is a new requirement. Add it to specs?"
+   - "This changes scope. Update the proposal?"
+
+4. **The user decides** - Offer and move on. Don't pressure. Don't auto-capture.
+
+---
+
+## What You Don't Have To Do
+
+- Follow a script
+- Ask the same questions every time
+- Produce a specific artifact
+- Reach a conclusion
+- Stay on topic if a tangent is valuable
+- Be brief (this is thinking time)
+
+---
+
+## Handling Different Entry Points
+
+**User brings a vague idea:**
+```
+User: I'm thinking about adding real-time collaboration
+
+You: Real-time collab is a big space. Let me think about this...
+
+      COLLABORATION SPECTRUM
+      ════════════════════════════════════════════
+
+      Awareness          Coordination         Sync
+          │                   │                 │
+          ▼                   ▼                 ▼
+      ┌────────┐         ┌────────┐        ┌────────┐
+      │Presence│         │Cursors │        │  CRDT  │
+      │  "3    │         │ Multi  │        │Conflict│
+      │online" │         │ select │        │  free  │
+      └────────┘         └────────┘        └────────┘
+          │                   │                 │
+       trivial            moderate           complex
+
+      Where's your head at?
+```
+
+**User brings a specific problem:**
+```
+User: The auth system is a mess
+
+You: [reads codebase]
+
+     ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+     │              CURRENT AUTH FLOW              │
+     └─────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+                        │
+          ┌─────────────┼─────────────┐
+          ▼             ▼             ▼
+     ┌─────────┐  ┌─────────┐  ┌─────────┐
+     │ Google  │  │  GitHub │  │  Email  │
+     │  OAuth  │  │  OAuth  │  │  Magic  │
+     └────┬────┘  └────┬────┘  └────┬────┘
+          │             │             │
+          └─────────────┼─────────────┘
+                        ▼
+                  ┌───────────┐
+                  │  Session  │
+                  └─────┬─────┘
+                        │
+                        ▼
+                  ┌───────────┐
+                  │   Perms   │
+                  └───────────┘
+
+     I see three tangles. Which one's burning?
+```
+
+**User is stuck mid-implementation:**
+```
+User: /opsx:explore add-auth-system
+      The OAuth integration is more complex than expected
+
+You: [reads change artifacts]
+
+     You're on task 4: "Implement OAuth flow"
+
+     Let me trace what's involved...
+
+     [draws diagram, explores options, suggests paths]
+
+     Want to update the design to reflect this?
+     Or add a spike task to investigate?
+```
+
+**User wants to compare options:**
+```
+User: Should we use Postgres or SQLite?
+
+You: Generic answer is boring. What's the context?
+
+User: A CLI tool that tracks local dev environments
+
+You: That changes everything.
+
+     ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+     │         CLI TOOL DATA STORAGE                  │
+     └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+
+     Key constraints:
+     • No daemon running
+     • Must work offline
+     • Single user
+
+                  SQLite          Postgres
+     Deployment   embedded ✓      needs server ✗
+     Offline      yes ✓           no ✗
+     Single file  yes ✓           no ✗
+
+     SQLite. Not even close.
+
+     Unless... is there a sync component?
+```
+
+---
+
+## Ending Discovery
+
+There's no required ending. Discovery might:
+
+- **Flow into action**: "Ready to start? /opsx:new or /opsx:ff"
+- **Result in artifact updates**: "Updated design.md with these decisions"
+- **Just provide clarity**: User has what they need, moves on
+- **Continue later**: "We can pick this up anytime"
+
+When it feels like things are crystallizing, you might summarize:
+
+```
+## What We Figured Out
+
+**The problem**: [crystallized understanding]
+
+**The approach**: [if one emerged]
+
+**Open questions**: [if any remain]
+
+**Next steps** (if ready):
+- Create a change: /opsx:new <name>
+- Fast-forward to tasks: /opsx:ff <name>
+- Keep exploring: just keep talking
+```
+
+But this summary is optional. Sometimes the thinking IS the value.
+
+---
+
+## Guardrails
+
+- **Don't implement** - Never write code or implement features. Creating OpenSpec artifacts is fine, writing application code is not.
+- **Don't fake understanding** - If something is unclear, dig deeper
+- **Don't rush** - Discovery is thinking time, not task time
+- **Don't force structure** - Let patterns emerge naturally
+- **Don't auto-capture** - Offer to save insights, don't just do it
+- **Do visualize** - A good diagram is worth many paragraphs
+- **Do explore the codebase** - Ground discussions in reality
+- **Do question assumptions** - Including the user's and your own

.claude/skills/openspec-ff-change/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+---
+name: openspec-ff-change
+description: Fast-forward through OpenSpec artifact creation. Use when the user wants to quickly create all artifacts needed for implementation without stepping through each one individually.
+license: MIT
+compatibility: Requires openspec CLI.
+metadata:
+  author: openspec
+  version: "1.0"
+  generatedBy: "1.1.1"
+---
+
+Fast-forward through artifact creation - generate everything needed to start implementation in one go.
+
+**Input**: The user's request should include a change name (kebab-case) OR a description of what they want to build.
+
+**Steps**
+
+1. **If no clear input provided, ask what they want to build**
+
+   Use the **AskUserQuestion tool** (open-ended, no preset options) to ask:
+   > "What change do you want to work on? Describe what you want to build or fix."
+
+   From their description, derive a kebab-case name (e.g., "add user authentication" → `add-user-auth`).
+
+   **IMPORTANT**: Do NOT proceed without understanding what the user wants to build.
+
+2. **Create the change directory**
+   ```bash
+   openspec new change "<name>"
+   ```
+   This creates a scaffolded change at `openspec/changes/<name>/`.
+
+3. **Get the artifact build order**
+   ```bash
+   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
+   ```
+   Parse the JSON to get:
+   - `applyRequires`: array of artifact IDs needed before implementation (e.g., `["tasks"]`)
+   - `artifacts`: list of all artifacts with their status and dependencies
+
+4. **Create artifacts in sequence until apply-ready**
+
+   Use the **TodoWrite tool** to track progress through the artifacts.
+
+   Loop through artifacts in dependency order (artifacts with no pending dependencies first):
+
+   a. **For each artifact that is `ready` (dependencies satisfied)**:
+      - Get instructions:
+        ```bash
+        openspec instructions <artifact-id> --change "<name>" --json
+        ```
+      - The instructions JSON includes:
+        - `context`: Project background (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
+        - `rules`: Artifact-specific rules (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
+        - `template`: The structure to use for your output file
+        - `instruction`: Schema-specific guidance for this artifact type
+        - `outputPath`: Where to write the artifact
+        - `dependencies`: Completed artifacts to read for context
+      - Read any completed dependency files for context
+      - Create the artifact file using `template` as the structure
+      - Apply `context` and `rules` as constraints - but do NOT copy them into the file
+      - Show brief progress: "✓ Created <artifact-id>"
+
+   b. **Continue until all `applyRequires` artifacts are complete**
+      - After creating each artifact, re-run `openspec status --change "<name>" --json`
+      - Check if every artifact ID in `applyRequires` has `status: "done"` in the artifacts array
+      - Stop when all `applyRequires` artifacts are done
+
+   c. **If an artifact requires user input** (unclear context):
+      - Use **AskUserQuestion tool** to clarify
+      - Then continue with creation
+
+5. **Show final status**
+   ```bash
+   openspec status --change "<name>"
+   ```
+
+**Output**
+
+After completing all artifacts, summarize:
+- Change name and location
+- List of artifacts created with brief descriptions
+- What's ready: "All artifacts created! Ready for implementation."
+- Prompt: "Run `/opsx:apply` or ask me to implement to start working on the tasks."
+
+**Artifact Creation Guidelines**
+
+- Follow the `instruction` field from `openspec instructions` for each artifact type
+- The schema defines what each artifact should contain - follow it
+- Read dependency artifacts for context before creating new ones
+- Use `template` as the structure for your output file - fill in its sections
+- **IMPORTANT**: `context` and `rules` are constraints for YOU, not content for the file
+  - Do NOT copy `<context>`, `<rules>`, `<project_context>` blocks into the artifact
+  - These guide what you write, but should never appear in the output
+
+**Guardrails**
+- Create ALL artifacts needed for implementation (as defined by schema's `apply.requires`)
+- Always read dependency artifacts before creating a new one
+- If context is critically unclear, ask the user - but prefer making reasonable decisions to keep momentum
+- If a change with that name already exists, suggest continuing that change instead
+- Verify each artifact file exists after writing before proceeding to next

.claude/skills/openspec-new-change/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+---
+name: openspec-new-change
+description: Start a new OpenSpec change using the experimental artifact workflow. Use when the user wants to create a new feature, fix, or modification with a structured step-by-step approach.
+license: MIT
+compatibility: Requires openspec CLI.
+metadata:
+  author: openspec
+  version: "1.0"
+  generatedBy: "1.1.1"
+---
+
+Start a new change using the experimental artifact-driven approach.
+
+**Input**: The user's request should include a change name (kebab-case) OR a description of what they want to build.
+
+**Steps**
+
+1. **If no clear input provided, ask what they want to build**
+
+   Use the **AskUserQuestion tool** (open-ended, no preset options) to ask:
+   > "What change do you want to work on? Describe what you want to build or fix."
+
+   From their description, derive a kebab-case name (e.g., "add user authentication" → `add-user-auth`).
+
+   **IMPORTANT**: Do NOT proceed without understanding what the user wants to build.
+
+2. **Determine the workflow schema**
+
+   Use the default schema (omit `--schema`) unless the user explicitly requests a different workflow.
+
+   **Use a different schema only if the user mentions:**
+   - A specific schema name → use `--schema <name>`
+   - "show workflows" or "what workflows" → run `openspec schemas --json` and let them choose
+
+   **Otherwise**: Omit `--schema` to use the default.
+
+3. **Create the change directory**
+   ```bash
+   openspec new change "<name>"
+   ```
+   Add `--schema <name>` only if the user requested a specific workflow.
+   This creates a scaffolded change at `openspec/changes/<name>/` with the selected schema.
+
+4. **Show the artifact status**
+   ```bash
+   openspec status --change "<name>"
+   ```
+   This shows which artifacts need to be created and which are ready (dependencies satisfied).
+
+5. **Get instructions for the first artifact**
+   The first artifact depends on the schema (e.g., `proposal` for spec-driven).
+   Check the status output to find the first artifact with status "ready".
+   ```bash
+   openspec instructions <first-artifact-id> --change "<name>"
+   ```
+   This outputs the template and context for creating the first artifact.
+
+6. **STOP and wait for user direction**
+
+**Output**
+
+After completing the steps, summarize:
+- Change name and location
+- Schema/workflow being used and its artifact sequence
+- Current status (0/N artifacts complete)
+- The template for the first artifact
+- Prompt: "Ready to create the first artifact? Just describe what this change is about and I'll draft it, or ask me to continue."
+
+**Guardrails**
+- Do NOT create any artifacts yet - just show the instructions
+- Do NOT advance beyond showing the first artifact template
+- If the name is invalid (not kebab-case), ask for a valid name
+- If a change with that name already exists, suggest continuing that change instead
+- Pass --schema if using a non-default workflow

.claude/skills/openspec-onboard/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,529 @@
+---
+name: openspec-onboard
+description: Guided onboarding for OpenSpec - walk through a complete workflow cycle with narration and real codebase work.
+license: MIT
+compatibility: Requires openspec CLI.
+metadata:
+  author: openspec
+  version: "1.0"
+  generatedBy: "1.1.1"
+---
+
+Guide the user through their first complete OpenSpec workflow cycle. This is a teaching experience—you'll do real work in their codebase while explaining each step.
+
+---
+
+## Preflight
+
+Before starting, check if OpenSpec is initialized:
+
+```bash
+openspec status --json 2>&1 || echo "NOT_INITIALIZED"
+```
+
+**If not initialized:**
+> OpenSpec isn't set up in this project yet. Run `openspec init` first, then come back to `/opsx:onboard`.
+
+Stop here if not initialized.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 1: Welcome
+
+Display:
+
+```
+## Welcome to OpenSpec!
+
+I'll walk you through a complete change cycle—from idea to implementation—using a real task in your codebase. Along the way, you'll learn the workflow by doing it.
+
+**What we'll do:**
+1. Pick a small, real task in your codebase
+2. Explore the problem briefly
+3. Create a change (the container for our work)
+4. Build the artifacts: proposal → specs → design → tasks
+5. Implement the tasks
+6. Archive the completed change
+
+**Time:** ~15-20 minutes
+
+Let's start by finding something to work on.
+```
+
+---
+
+## Phase 2: Task Selection
+
+### Codebase Analysis
+
+Scan the codebase for small improvement opportunities. Look for:
+
+1. **TODO/FIXME comments** - Search for `TODO`, `FIXME`, `HACK`, `XXX` in code files
+2. **Missing error handling** - `catch` blocks that swallow errors, risky operations without try-catch
+3. **Functions without tests** - Cross-reference `src/` with test directories
+4. **Type issues** - `any` types in TypeScript files (`: any`, `as any`)
+5. **Debug artifacts** - `console.log`, `console.debug`, `debugger` statements in non-debug code
+6. **Missing validation** - User input handlers without validation
+
+Also check recent git activity:
+```bash
+git log --oneline -10 2>/dev/null || echo "No git history"
+```
+
+### Present Suggestions
+
+From your analysis, present 3-4 specific suggestions:
+
+```
+## Task Suggestions
+
+Based on scanning your codebase, here are some good starter tasks:
+
+**1. [Most promising task]**
+   Location: `src/path/to/file.ts:42`
+   Scope: ~1-2 files, ~20-30 lines
+   Why it's good: [brief reason]
+
+**2. [Second task]**
+   Location: `src/another/file.ts`
+   Scope: ~1 file, ~15 lines
+   Why it's good: [brief reason]
+
+**3. [Third task]**
+   Location: [location]
+   Scope: [estimate]
+   Why it's good: [brief reason]
+
+**4. Something else?**
+   Tell me what you'd like to work on.
+
+Which task interests you? (Pick a number or describe your own)
+```
+
+**If nothing found:** Fall back to asking what the user wants to build:
+> I didn't find obvious quick wins in your codebase. What's something small you've been meaning to add or fix?
+
+### Scope Guardrail
+
+If the user picks or describes something too large (major feature, multi-day work):
+
+```
+That's a valuable task, but it's probably larger than ideal for your first OpenSpec run-through.
+
+For learning the workflow, smaller is better—it lets you see the full cycle without getting stuck in implementation details.
+
+**Options:**
+1. **Slice it smaller** - What's the smallest useful piece of [their task]? Maybe just [specific slice]?
+2. **Pick something else** - One of the other suggestions, or a different small task?
+3. **Do it anyway** - If you really want to tackle this, we can. Just know it'll take longer.
+
+What would you prefer?
+```
+
+Let the user override if they insist—this is a soft guardrail.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 3: Explore Demo
+
+Once a task is selected, briefly demonstrate explore mode:
+
+```
+Before we create a change, let me quickly show you **explore mode**—it's how you think through problems before committing to a direction.
+```
+
+Spend 1-2 minutes investigating the relevant code:
+- Read the file(s) involved
+- Draw a quick ASCII diagram if it helps
+- Note any considerations
+
+```
+## Quick Exploration
+
+[Your brief analysis—what you found, any considerations]
+
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│   [Optional: ASCII diagram if helpful]  │
+└─────────────────────────────────────────┘
+
+Explore mode (`/opsx:explore`) is for this kind of thinking—investigating before implementing. You can use it anytime you need to think through a problem.
+
+Now let's create a change to hold our work.
+```
+
+**PAUSE** - Wait for user acknowledgment before proceeding.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 4: Create the Change
+
+**EXPLAIN:**
+```
+## Creating a Change
+
+A "change" in OpenSpec is a container for all the thinking and planning around a piece of work. It lives in `openspec/changes/<name>/` and holds your artifacts—proposal, specs, design, tasks.
+
+Let me create one for our task.
+```
+
+**DO:** Create the change with a derived kebab-case name:
+```bash
+openspec new change "<derived-name>"
+```
+
+**SHOW:**
+```
+Created: `openspec/changes/<name>/`
+
+The folder structure:
+```
+openspec/changes/<name>/
+├── proposal.md    ← Why we're doing this (empty, we'll fill it)
+├── design.md      ← How we'll build it (empty)
+├── specs/         ← Detailed requirements (empty)
+└── tasks.md       ← Implementation checklist (empty)
+```
+
+Now let's fill in the first artifact—the proposal.
+```
+
+---
+
+## Phase 5: Proposal
+
+**EXPLAIN:**
+```
+## The Proposal
+
+The proposal captures **why** we're making this change and **what** it involves at a high level. It's the "elevator pitch" for the work.
+
+I'll draft one based on our task.
+```
+
+**DO:** Draft the proposal content (don't save yet):
+
+```
+Here's a draft proposal:
+
+---
+
+## Why
+
+[1-2 sentences explaining the problem/opportunity]
+
+## What Changes
+
+[Bullet points of what will be different]
+
+## Capabilities
+
+### New Capabilities
+- `<capability-name>`: [brief description]
+
+### Modified Capabilities
+<!-- If modifying existing behavior -->
+
+## Impact
+
+- `src/path/to/file.ts`: [what changes]
+- [other files if applicable]
+
+---
+
+Does this capture the intent? I can adjust before we save it.
+```
+
+**PAUSE** - Wait for user approval/feedback.
+
+After approval, save the proposal:
+```bash
+openspec instructions proposal --change "<name>" --json
+```
+Then write the content to `openspec/changes/<name>/proposal.md`.
+
+```
+Proposal saved. This is your "why" document—you can always come back and refine it as understanding evolves.
+
+Next up: specs.
+```
+
+---
+
+## Phase 6: Specs
+
+**EXPLAIN:**
+```
+## Specs
+
+Specs define **what** we're building in precise, testable terms. They use a requirement/scenario format that makes expected behavior crystal clear.
+
+For a small task like this, we might only need one spec file.
+```
+
+**DO:** Create the spec file:
+```bash
+mkdir -p openspec/changes/<name>/specs/<capability-name>
+```
+
+Draft the spec content:
+
+```
+Here's the spec:
+
+---
+
+## ADDED Requirements
+
+### Requirement: <Name>
+
+<Description of what the system should do>
+
+#### Scenario: <Scenario name>
+
+- **WHEN** <trigger condition>
+- **THEN** <expected outcome>
+- **AND** <additional outcome if needed>
+
+---
+
+This format—WHEN/THEN/AND—makes requirements testable. You can literally read them as test cases.
+```
+
+Save to `openspec/changes/<name>/specs/<capability>/spec.md`.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 7: Design
+
+**EXPLAIN:**
+```
+## Design
+
+The design captures **how** we'll build it—technical decisions, tradeoffs, approach.
+
+For small changes, this might be brief. That's fine—not every change needs deep design discussion.
+```
+
+**DO:** Draft design.md:
+
+```
+Here's the design:
+
+---
+
+## Context
+
+[Brief context about the current state]
+
+## Goals / Non-Goals
+
+**Goals:**
+- [What we're trying to achieve]
+
+**Non-Goals:**
+- [What's explicitly out of scope]
+
+## Decisions
+
+### Decision 1: [Key decision]
+
+[Explanation of approach and rationale]
+
+---
+
+For a small task, this captures the key decisions without over-engineering.
+```
+
+Save to `openspec/changes/<name>/design.md`.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 8: Tasks
+
+**EXPLAIN:**
+```
+## Tasks
+
+Finally, we break the work into implementation tasks—checkboxes that drive the apply phase.
+
+These should be small, clear, and in logical order.
+```
+
+**DO:** Generate tasks based on specs and design:
+
+```
+Here are the implementation tasks:
+
+---
+
+## 1. [Category or file]
+
+- [ ] 1.1 [Specific task]
+- [ ] 1.2 [Specific task]
+
+## 2. Verify
+
+- [ ] 2.1 [Verification step]
+
+---
+
+Each checkbox becomes a unit of work in the apply phase. Ready to implement?
+```
+
+**PAUSE** - Wait for user to confirm they're ready to implement.
+
+Save to `openspec/changes/<name>/tasks.md`.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 9: Apply (Implementation)
+
+**EXPLAIN:**
+```
+## Implementation
+
+Now we implement each task, checking them off as we go. I'll announce each one and occasionally note how the specs/design informed the approach.
+```
+
+**DO:** For each task:
+
+1. Announce: "Working on task N: [description]"
+2. Implement the change in the codebase
+3. Reference specs/design naturally: "The spec says X, so I'm doing Y"
+4. Mark complete in tasks.md: `- [ ]` → `- [x]`
+5. Brief status: "✓ Task N complete"
+
+Keep narration light—don't over-explain every line of code.
+
+After all tasks:
+
+```
+## Implementation Complete
+
+All tasks done:
+- [x] Task 1
+- [x] Task 2
+- [x] ...
+
+The change is implemented! One more step—let's archive it.
+```
+
+---
+
+## Phase 10: Archive
+
+**EXPLAIN:**
+```
+## Archiving
+
+When a change is complete, we archive it. This moves it from `openspec/changes/` to `openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>/`.
+
+Archived changes become your project's decision history—you can always find them later to understand why something was built a certain way.
+```
+
+**DO:**
+```bash
+openspec archive "<name>"
+```
+
+**SHOW:**
+```
+Archived to: `openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>/`
+
+The change is now part of your project's history. The code is in your codebase, the decision record is preserved.
+```
+
+---
+
+## Phase 11: Recap & Next Steps
+
+```
+## Congratulations!
+
+You just completed a full OpenSpec cycle:
+
+1. **Explore** - Thought through the problem
+2. **New** - Created a change container
+3. **Proposal** - Captured WHY
+4. **Specs** - Defined WHAT in detail
+5. **Design** - Decided HOW
+6. **Tasks** - Broke it into steps
+7. **Apply** - Implemented the work
+8. **Archive** - Preserved the record
+
+This same rhythm works for any size change—a small fix or a major feature.
+
+---
+
+## Command Reference
+
+| Command | What it does |
+|---------|--------------|
+| `/opsx:explore` | Think through problems before/during work |
+| `/opsx:new` | Start a new change, step through artifacts |
+| `/opsx:ff` | Fast-forward: create all artifacts at once |
+| `/opsx:continue` | Continue working on an existing change |
+| `/opsx:apply` | Implement tasks from a change |
+| `/opsx:verify` | Verify implementation matches artifacts |
+| `/opsx:archive` | Archive a completed change |
+
+---
+
+## What's Next?
+
+Try `/opsx:new` or `/opsx:ff` on something you actually want to build. You've got the rhythm now!
+```
+
+---
+
+## Graceful Exit Handling
+
+### User wants to stop mid-way
+
+If the user says they need to stop, want to pause, or seem disengaged:
+
+```
+No problem! Your change is saved at `openspec/changes/<name>/`.
+
+To pick up where we left off later:
+- `/opsx:continue <name>` - Resume artifact creation
+- `/opsx:apply <name>` - Jump to implementation (if tasks exist)
+
+The work won't be lost. Come back whenever you're ready.
+```
+
+Exit gracefully without pressure.
+
+### User just wants command reference
+
+If the user says they just want to see the commands or skip the tutorial:
+
+```
+## OpenSpec Quick Reference
+
+| Command | What it does |
+|---------|--------------|
+| `/opsx:explore` | Think through problems (no code changes) |
+| `/opsx:new <name>` | Start a new change, step by step |
+| `/opsx:ff <name>` | Fast-forward: all artifacts at once |
+| `/opsx:continue <name>` | Continue an existing change |
+| `/opsx:apply <name>` | Implement tasks |
+| `/opsx:verify <name>` | Verify implementation |
+| `/opsx:archive <name>` | Archive when done |
+
+Try `/opsx:new` to start your first change, or `/opsx:ff` if you want to move fast.
+```
+
+Exit gracefully.
+
+---
+
+## Guardrails
+
+- **Follow the EXPLAIN → DO → SHOW → PAUSE pattern** at key transitions (after explore, after proposal draft, after tasks, after archive)
+- **Keep narration light** during implementation—teach without lecturing
+- **Don't skip phases** even if the change is small—the goal is teaching the workflow
+- **Pause for acknowledgment** at marked points, but don't over-pause
+- **Handle exits gracefully**—never pressure the user to continue
+- **Use real codebase tasks**—don't simulate or use fake examples
+- **Adjust scope gently**—guide toward smaller tasks but respect user choice

.claude/skills/openspec-sync-specs/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
+---
+name: openspec-sync-specs
+description: Sync delta specs from a change to main specs. Use when the user wants to update main specs with changes from a delta spec, without archiving the change.
+license: MIT
+compatibility: Requires openspec CLI.
+metadata:
+  author: openspec
+  version: "1.0"
+  generatedBy: "1.1.1"
+---
+
+Sync delta specs from a change to main specs.
+
+This is an **agent-driven** operation - you will read delta specs and directly edit main specs to apply the changes. This allows intelligent merging (e.g., adding a scenario without copying the entire requirement).
+
+**Input**: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
+
+**Steps**
+
+1. **If no change name provided, prompt for selection**
+
+   Run `openspec list --json` to get available changes. Use the **AskUserQuestion tool** to let the user select.
+
+   Show changes that have delta specs (under `specs/` directory).
+
+   **IMPORTANT**: Do NOT guess or auto-select a change. Always let the user choose.
+
+2. **Find delta specs**
+
+   Look for delta spec files in `openspec/changes/<name>/specs/*/spec.md`.
+
+   Each delta spec file contains sections like:
+   - `## ADDED Requirements` - New requirements to add
+   - `## MODIFIED Requirements` - Changes to existing requirements
+   - `## REMOVED Requirements` - Requirements to remove
+   - `## RENAMED Requirements` - Requirements to rename (FROM:/TO: format)
+
+   If no delta specs found, inform user and stop.
+
+3. **For each delta spec, apply changes to main specs**
+
+   For each capability with a delta spec at `openspec/changes/<name>/specs/<capability>/spec.md`:
+
+   a. **Read the delta spec** to understand the intended changes
+
+   b. **Read the main spec** at `openspec/specs/<capability>/spec.md` (may not exist yet)
+
+   c. **Apply changes intelligently**:
+
+      **ADDED Requirements:**
+      - If requirement doesn't exist in main spec → add it
+      - If requirement already exists → update it to match (treat as implicit MODIFIED)
+
+      **MODIFIED Requirements:**
+      - Find the requirement in main spec
+      - Apply the changes - this can be:
+        - Adding new scenarios (don't need to copy existing ones)
+        - Modifying existing scenarios
+        - Changing the requirement description
+      - Preserve scenarios/content not mentioned in the delta
+
+      **REMOVED Requirements:**
+      - Remove the entire requirement block from main spec
+
+      **RENAMED Requirements:**
+      - Find the FROM requirement, rename to TO
+
+   d. **Create new main spec** if capability doesn't exist yet:
+      - Create `openspec/specs/<capability>/spec.md`
+      - Add Purpose section (can be brief, mark as TBD)
+      - Add Requirements section with the ADDED requirements
+
+4. **Show summary**
+
+   After applying all changes, summarize:
+   - Which capabilities were updated
+   - What changes were made (requirements added/modified/removed/renamed)
+
+**Delta Spec Format Reference**
+
+```markdown
+## ADDED Requirements
+
+### Requirement: New Feature
+The system SHALL do something new.
+
+#### Scenario: Basic case
+- **WHEN** user does X
+- **THEN** system does Y
+
+## MODIFIED Requirements
+
+### Requirement: Existing Feature
+#### Scenario: New scenario to add
+- **WHEN** user does A
+- **THEN** system does B
+
+## REMOVED Requirements
+
+### Requirement: Deprecated Feature
+
+## RENAMED Requirements
+
+- FROM: `### Requirement: Old Name`
+- TO: `### Requirement: New Name`
+```
+
+**Key Principle: Intelligent Merging**
+
+Unlike programmatic merging, you can apply **partial updates**:
+- To add a scenario, just include that scenario under MODIFIED - don't copy existing scenarios
+- The delta represents *intent*, not a wholesale replacement
+- Use your judgment to merge changes sensibly
+
+**Output On Success**
+
+```
+## Specs Synced: <change-name>
+
+Updated main specs:
+
+**<capability-1>**:
+- Added requirement: "New Feature"
+- Modified requirement: "Existing Feature" (added 1 scenario)
+
+**<capability-2>**:
+- Created new spec file
+- Added requirement: "Another Feature"
+
+Main specs are now updated. The change remains active - archive when implementation is complete.
+```
+
+**Guardrails**
+- Read both delta and main specs before making changes
+- Preserve existing content not mentioned in delta
+- If something is unclear, ask for clarification
+- Show what you're changing as you go
+- The operation should be idempotent - running twice should give same result

.claude/skills/openspec-verify-change/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,168 @@
+---
+name: openspec-verify-change
+description: Verify implementation matches change artifacts. Use when the user wants to validate that implementation is complete, correct, and coherent before archiving.
+license: MIT
+compatibility: Requires openspec CLI.
+metadata:
+  author: openspec
+  version: "1.0"
+  generatedBy: "1.1.1"
+---
+
+Verify that an implementation matches the change artifacts (specs, tasks, design).
+
+**Input**: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
+
+**Steps**
+
+1. **If no change name provided, prompt for selection**
+
+   Run `openspec list --json` to get available changes. Use the **AskUserQuestion tool** to let the user select.
+
+   Show changes that have implementation tasks (tasks artifact exists).
+   Include the schema used for each change if available.
+   Mark changes with incomplete tasks as "(In Progress)".
+
+   **IMPORTANT**: Do NOT guess or auto-select a change. Always let the user choose.
+
+2. **Check status to understand the schema**
+   ```bash
+   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
+   ```
+   Parse the JSON to understand:
+   - `schemaName`: The workflow being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
+   - Which artifacts exist for this change
+
+3. **Get the change directory and load artifacts**
+
+   ```bash
+   openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json
+   ```
+
+   This returns the change directory and context files. Read all available artifacts from `contextFiles`.
+
+4. **Initialize verification report structure**
+
+   Create a report structure with three dimensions:
+   - **Completeness**: Track tasks and spec coverage
+   - **Correctness**: Track requirement implementation and scenario coverage
+   - **Coherence**: Track design adherence and pattern consistency
+
+   Each dimension can have CRITICAL, WARNING, or SUGGESTION issues.
+
+5. **Verify Completeness**
+
+   **Task Completion**:
+   - If tasks.md exists in contextFiles, read it
+   - Parse checkboxes: `- [ ]` (incomplete) vs `- [x]` (complete)
+   - Count complete vs total tasks
+   - If incomplete tasks exist:
+     - Add CRITICAL issue for each incomplete task
+     - Recommendation: "Complete task: <description>" or "Mark as done if already implemented"
+
+   **Spec Coverage**:
+   - If delta specs exist in `openspec/changes/<name>/specs/`:
+     - Extract all requirements (marked with "### Requirement:")
+     - For each requirement:
+       - Search codebase for keywords related to the requirement
+       - Assess if implementation likely exists
+     - If requirements appear unimplemented:
+       - Add CRITICAL issue: "Requirement not found: <requirement name>"
+       - Recommendation: "Implement requirement X: <description>"
+
+6. **Verify Correctness**
+
+   **Requirement Implementation Mapping**:
+   - For each requirement from delta specs:
+     - Search codebase for implementation evidence
+     - If found, note file paths and line ranges
+     - Assess if implementation matches requirement intent
+     - If divergence detected:
+       - Add WARNING: "Implementation may diverge from spec: <details>"
+       - Recommendation: "Review <file>:<lines> against requirement X"
+
+   **Scenario Coverage**:
+   - For each scenario in delta specs (marked with "#### Scenario:"):
+     - Check if conditions are handled in code
+     - Check if tests exist covering the scenario
+     - If scenario appears uncovered:
+       - Add WARNING: "Scenario not covered: <scenario name>"
+       - Recommendation: "Add test or implementation for scenario: <description>"
+
+7. **Verify Coherence**
+
+   **Design Adherence**:
+   - If design.md exists in contextFiles:
+     - Extract key decisions (look for sections like "Decision:", "Approach:", "Architecture:")
+     - Verify implementation follows those decisions
+     - If contradiction detected:
+       - Add WARNING: "Design decision not followed: <decision>"
+       - Recommendation: "Update implementation or revise design.md to match reality"
+   - If no design.md: Skip design adherence check, note "No design.md to verify against"
+
+   **Code Pattern Consistency**:
+   - Review new code for consistency with project patterns
+   - Check file naming, directory structure, coding style
+   - If significant deviations found:
+     - Add SUGGESTION: "Code pattern deviation: <details>"
+     - Recommendation: "Consider following project pattern: <example>"
+
+8. **Generate Verification Report**
+
+   **Summary Scorecard**:
+   ```
+   ## Verification Report: <change-name>
+
+   ### Summary
+   | Dimension    | Status           |
+   |--------------|------------------|
+   | Completeness | X/Y tasks, N reqs|
+   | Correctness  | M/N reqs covered |
+   | Coherence    | Followed/Issues  |
+   ```
+
+   **Issues by Priority**:
+
+   1. **CRITICAL** (Must fix before archive):
+      - Incomplete tasks
+      - Missing requirement implementations
+      - Each with specific, actionable recommendation
+
+   2. **WARNING** (Should fix):
+      - Spec/design divergences
+      - Missing scenario coverage
+      - Each with specific recommendation
+
+   3. **SUGGESTION** (Nice to fix):
+      - Pattern inconsistencies
+      - Minor improvements
+      - Each with specific recommendation
+
+   **Final Assessment**:
+   - If CRITICAL issues: "X critical issue(s) found. Fix before archiving."
+   - If only warnings: "No critical issues. Y warning(s) to consider. Ready for archive (with noted improvements)."
+   - If all clear: "All checks passed. Ready for archive."
+
+**Verification Heuristics**
+
+- **Completeness**: Focus on objective checklist items (checkboxes, requirements list)
+- **Correctness**: Use keyword search, file path analysis, reasonable inference - don't require perfect certainty
+- **Coherence**: Look for glaring inconsistencies, don't nitpick style
+- **False Positives**: When uncertain, prefer SUGGESTION over WARNING, WARNING over CRITICAL
+- **Actionability**: Every issue must have a specific recommendation with file/line references where applicable
+
+**Graceful Degradation**
+
+- If only tasks.md exists: verify task completion only, skip spec/design checks
+- If tasks + specs exist: verify completeness and correctness, skip design
+- If full artifacts: verify all three dimensions
+- Always note which checks were skipped and why
+
+**Output Format**
+
+Use clear markdown with:
+- Table for summary scorecard
+- Grouped lists for issues (CRITICAL/WARNING/SUGGESTION)
+- Code references in format: `file.ts:123`
+- Specific, actionable recommendations
+- No vague suggestions like "consider reviewing"

.gitignore

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+# Dependencies
+node_modules/
+.pnp
+.pnp.js
+.yarn/install-state.gz
+
+# Next.js
+.next/
+out/
+build/
+dist/
+
+# Production
+/coverage
+
+# Environment / secrets (bring-your-own API keys)
+.env
+.env.local
+.env.development.local
+.env.test.local
+.env.production.local
+*.pem
+
+# Logs
+npm-debug.log*
+yarn-debug.log*
+yarn-error.log*
+.pnpm-debug.log*
+
+# Misc / OS
+.DS_Store
+*.tsbuildinfo
+next-env.d.ts
+.vercel
+
+# Editor
+.idea/
+.vscode/*
+!.vscode/extensions.json

examples/de-reentry-2026-08-21.md

@@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
+# Example evaluation — Deere & Co (DE), 2026-08-21
+
+> Source: prior AI chat provided by the user as a reference "gold standard" for the
+> depth and structure of a thorough single-stock evaluation. Used to derive the
+> `equity-evaluation` and `analysis-agent` spec requirements. Context: user sold DE
+> into a post-earnings spike and asked for a good re-entry point.
+
+---
+
+**Prompt:** I sold DE today after a great bump after earnings announcement. What is a good reentry point?
+
+**Where DE stands after today**
+
+You sold into a genuinely strong tape. DE closed at $620.94, up $40.31 or 6.94% on 2.49x normal volume, 7.90% below the $674.19 52-week high and 43.40% above the $433.00 low. Market cap $167.6B, trailing P/E 34.50.
+
+Fiscal Q3 (ended Aug 2) delivered EPS of $5.10 against $4.79 consensus, a $0.31 beat, with net income of $1.379B up 6.98% year over year — Deere's first year-over-year profit gain in about three years. Guidance went to $4.75B–$5.00B net income from $4.5B–$5.0B, equipment cash flow to $5.0B–$5.5B, and Financial Services to $870M (MarketBeat).
+
+One thing to discount: the headlines touting a 17% revenue beat compared consensus of $10.81B — which was an equipment-net-sales number — against total revenues of $12.608B. Equipment net sales actually came in at $10.999B. Real revenue growth was 4.91%. The beat was in margin and EPS, not volume.
+
+| Metric | Q3 FY2026 | Q3 FY2025 |
+|---|---|---|
+| Revenue | $12.608B | $12.018B |
+| Operating profit | $2.592B | $2.394B, +8.27% |
+| Gross margin | 37% | — |
+| Operating margin | 21% | 20% |
+| Diluted EPS | $5.10 | $4.75 |
+| Operating cash flow | $2.208B | — |
+| Free cash flow | $1.305B | — |
+
+Note that $110M of Section 232 tariff refunds landed in the quarter, which analysts pegged at 20 to 30 cents of the $5.10. Management said the outlook assumes no further refunds this year.
+
+**Segment autopsy**
+
+| Segment | Revenue | YoY | Op profit | YoY | Op margin | Prior-year margin |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| Production & Precision Ag | $3.998B | -6.44% | $527M | -9.14% | 13.18% | 13.57% |
+| Small Ag & Turf | $3.383B | +11.84% | $622M | +28.25% | 18.39% | 16.03% |
+| Construction & Forestry | $3.618B | +18.27% | $436M | +83.97% | 12.05% | 7.75% |
+| Financial Services | $1.371B | -3.32% | $271M | +1.88% | — | — |
+
+The core large-ag franchise is still shrinking and is now only 32.32% of segment revenue. What carried the quarter was construction — driven in part by data-center and infrastructure earthmoving demand — plus pricing. C&F's profit near-doubling came from $244M of price realization on only $22M of volume gain. That is a quality-of-earnings caveat: price, not units.
+
+**Your instinct has been right all year**
+
+This is the part that matters for timing. Selling DE into a post-earnings spike has been the correct trade repeatedly in 2026:
+
+- Q1 print (Feb 19): stock jumped 11.58% and printed $674.19 that day. It then fell to $549.68 by Mar 31 (-18.47%) and to $515.15 by May 21 (-23.59%).
+- Q2 print (May 21): -5.19%.
+- Q4 FY25 print: -5.67%. Q3 FY25 print: -6.76%.
+
+Today's +7.16% one-day move against a 4.40% options-implied expectation was outsized, though shy of the 7.40% average absolute post-earnings move. Monthly ranges this year have been wide — 674 down to 522 in February, 636 to 515 in May/June, 644 to 576 in July. Realized 60-day volatility runs near 34% annualized. A stock that moves like this will give you multiple re-entries.
+
+The counterpoint, and it is real: today's gap was filled intraday. DE opened at $611.12 versus a $580.63 prior close, traded down to $586.48 — essentially closing the gap — and still finished at $620.94 near the $639.00 high. Buyers absorbed the fill. There is no unfilled gap left to wait for.
+
+**Analyst positioning**
+
+Coverage is split down the middle: 14 ratings, 7 bullish and 7 neutral, zero bearish. Average target $652.82 is only 5.13% above today's close, and the median $636.00 is 2.43% away. Range runs $531 to $812.
+
+You effectively sold at the median target. Going into the print, JP Morgan had cut to $570 and Bernstein to $580; Evercore trimmed to $632. Targets will get marked up over the next week, but consensus is not where the upside is right now.
+
+**Valuation — the uncomfortable part**
+
+| Metric | Value |
+|---|---|
+| TTM diluted EPS | $18.00 |
+| Trailing P/E (recomputed) | 34.50 |
+| FY2026 consensus EPS (derived) | $18.06 |
+| FY2027 consensus EPS (derived) | $21.19 |
+| FY2027 forward P/E | 29.30 |
+| FY2027 net income growth | +17.34% |
+| FY2027 revenue growth | +7.45% |
+| FY2026 FCF yield | 2.37% |
+| FY2027 FCF yield | 3.45% |
+| Dividend yield | 1.04% |
+
+One feed caveat: the estimates service reports FY2027 diluted EPS of $22.19, which is 1.05x the figure you get dividing consensus net income of $5.721B by the 269.9M implied share count. I used the derived $21.19 throughout.
+
+Against its own history:
+
+| Fiscal year | P/E | Diluted EPS | ROIC | ROE |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| FY2023 | 10.43 | $34.63 | 16.16% | 48.30% |
+| FY2024 | 15.92 | — | — | — |
+| FY2025 | 24.95 | $18.50 | 9.13% | 20.48% |
+| Today | 34.50 | $18.00 | — | — |
+
+The multiple is 1.38x last fiscal year's already-elevated level. Earnings power has fallen 46.58% from the FY2023 peak, so a high P/E on trough earnings is defensible — but you are paying 29x for the recovery year, before the recovery is visible in units.
+
+**Bull vs bear**
+
+Bull:
+- Management explicitly reaffirmed that fiscal 2026 is the bottom of the ag cycle, citing early-order trends and improving used inventories.
+- Used model-year 2023/2024 high-horsepower tractor inventory is down nearly 40% year over year, and model-year 2027 sprayer and planter early orders were running mid-single digits above prior year (MarketBeat).
+- New field inventory for 220+ horsepower tractors ended FY2025 at the lowest unit level in over 17 years.
+- Equipment operating margin hit 14.4% in a trough quarter — evidence the cost structure is genuinely better.
+- CNH also flagged a 2027 rebound on fleet age.
+
+Bear:
+- Tariffs get worse next year: net expense of roughly $750M in FY2026 versus a run rate near $1B in FY2027, an explicit year-over-year headwind (MarketBeat).
+- AGCO cut estimates on input-cost pressure to farmers, so the sector read is not unanimous.
+- C&F strength depends on infrastructure and data-center capex, which is not a farm-cycle hedge — it is a different cycle that can roll first.
+- Balance sheet carries $63.94B total debt and $54.25B net debt at 4.65x EBITDA and 2.46x equity, with trade receivables at 55.17% of total assets. Most of that is the captive finance book, not industrial leverage, but it means credit quality on the farm customer base is a live risk in a downturn.
+- Days inventory sits at 93.97 versus 80.59 in FY2023.
+- Cash return is thin here: 1.04% dividend on $6.47 annualized, and only $197M of buyback in the quarter versus $438M of dividends.
+
+**Entry levels**
+
+| Level | What it is | Below today | Trailing P/E | FY2027 P/E | Div yield |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| $611.23 | 20-day average | -1.56% | 33.96 | 28.84 | 1.06% |
+| $603.51 | 50-day average | -2.81% | 33.53 | 28.48 | 1.07% |
+| $580.63 | pre-earnings close, Aug 19 low $579.31 | -6.49% | 32.26 | 27.40 | 1.12% |
+| $576.45 | July 15 swing low | — | — | — | — |
+| $558.06 | 200-day average | -10.13% | 31.00 | 26.33 | 1.16% |
+| $549.68 | March 31 swing low | -11.48% | 30.54 | 25.94 | 1.18% |
+| $515.15 | May 21 swing low | -17.04% | 28.62 | 24.31 | 1.26% |
+
+How I would use that: the $576–$604 band is the practical first re-entry — it lines up the 50-day, the July low, and the pre-earnings shelf, and it is where four separate 2026 pullbacks have found footing. Starting a half position anywhere in the $585–$600 zone is defensible. The $549–$560 band, where the 200-day and the March low converge, is the high-conviction rung and the only level that gets you a FY2027 multiple in the mid-20s. Reserve the balance of the position for there.
+
+What I would not do is chase inside a week of a 7% gap. Every gap-up on earnings this year has been given back within eight weeks.
+
+**Bottom line**
+
+You sold well. At $620.94 the stock trades at 34.50x trailing and 29.30x a recovery year that is still a forecast, with 2.43% upside to the median analyst target and a 1.04% dividend. The story is real — 2026 is very likely the cycle bottom and the used-inventory data supports it — but you are not being paid to own the wait, and tariffs get $250M worse next year before ag units get better.
+
+Plan: bid $585–$600 for a starter tranche, $549–$560 for the main tranche. Next catalyst is the Q4 FY2026 report on November 25, where consensus sits at $4.47 EPS on $10.95B — that print carries the first formal FY2027 guide, which is the single most important event for this position. If DE holds above the $611.23 20-day average through mid-September, the cycle-turn bid is real and you should take the higher rung rather than hold out for $550.
+
+The one metric to watch: Production & Precision Ag unit volumes. Price realization and construction carried this quarter; the thesis only works when large-ag volumes stop falling.
+
+_This is analysis, not investment advice._

openspec/changes/stock-deep-evaluation/.openspec.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+schema: spec-driven
+created: 2026-08-21

openspec/changes/stock-deep-evaluation/design.md

@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+## Context
+
+This is a greenfield Next.js + TypeScript web app that turns a single NYSE/Nasdaq
+ticker into a thorough, agent-written evaluation (valuation, macro, entry/exit,
+stop-loss). The target output shape is captured concretely in
+`examples/de-reentry-2026-08-21.md` and encoded as requirements in the four spec
+files. Constraints: bring-your-own API keys, free-tier market data by default,
+rate limits, and no persistence in v1. The design must keep data-provider and
+model-provider choices swappable so cost/quality decisions don't ripple into the
+evaluation or UI code.
+
+## Goals / Non-Goals
+
+**Goals:**
+- One typed pipeline: `resolve ticker → fetch data → compute evaluation → agent narrative`.
+- Provider-agnostic boundaries: `DataProvider` and `AnalysisAgent` interfaces are
+  the only seams consumers see.
+- Deterministic, testable evaluation math separated from the non-deterministic
+  agent prose. The structured evaluation must stand on its own even with no agent key.
+- Secrets stay server-side only.
+
+**Non-Goals:**
+- Persistence, accounts, watchlists, alerts, real-time streaming, backtesting.
+- Multi-ticker dashboards. (Deferred to later changes.)
+- Trade execution or brokerage integration.
+
+## Decisions
+
+### D1 — App structure: Next.js App Router, server-side data/agent calls
+Route handlers (or server actions) under `app/api/*` run the pipeline server-side;
+the client is a thin report view. Rationale: keeps API keys off the browser
+(satisfies the app-config spec), and lets data + agent calls share one request.
+Alternative considered: client-side fetching — rejected because it would leak keys
+and duplicate rate-limit handling.
+
+### D2 — `DataProvider` interface with a free default
+A single interface returns normalized models: `CompanyProfile`, `Fundamentals`
+(TTM + per-FY, optional segments), `PriceHistory`, `TechnicalContext` (computed),
+`AnalystCoverage`, `Estimates`. Default implementation targets a free tier
+(candidate: Financial Modeling Prep or Finnhub; final pick during tasks). Each
+model carries an `asOf` timestamp and `delayed|realtime` flag. Alternative:
+code directly against one vendor — rejected for lock-in and testability.
+
+### D3 — Technical indicators computed in-house, not taken from the provider
+Moving averages (20/50/200), swing highs/lows, 52-week distance, volume multiple,
+and realized volatility are computed from OHLCV in a pure `technicals` module.
+Rationale: providers expose these inconsistently; in-house math is deterministic
+and unit-testable, and it is the same input the entry/exit/stop logic needs.
+
+### D4 — Evaluation engine is pure and provider-free
+`evaluate(inputs) → Evaluation` is a pure function over normalized data. It emits
+a typed `Evaluation` object (one field per spec section) with explicit
+`unavailable` markers — never fabricated or zero-filled values. All entry/exit/
+stop levels, implied multiples at each level, and valuation reasoning are computed
+here. Rationale: the spec requires the structured object to be consumable without
+the agent, and pure functions make the many numeric requirements testable.
+
+### D5 — `AnalysisAgent` interface; Claude default via `@anthropic-ai/sdk`
+The agent takes the `Evaluation` object and returns narrative sections. Default
+impl calls a current Claude model, instructed to use ONLY the supplied figures,
+preserve any flagged caveats/discrepancies, and include the disclaimer. Structured
+output (tool/JSON schema) is preferred so the UI can render narrative per section.
+Alternative: free-text prompt with the raw data — rejected because grounding and
+per-section rendering are weaker. When no key is set, the pipeline returns the
+`Evaluation` with `narrative: unavailable`.
+
+### D6 — Typed results end-to-end; errors are values
+Data, evaluation, and agent layers return typed results/errors (not thrown
+exceptions across boundaries). A data failure, rate-limit, or agent failure each
+degrade to a partial result the UI can render. Rationale: the specs require honest
+partial states and readable errors.
+
+### D7 — Caching and rate limiting at the provider boundary
+An in-memory (v1) cache keyed by ticker+dataset with short TTLs sits inside the
+provider layer, with retry/backoff for transient/rate-limit errors. Rationale:
+free tiers are tightly limited; caching one evaluation's repeated reads avoids
+burning quota. Persistence-backed cache is a later change.
+
+## Risks / Trade-offs
+
+- [Free-tier data is delayed/incomplete — segments, estimates, or history may be
+  missing] → Normalized models mark fields unavailable; evaluation and UI render
+  honestly; provider is swappable for a paid tier without consumer changes.
+- [Agent may hallucinate numbers] → Agent receives only the structured object,
+  is instructed to cite nothing outside it, and prose is rendered alongside the
+  computed tables so drift is visible; consider a post-check that every cited
+  figure exists in the input.
+- [Rate limits during development/demo] → Caching + backoff; a fixture/mock
+  provider for tests and offline work.
+- [Numeric correctness of valuation/technical math] → Pure modules with unit tests
+  seeded from the DE example's known figures.
+- [Not financial advice / liability] → Mandatory disclaimer enforced in both the
+  evaluation object and the agent narrative.
+
+## Migration Plan
+
+Greenfield — no data migration. Deployment: run locally (`localhost:3000`) with
+`.env.local` holding the market-data and Anthropic keys. Rollout is incremental by
+capability (see tasks): scaffold → data layer + technicals → evaluation engine →
+agent → UI. Rollback is trivial (no persisted state). Keys are provided via env;
+absence degrades gracefully rather than failing the build.
+
+## Open Questions
+
+- Which free market-data provider is the default (coverage of segments + forward
+  estimates varies materially)? Resolve early in tasks by spiking 2 providers on `DE`.
+- Source of options-implied expected move and forward consensus EPS on free tiers —
+  may need a secondary source or graceful omission.
+- Preferred charting library (Recharts vs. lightweight-charts) for overlaying
+  entry/exit/stop markers on price history.
+- Whether to add an automated "every cited figure exists in inputs" guard on agent
+  output in v1 or defer to a later hardening change.

openspec/changes/stock-deep-evaluation/proposal.md

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+## Why
+
+Retail and semi-professional investors lack a single tool that turns raw market
+data into a clear, defensible thesis on whether an NYSE/Nasdaq-listed company is
+over- or undervalued, why, and how to act on it. Existing screeners show numbers
+but not judgment; existing chat tools give judgment but aren't wired to live
+fundamentals, technicals, and macro context. This change delivers the foundation:
+a web app that, given a single ticker, produces a thorough, agent-written
+evaluation covering valuation drivers, macro factors, entry/exit points, and
+stop-loss levels — with a data layer and agent interface designed to grow.
+
+## What Changes
+
+- Introduce a **Next.js + TypeScript web app** where a user searches a single
+  NYSE/Nasdaq ticker and receives a full evaluation report.
+- Introduce a **pluggable market-data layer**: a `DataProvider` interface plus a
+  default free-tier provider, returning normalized company fundamentals, price
+  history, and technical indicators. Paid providers can be swapped in later with
+  no changes to consumers.
+- Introduce an **equity-evaluation engine** that computes and explains: valuation
+  (the specific reasons a company looks over- or undervalued), relevant macro
+  factors affecting the stock, candidate entry and exit points, and suggested
+  stop-loss levels.
+- Introduce a **pluggable analysis-agent layer** backed by **Claude via the
+  Anthropic SDK** (bring-your-own API key) that synthesizes the structured data
+  into a written investment thesis and the reasoning behind each recommendation.
+- Scope v1 to **single-ticker deep evaluation**. Watchlist monitoring, alerts,
+  and multi-ticker dashboards are explicitly deferred to later changes.
+
+## Capabilities
+
+### New Capabilities
+
+- `market-data`: A provider-agnostic data layer. Defines the `DataProvider`
+  interface and normalized data models (company profile, fundamentals/financials,
+  price history, computed technical indicators), plus a default free-tier
+  implementation and configuration for selecting a provider.
+- `equity-evaluation`: The core analysis engine. Derives valuation signals and
+  the reasons behind over/undervaluation, identifies macro factors affecting the
+  stock, and computes candidate entry/exit points and stop-loss levels from price
+  and volatility data. Produces a structured evaluation object consumed by the
+  agent and UI.
+- `analysis-agent`: A provider-agnostic agent interface with a default Claude
+  (Anthropic SDK) implementation. Takes the structured evaluation as context and
+  produces a written thesis: the over/undervalued argument, macro narrative, and
+  entry/exit/stop-loss rationale. Handles API-key configuration and graceful
+  degradation when no key is present.
+- `evaluation-app`: The Next.js web application shell and UI. Ticker search,
+  request orchestration (data → evaluation → agent), and the report view that
+  presents fundamentals, valuation reasoning, macro factors, a price chart with
+  marked entry/exit/stop-loss levels, and the agent's written thesis.
+
+### Modified Capabilities
+
+<!-- None — this is a greenfield project; no existing specs to modify. -->
+
+## Impact
+
+- **New project scaffold**: Next.js + TypeScript app, Tailwind for UI, a charting
+  library (e.g. Recharts) for price/technical visualization.
+- **New dependencies**: `@anthropic-ai/sdk` for the analysis agent; an HTTP client
+  and one free-tier market-data provider SDK/endpoint for the default provider.
+- **Configuration/secrets**: environment variables for the market-data API key(s)
+  and the Anthropic API key; both treated as bring-your-own and never committed.
+- **External services**: one market-data API (rate-limited free tier by default)
+  and the Anthropic API. Both isolated behind interfaces so cost/provider choices
+  can change without touching evaluation or UI code.
+- **Not affected / deferred**: persistence, user accounts, watchlists, real-time
+  streaming, alerting, and backtesting are out of scope for this change.

openspec/changes/stock-deep-evaluation/specs/analysis-agent/spec.md

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+## ADDED Requirements
+
+### Requirement: Provider-agnostic analysis-agent interface
+
+The system SHALL define an `AnalysisAgent` interface that accepts a structured
+evaluation object and returns a written analysis. Consumers MUST depend only on
+this interface so the underlying model provider can change without affecting the
+evaluation engine or UI.
+
+#### Scenario: Agent invoked through the interface
+- **WHEN** an evaluation object is passed to the configured analysis agent
+- **THEN** the agent returns a written analysis produced through the interface
+
+#### Scenario: Alternate implementation can be registered
+- **WHEN** a different agent implementation is configured
+- **THEN** the system uses it without changes to evaluation or UI code
+
+### Requirement: Claude default implementation via Anthropic SDK
+
+The system SHALL ship a default `AnalysisAgent` backed by Claude through the
+`@anthropic-ai/sdk`, targeting a current Claude model. The API key SHALL be
+supplied by the user (bring-your-own-key) via configuration and never hard-coded
+or committed.
+
+#### Scenario: Claude produces the written thesis
+- **WHEN** a valid Anthropic API key is configured and an evaluation is submitted
+- **THEN** the default agent calls Claude and returns the written thesis
+
+#### Scenario: Key sourced from configuration
+- **WHEN** the app reads its configuration
+- **THEN** the Anthropic API key is loaded from environment/config, not source code
+
+### Requirement: Grounded, structured written analysis
+
+The agent SHALL base its narrative only on the supplied evaluation data and
+SHALL NOT invent figures. It SHALL produce the narrative sections reflected in the
+example evaluation: current standing, earnings recap and quality-of-earnings
+caveats, valuation with explicit over/undervalued reasoning, macro factors, timing,
+entry/exit/stop-loss rationale, bull-versus-bear, and an actionable plan. When a
+data caveat or discrepancy is present in the input, the agent SHALL preserve it.
+
+#### Scenario: Narrative grounded in provided data
+- **WHEN** the agent writes the analysis
+- **THEN** every figure it cites is present in the supplied evaluation object
+
+#### Scenario: Data caveats preserved
+- **WHEN** the evaluation object flags a discrepancy or one-time item
+- **THEN** the written analysis surfaces that caveat rather than omitting it
+
+#### Scenario: Disclaimer preserved in narrative
+- **WHEN** the agent returns its analysis
+- **THEN** the analysis-not-advice disclaimer is present
+
+### Requirement: Graceful degradation without an API key
+
+When no analysis-agent key is configured, the system SHALL still return the full
+structured evaluation and SHALL clearly indicate that the written narrative is
+unavailable until a key is provided.
+
+#### Scenario: No key configured
+- **WHEN** an evaluation is requested and no agent API key is configured
+- **THEN** the structured evaluation is returned
+- **AND** the response indicates the written analysis is unavailable pending a key
+
+### Requirement: Agent error handling
+
+The system SHALL handle agent failures (auth errors, rate limits, timeouts) by
+returning a typed error and the underlying structured evaluation, without losing
+the data already computed.
+
+#### Scenario: Agent call fails
+- **WHEN** the agent call errors after retries
+- **THEN** the system returns the structured evaluation plus a typed agent error
+- **AND** the computed data is not discarded

openspec/changes/stock-deep-evaluation/specs/equity-evaluation/spec.md

@@ -0,0 +1,189 @@
+## ADDED Requirements
+
+### Requirement: Current standing summary
+
+The system SHALL produce a current-standing summary for the ticker containing:
+last price, absolute and percent change on the day, today's volume as a multiple
+of average, percent distance from the 52-week high and low, market capitalization,
+and trailing P/E.
+
+#### Scenario: Standing summary is produced
+- **WHEN** an evaluation is run for a resolved ticker with price and fundamentals
+- **THEN** the output includes price, day change (abs and %), volume multiple,
+  distance from 52-week high and low, market cap, and trailing P/E
+
+### Requirement: Earnings recap when a recent report exists
+
+The system SHALL, when the most recent quarterly report falls within a
+configurable recency window, produce an earnings recap comparing reported EPS to consensus
+(beat/miss and magnitude), net income and its year-over-year change, and any
+changes to management guidance.
+
+#### Scenario: Recent earnings summarized
+- **WHEN** the latest earnings report falls within the recency window
+- **THEN** the output includes EPS actual vs consensus, the beat/miss magnitude,
+  net income with YoY change, and guidance changes when available
+
+#### Scenario: No recent earnings
+- **WHEN** no report falls within the recency window
+- **THEN** the earnings recap is omitted and the evaluation proceeds
+
+### Requirement: Quality-of-earnings caveats
+
+The system SHALL surface quality-of-earnings caveats when the data supports them,
+including one-time items (e.g. tax or tariff refunds), price-driven versus
+volume-driven revenue changes, and headline metrics that compare against the
+wrong baseline (e.g. an equipment-sales figure presented as total revenue).
+
+#### Scenario: One-time item flagged
+- **WHEN** a reported result includes a disclosed one-time benefit or charge
+- **THEN** the evaluation notes the item and its approximate EPS impact when known
+
+#### Scenario: Price-vs-volume distinction made
+- **WHEN** segment or company data separates price realization from volume change
+- **THEN** the evaluation states how much of a revenue or profit move came from
+  price versus units
+
+### Requirement: Financial and segment breakdown
+
+The system SHALL present a financial summary comparing the current period to the
+prior-year period (revenue, operating profit, margins, diluted EPS, operating
+and free cash flow) and, where segment data exists, a per-segment breakdown of
+revenue, year-over-year change, operating profit, and operating margin versus the
+prior-year margin.
+
+#### Scenario: Current-vs-prior financials presented
+- **WHEN** current and prior-year period data are available
+- **THEN** the output includes a side-by-side comparison of the listed metrics
+
+#### Scenario: Segment breakdown presented when available
+- **WHEN** the provider supplies segment data
+- **THEN** the output includes per-segment revenue, YoY, operating profit, and
+  margin versus the prior-year margin
+
+### Requirement: Valuation analysis with over/undervalued reasoning
+
+The system SHALL compute a valuation view (TTM diluted EPS, trailing P/E, forward
+EPS and forward P/E from consensus, net-income and revenue growth, FCF yield,
+dividend yield) and compare current multiples against the company's own history.
+It SHALL state explicit, data-grounded reasons the company appears overvalued or
+undervalued, distinguishing multiple expansion from earnings growth and noting
+whether a high multiple sits on trough or peak earnings.
+
+#### Scenario: Valuation metrics computed
+- **WHEN** fundamentals and consensus estimates are available
+- **THEN** the output includes trailing P/E, forward P/E, growth rates, FCF yield,
+  and dividend yield, plus a comparison to prior fiscal-year multiples
+
+#### Scenario: Explicit valuation reasoning produced
+- **WHEN** the valuation view is produced
+- **THEN** the output states specific reasons for the over/undervalued conclusion
+  (e.g. "paying 29x a forecast recovery year before units confirm it")
+
+#### Scenario: Conflicting estimate feeds are reconciled
+- **WHEN** two estimate sources disagree on a forward figure
+- **THEN** the evaluation discloses the discrepancy and states which figure it used
+
+### Requirement: Macro and sector factor analysis
+
+The system SHALL identify macro and sector factors affecting the stock, such as
+tariffs and their year-over-year trajectory, interest-rate sensitivity, commodity
+or input-cost pressure on customers, and read-throughs from peer companies.
+
+#### Scenario: Macro factors surfaced
+- **WHEN** an evaluation is run
+- **THEN** the output lists the material macro/sector factors and their direction
+  of impact on the stock
+
+### Requirement: Timing and volatility context
+
+The system SHALL provide timing context: how the stock has historically behaved
+after earnings prints, today's move versus the options-implied expected move,
+recent monthly trading ranges, and whether a post-earnings gap has been filled.
+
+#### Scenario: Post-earnings behavior characterized
+- **WHEN** historical prices around prior earnings dates are available
+- **THEN** the output summarizes the typical post-earnings move and how the current
+  move compares to the implied expectation
+
+#### Scenario: Gap-fill status reported
+- **WHEN** the latest session gapped from the prior close
+- **THEN** the output states whether the gap was filled intraday
+
+### Requirement: Entry points
+
+The system SHALL produce a ranked set of candidate entry levels derived from
+technical structure (moving averages, swing lows, pre-earnings shelves), each
+annotated with what the level represents, its percent distance below the current
+price, and the valuation multiple implied at that price. It SHALL group nearby
+levels into practical entry bands.
+
+#### Scenario: Entry levels table produced
+- **WHEN** technical context and valuation are available
+- **THEN** the output includes candidate entry levels with their meaning, distance
+  below current price, and implied multiple at that price
+
+#### Scenario: Entry bands recommended
+- **WHEN** multiple levels cluster within a narrow range
+- **THEN** the output groups them into a band and identifies a starter versus a
+  high-conviction tranche
+
+### Requirement: Exit points and price targets
+
+The system SHALL produce candidate exit levels and price targets, incorporating
+analyst target average/median/range and technical resistance such as prior highs.
+
+#### Scenario: Exit targets produced
+- **WHEN** analyst targets and price history are available
+- **THEN** the output includes exit/target levels with their basis and upside from
+  the current price
+
+### Requirement: Stop-loss levels
+
+The system SHALL recommend stop-loss levels grounded in technical structure and
+realized volatility (e.g. below a key moving average or swing low, or a
+volatility-based distance), stated as concrete prices with rationale.
+
+#### Scenario: Stop-loss recommended
+- **WHEN** an entry band is identified
+- **THEN** the output states a concrete stop-loss price for that entry and the
+  technical/volatility basis for it
+
+### Requirement: Bull-versus-bear synthesis and actionable plan
+
+The system SHALL synthesize a bull case and a bear case as explicit lists, and
+produce an actionable plan: tranche sizing across entry bands, the next dated
+catalyst, conditional logic tying action to observable levels/dates, and the
+single most important metric to watch.
+
+#### Scenario: Bull and bear cases produced
+- **WHEN** an evaluation is run
+- **THEN** the output includes distinct bull and bear point lists grounded in the data
+
+#### Scenario: Actionable plan produced
+- **WHEN** entry, exit, and stop levels are available
+- **THEN** the output includes tranche guidance, the next dated catalyst, at least
+  one conditional rule, and the key metric to monitor
+
+### Requirement: Not-advice disclaimer
+
+Every evaluation SHALL include a clear disclaimer that the output is analysis and
+not investment advice.
+
+#### Scenario: Disclaimer present
+- **WHEN** any evaluation is produced
+- **THEN** the output includes an analysis-not-advice disclaimer
+
+### Requirement: Structured evaluation object
+
+The system SHALL emit the evaluation as a typed, structured object (not only prose)
+so the UI and the analysis agent can consume individual sections. Missing inputs
+SHALL be represented explicitly rather than fabricated.
+
+#### Scenario: Structured object emitted
+- **WHEN** an evaluation completes
+- **THEN** a typed object containing each section is available to consumers
+
+#### Scenario: Missing data is not fabricated
+- **WHEN** a required input for a section is unavailable
+- **THEN** that section marks the value unavailable rather than inventing one

openspec/changes/stock-deep-evaluation/specs/evaluation-app/spec.md

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+## ADDED Requirements
+
+### Requirement: Ticker search entry point
+
+The web app SHALL present a search input where a user enters an NYSE/Nasdaq ticker
+to request an evaluation. Invalid or unresolvable symbols SHALL produce an inline
+error without navigating away.
+
+#### Scenario: User searches a valid ticker
+- **WHEN** a user enters a resolvable ticker and submits
+- **THEN** the app initiates an evaluation for that ticker
+
+#### Scenario: User searches an invalid ticker
+- **WHEN** a user submits a symbol that does not resolve
+- **THEN** the app shows an inline not-found message and stays on the search view
+
+### Requirement: Evaluation request orchestration
+
+The app SHALL orchestrate the pipeline for a request: fetch market data, run the
+equity-evaluation engine, then invoke the analysis agent, returning both the
+structured evaluation and the written analysis to the client.
+
+#### Scenario: Full pipeline succeeds
+- **WHEN** a valid ticker is evaluated with data and an agent key available
+- **THEN** the app returns the structured evaluation and the written analysis
+
+#### Scenario: Partial pipeline (agent unavailable)
+- **WHEN** market data succeeds but the agent is unavailable
+- **THEN** the app returns the structured evaluation and indicates the narrative is
+  pending
+
+### Requirement: Evaluation report view
+
+The app SHALL render the evaluation as a report with clearly delineated sections:
+current standing, earnings recap and quality-of-earnings caveats, financials and
+segments, valuation and over/undervalued reasoning, macro factors, timing, entry
+levels, exit/targets, stop-loss, bull-versus-bear, the actionable plan, and the
+disclaimer. Tabular data SHALL render as tables and unavailable values SHALL be
+shown as such rather than as zero.
+
+#### Scenario: Report sections rendered
+- **WHEN** an evaluation result is available
+- **THEN** the report view displays each populated section in order
+
+#### Scenario: Unavailable values shown honestly
+- **WHEN** a section contains an unavailable value
+- **THEN** the view displays it as unavailable rather than as a zero or blank number
+
+### Requirement: Price chart with marked levels
+
+The app SHALL render a price chart with the computed moving averages and overlay
+markers for the recommended entry bands, exit/target levels, and stop-loss levels
+so the user can see them against price history.
+
+#### Scenario: Levels overlaid on chart
+- **WHEN** the report renders with computed levels
+- **THEN** the chart shows price history with entry, exit, and stop-loss markers
+
+### Requirement: Loading and error states
+
+The app SHALL show progress while an evaluation runs and SHALL present typed
+errors (data unavailable, rate-limited, agent failed) as user-readable messages
+without blank screens.
+
+#### Scenario: Loading indicator during evaluation
+- **WHEN** an evaluation is in progress
+- **THEN** the app shows a loading state until results or an error return
+
+#### Scenario: Error surfaced to user
+- **WHEN** the pipeline returns a typed error
+- **THEN** the app displays a readable message describing what failed
+
+### Requirement: API key configuration in the app
+
+The app SHALL provide a way to configure the market-data and Anthropic API keys
+via environment/config, SHALL NOT expose secret keys to the browser, and SHALL
+indicate when a required key is missing.
+
+#### Scenario: Keys read server-side only
+- **WHEN** the app calls external providers
+- **THEN** secret keys are used only in server-side code and never sent to the client
+
+#### Scenario: Missing key indicated
+- **WHEN** a required key is absent
+- **THEN** the app indicates which capability is unavailable until the key is set

openspec/changes/stock-deep-evaluation/specs/market-data/spec.md

@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+## ADDED Requirements
+
+### Requirement: Provider-agnostic data interface
+
+The system SHALL define a `DataProvider` interface that all market-data access
+goes through. Evaluation and UI code MUST depend only on this interface and its
+normalized data models, never on a concrete provider SDK or response shape. The
+active provider SHALL be selectable via configuration without code changes in
+consumers.
+
+#### Scenario: Default free provider is used when none configured
+- **WHEN** the app starts with no market-data provider explicitly configured
+- **THEN** a default free-tier provider implementation is selected
+- **AND** all normalized data models are populated from that provider
+
+#### Scenario: Provider can be swapped via configuration
+- **WHEN** an operator sets the provider configuration to a different implementation
+- **THEN** the system routes all data requests through the new provider
+- **AND** no changes to evaluation or UI code are required
+
+### Requirement: Ticker resolution for NYSE and Nasdaq
+
+The system SHALL accept a ticker symbol, validate that it resolves to an
+NYSE- or Nasdaq-listed equity, and return a normalized company profile
+(name, exchange, sector/industry, currency, shares outstanding).
+
+#### Scenario: Valid listed ticker resolves
+- **WHEN** a user submits a ticker listed on NYSE or Nasdaq (e.g. `DE`)
+- **THEN** the system returns a company profile with name, exchange, and sector
+
+#### Scenario: Unknown or unlisted ticker is rejected
+- **WHEN** a user submits a symbol that does not resolve to an NYSE/Nasdaq equity
+- **THEN** the system returns a not-found result with a clear message
+- **AND** no evaluation is attempted
+
+### Requirement: Company fundamentals and financial statements
+
+The system SHALL provide normalized fundamentals sufficient for valuation and
+earnings analysis: TTM and per-fiscal-year revenue, operating profit, margins,
+net income, diluted EPS, operating cash flow, free cash flow, dividend per share,
+and total/net debt. Where the provider exposes it, per-segment revenue and
+operating profit SHALL be included.
+
+#### Scenario: Fundamentals returned for a resolved ticker
+- **WHEN** fundamentals are requested for a resolved ticker
+- **THEN** the system returns TTM and at least the last three fiscal years of the
+  listed metrics
+- **AND** each metric carries the fiscal period it belongs to
+
+#### Scenario: Missing metric is represented explicitly
+- **WHEN** the provider does not supply a given metric
+- **THEN** the normalized model marks that metric as unavailable rather than zero
+
+### Requirement: Price history and computed technical indicators
+
+The system SHALL provide daily OHLCV price history and compute technical context
+used for timing: 20/50/200-day moving averages, recent swing highs and lows,
+distance from 52-week high and low, average daily volume and today's volume as a
+multiple of it, and realized volatility (e.g. 60-day annualized).
+
+#### Scenario: Technical context computed from price history
+- **WHEN** price history is requested for a resolved ticker
+- **THEN** the system returns the moving averages, 52-week high/low, volume ratio,
+  and realized volatility computed from that history
+
+#### Scenario: Insufficient history degrades gracefully
+- **WHEN** fewer than 200 trading days of history are available
+- **THEN** longer-window indicators (e.g. 200-day average) are marked unavailable
+- **AND** shorter-window indicators are still returned
+
+### Requirement: Analyst coverage and consensus estimates
+
+The system SHALL provide, where available, analyst rating counts (bullish /
+neutral / bearish), average and median price targets, target range, and forward
+consensus estimates (next fiscal-year EPS and revenue).
+
+#### Scenario: Analyst data returned when available
+- **WHEN** analyst coverage exists for a ticker
+- **THEN** the system returns rating counts, average/median/target range, and
+  forward EPS/revenue estimates
+
+#### Scenario: No coverage is handled
+- **WHEN** no analyst coverage exists for a ticker
+- **THEN** the system returns an empty coverage result the evaluation can note
+
+### Requirement: Rate limiting, caching, and data-freshness disclosure
+
+The system SHALL respect provider rate limits, cache responses to reduce calls,
+and expose each dataset's freshness (as-of timestamp and whether it is delayed
+or real-time) so downstream output can disclose it.
+
+#### Scenario: Rate-limit and transient errors are handled
+- **WHEN** the provider returns a rate-limit or transient error
+- **THEN** the system retries within limits and, if still failing, returns a typed
+  error rather than throwing an unhandled exception
+
+#### Scenario: Data freshness is surfaced
+- **WHEN** any dataset is returned
+- **THEN** it includes an as-of timestamp and a delayed/real-time flag

openspec/changes/stock-deep-evaluation/tasks.md

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+## 1. Project scaffold
+
+- [ ] 1.1 Initialize Next.js (App Router) + TypeScript project at the repo root
+- [ ] 1.2 Add Tailwind CSS and a base layout/theme (light + dark)
+- [ ] 1.3 Add a charting library (Recharts or lightweight-charts) and confirm it renders
+- [ ] 1.4 Set up `.env.local` handling and `.env.example` for `MARKET_DATA_API_KEY` and `ANTHROPIC_API_KEY`; ensure secrets never reach the client bundle
+- [ ] 1.5 Configure lint/format/test tooling (ESLint, Prettier, Vitest/Jest) and a passing sample test
+- [ ] 1.6 Define shared TypeScript types module (normalized data models + `Evaluation` object skeleton with `unavailable` markers)
+
+## 2. Market-data layer (`market-data` spec)
+
+- [ ] 2.1 Define the `DataProvider` interface and normalized models (`CompanyProfile`, `Fundamentals` incl. optional segments, `PriceHistory`, `AnalystCoverage`, `Estimates`), each with `asOf` + `delayed|realtime`
+- [ ] 2.2 Spike two free providers (e.g. FMP, Finnhub) against `DE`; pick the default based on segment + forward-estimate coverage; record the choice in design Open Questions
+- [ ] 2.3 Implement the default free-tier provider behind the interface
+- [ ] 2.4 Implement ticker resolution with NYSE/Nasdaq validation and typed not-found result
+- [ ] 2.5 Implement a fixture/mock provider seeded from the DE example for tests and offline dev
+- [ ] 2.6 Add provider-boundary caching (in-memory, TTL, keyed by ticker+dataset) and retry/backoff for rate-limit/transient errors returning typed errors
+- [ ] 2.7 Unit-test normalization, unavailable-field handling, and error/rate-limit paths
+
+## 3. Technicals module (`market-data` spec)
+
+- [ ] 3.1 Implement pure functions: 20/50/200-day moving averages, 52-week high/low distance, average volume + today's volume multiple
+- [ ] 3.2 Implement swing high/low detection and realized (e.g. 60-day annualized) volatility
+- [ ] 3.3 Handle insufficient-history cases (mark long-window indicators unavailable)
+- [ ] 3.4 Unit-test all indicators against known values from the DE example
+
+## 4. Evaluation engine (`equity-evaluation` spec)
+
+- [ ] 4.1 Implement current-standing summary (price, day change abs/%, volume multiple, 52-wk distance, market cap, trailing P/E)
+- [ ] 4.2 Implement earnings recap (EPS vs consensus, beat/miss, net income YoY, guidance changes) gated by a configurable recency window
+- [ ] 4.3 Implement quality-of-earnings caveats (one-time items + EPS impact, price-vs-volume, wrong-baseline headline metrics)
+- [ ] 4.4 Implement financial summary (current vs prior-year) and per-segment breakdown when available
+- [ ] 4.5 Implement valuation view (TTM EPS, trailing/forward P/E, growth, FCF & dividend yield, vs own history) with conflicting-estimate reconciliation
+- [ ] 4.6 Implement explicit over/undervalued reasoning (multiple-expansion vs earnings-growth, trough/peak earnings)
+- [ ] 4.7 Implement macro/sector factor analysis (tariffs trajectory, rates, input-cost pressure, peer read-throughs)
+- [ ] 4.8 Implement timing/volatility context (post-earnings behavior, implied vs actual move, monthly ranges, gap-fill status)
+- [ ] 4.9 Implement entry levels (ranked levels with meaning, % below price, implied multiple at each) grouped into bands with starter/high-conviction tranches
+- [ ] 4.10 Implement exit/targets (analyst avg/median/range + technical resistance) and stop-loss levels (technical/volatility-based, concrete prices + rationale)
+- [ ] 4.11 Implement bull-vs-bear synthesis and actionable plan (tranche sizing, next dated catalyst, conditional rules, one metric to watch)
+- [ ] 4.12 Emit the typed `Evaluation` object with explicit unavailable markers (no fabrication) + mandatory disclaimer
+- [ ] 4.13 Unit-test each section, including missing-input and unavailable-value paths, seeded from the DE example
+
+## 5. Analysis agent (`analysis-agent` spec)
+
+- [ ] 5.1 Define the `AnalysisAgent` interface (input: `Evaluation`; output: narrative sections)
+- [ ] 5.2 Implement the Claude default via `@anthropic-ai/sdk` (current model), key loaded server-side from config
+- [ ] 5.3 Design the prompt + structured/JSON output so narrative maps to spec sections and uses ONLY supplied figures
+- [ ] 5.4 Preserve input caveats/discrepancies and enforce the disclaimer in the narrative
+- [ ] 5.5 Implement graceful degradation when no key is set (return structured evaluation, mark narrative unavailable)
+- [ ] 5.6 Implement typed agent error handling (auth/rate-limit/timeout) that retains the computed evaluation
+- [ ] 5.7 Test grounding (every cited figure exists in input), no-key, and error paths with a mock agent
+
+## 6. Pipeline + API (`evaluation-app` spec)
+
+- [ ] 6.1 Implement server-side route/action orchestrating resolve → data → evaluate → agent, returning `{ evaluation, narrative | error }`
+- [ ] 6.2 Handle partial results (data ok / agent unavailable) and typed errors end-to-end
+- [ ] 6.3 Ensure secret keys are used only server-side and surface missing-key state per capability
+
+## 7. Web UI (`evaluation-app` spec)
+
+- [ ] 7.1 Build the ticker search entry point with inline invalid/not-found handling
+- [ ] 7.2 Build the report view rendering every section in order, tables as tables, unavailable values shown honestly
+- [ ] 7.3 Build the price chart with moving averages and overlay markers for entry bands, exit/targets, and stop-loss levels
+- [ ] 7.4 Implement loading state and readable error states (no blank screens)
+- [ ] 7.5 Surface missing-key indicators and a settings/config affordance for keys
+
+## 8. Verification
+
+- [ ] 8.1 End-to-end run on `DE` (with keys) producing a report structurally matching the example; note any data gaps from the free tier
+- [ ] 8.2 End-to-end run with no agent key confirming structured evaluation still renders
+- [ ] 8.3 Run the full test suite and lint; confirm green
+- [ ] 8.4 Update README with setup, env vars, provider choice, and run instructions
+- [ ] 8.5 Run `openspec validate stock-deep-evaluation` and archive the change when complete