Problem to Fix
When /start finishes writing code, the user tests locally and must then remember to type /submit-for-review. The handoff is mechanical but currently requires two distinct commands.
Why it Matters
Reducing a routine two-step into one prompt cuts friction without removing the human checkpoint (the local-test confirmation is still required).
General Approach
At the end of /start, instead of telling the user to run /submit-for-review, ask: "Tests passing — submit for review now? (yes / changes needed / scrap)". On yes, invoke the submit-for-review flow inline.
Complexity
Verification / QA effort: moderate
Touches two skills' interaction surface and the user's muscle memory; needs both happy path and "changes needed" path verified.
Acceptance Criteria
/start's closing prompt offers inline submit instead of requiring a second command.
- "changes needed" returns to iteration without submitting.
- "scrap" still routes to
make abandon.
- Typing
/submit-for-review manually still works for users who prefer the explicit command.
Parent story
Part of #167.
Problem to Fix
When
/startfinishes writing code, the user tests locally and must then remember to type/submit-for-review. The handoff is mechanical but currently requires two distinct commands.Why it Matters
Reducing a routine two-step into one prompt cuts friction without removing the human checkpoint (the local-test confirmation is still required).
General Approach
At the end of
/start, instead of telling the user to run/submit-for-review, ask: "Tests passing — submit for review now? (yes / changes needed / scrap)". Onyes, invoke the submit-for-review flow inline.Complexity
Verification / QA effort: moderate
Touches two skills' interaction surface and the user's muscle memory; needs both happy path and "changes needed" path verified.
Acceptance Criteria
/start's closing prompt offers inline submit instead of requiring a second command.make abandon./submit-for-reviewmanually still works for users who prefer the explicit command.Parent story
Part of #167.