Explore Workflow UX

Context

The explore workflow is part of the core loop (propose, explore, apply, archive). Users should be able to think through ideas in explore mode, then smoothly transition into a formal change proposal.

Currently, explore references /opsx:new and /opsx:ff which are being replaced with /opsx:propose. But beyond just updating references, there are deeper UX questions about how explore should work.

This exploration is also affected by the emerging workspace direction: for larger cross-team or cross-repo work, OpenSpec may need to treat the initiative as the first-class planning object and repo-local changes as execution artifacts. That means explore may sometimes be seeding an initiative, not just a single change.

Open Questions

Exploration Artifacts

1. Should exploration be exportable to .md?

   • Currently explorations are ephemeral (just conversation)
   • Would users benefit from saving exploration notes?

2. Where should exploration files live?

   • openspec/explorations/<name>.md?
   • openspec/changes/<change>/explorations/?
   • .openspec-workspace/initiatives/<initiative>/explorations/ for coordinated work?
   • Somewhere else?

3. What should the format be?

   • Free-form markdown?
   • Structured template (problem, insights, open questions)?
   • Conversation transcript?

Multiple Explorations

4. Can a user have multiple explorations related to a change?

   • e.g., exploring auth approaches separately from UI approaches
   • How would these relate to each other?

5. How do explorations relate to changes or initiatives?

   • Before change exists: standalone exploration
   • After repo-local change exists: exploration linked to change?
   • For coordinated work: exploration linked to initiative first, then optionally referenced by repo-local changes?

Lifecycle & Transitions

6. What happens before a change proposal exists?

   • Exploration is standalone
   • When ready, user runs /opsx:propose
   • For coordinated work, should exploration context seed an initiative first?
   • Should exploration context automatically seed the proposal?

7. What happens after a change proposal exists?

   • Exploration can reference existing artifacts
   • Should exploration be able to update artifacts directly?
   • Or just inform the user what to update?

8. How does explore → propose transition work?

   • Manual: user copies insights and runs propose separately
   • Semi-auto: explore offers "Create proposal from this exploration?"
   • Auto: explore detects crystallization and proactively starts propose

Context Handoff

9. How do exploration insights flow into proposals?

   • User manually incorporates insights
   • Exploration summary becomes input to propose prompt
   • Exploration file linked/referenced in proposal

10. Should propose be able to read exploration files?

    • "I see you explored authentication approaches. Using those insights..."

Potential Approaches

Approach A: Ephemeral Explorations (Status Quo+)

• Explorations remain conversational only
• Just update references to /opsx:propose
• User manually carries insights forward
• Pro: Simple, no new artifacts
• Con: Insights can be lost, no audit trail

Approach B: Optional Export

• Add "save exploration" option at end
• Saves to openspec/explorations/<name>.md
• Propose can optionally read these for context
• Pro: Opt-in complexity, preserves insights
• Con: Another artifact type to manage

Approach C: Exploration as Proposal Seed

• Exploration automatically saves structured notes
• When transitioning to propose, notes become proposal input
• Pro: Seamless handoff, context preserved
• Con: More complexity, tight coupling

Approach D: Explorations Within Changes

• Before change: standalone exploration
• After change created: exploration notes live in changes/<name>/explorations/
• Artifacts can reference exploration notes
• Pro: Clear relationship to changes
• Con: Where do pre-change explorations go?

Approach E: Initiative-First Explorations for Coordinated Work

• Local work can stay standalone or change-linked
• Coordinated work saves exploration notes under an initiative in the coordination workspace
• Repo-local changes can reference the shared exploration when execution starts
• Pro: Matches the emerging split between shared planning and repo-local execution
• Con: Adds another context where exploration artifacts may live

Next Steps

• User research: How do people actually use explore today?
• Prototype: Try saving explorations and see if propose benefits
• Decide: Pick an approach based on findings
• Reconcile explore UX with initiative-first coordinated planning
• Implement: Update explore workflow accordingly

Related

• openspec/changes/simplify-skill-installation/ - current change updating core workflows
• src/core/templates/workflows/explore.ts - explore workflow template