feat: add /speckit.fix command and fix-log template

pyproject.toml

@@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ packages = ["src/specify_cli"]
 # Page templates (exclude commands/ — bundled separately below to avoid duplication)
 "templates/agent-file-template.md" = "specify_cli/core_pack/templates/agent-file-template.md"
 "templates/checklist-template.md" = "specify_cli/core_pack/templates/checklist-template.md"
+"templates/fix-template.md" = "specify_cli/core_pack/templates/fix-template.md"
 "templates/constitution-template.md" = "specify_cli/core_pack/templates/constitution-template.md"
 "templates/plan-template.md" = "specify_cli/core_pack/templates/plan-template.md"
 "templates/spec-template.md" = "specify_cli/core_pack/templates/spec-template.md"

templates/commands/ask.md

@@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
+---
+description: Answer any question about the current feature, project, or Spec Kit workflow — grounded in the constitution, existing specs, and best practices — and route to the right next command.
+handoffs:
+  - label: Write a Spec
+    agent: speckit.specify
+    prompt: "Specify the following feature: "
+  - label: Clarify the Spec
+    agent: speckit.clarify
+    prompt: Clarify the current spec
+    send: true
+  - label: Build a Plan
+    agent: speckit.plan
+    prompt: Create a plan for the spec
+    send: true
+  - label: Fix an Error
+    agent: speckit.fix
+    prompt: "Fix this error: "
+  - label: Analyze Consistency
+    agent: speckit.analyze
+    prompt: Analyze the current feature artifacts
+    send: true
+scripts:
+  sh: scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json --paths-only
+  ps: scripts/powershell/check-prerequisites.ps1 -Json -PathsOnly
+---
+
+## User Input
+
+```text
+$ARGUMENTS
+```
+
+You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty). This may be any question: conceptual, technical, workflow-related, or about a specific feature.
+
+---
+
+## Goal
+
+Answer questions about the current Spec Kit project with grounded, actionable responses — and route to the right command when further action is needed. You are a knowledgeable guide, not an executor. You read before you answer. You route before you act.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 0 — Classify the question
+
+Before reading any file, classify the input into one of these categories (zero file I/O):
+
+| Category | Examples | Files to read |
+|---|---|---|
+| **workflow** | "What command do I run next?", "What is the order of commands?" | none — answer from knowledge |
+| **spec** | "Does my spec cover X?", "Is this user story complete?" | `spec.md` (relevant section only) |
+| **plan** | "Is this architecture decision correct?", "Should I use X or Y?" | `plan.md` (relevant section only) |
+| **constitution** | "Does this violate a project principle?", "Is X allowed?" | `constitution.md` |
+| **error** | "Why is X failing?", "What is wrong with my code?" | redirect → `/speckit.fix` immediately |
+| **feature-gap** | "How do I add X?", "We need a new behavior" | redirect → `/speckit.specify` immediately |
+| **consistency** | "Are spec and plan aligned?", "Is tasks.md up to date?" | `spec.md` + `plan.md` + `tasks.md` |
+| **open** | General question not fitting above | `constitution.md` + closest artifact |
+
+**Fast redirects (do not proceed past Phase 0):**
+- If the question describes a broken behavior or an error → output redirect block and stop:
+  ```
+  → This is a correction request, not a question.
+    Run: /speckit.fix "[paste your error here]"
+  ```
+- If the question requests a new feature or behavior → output redirect block and stop:
+  ```
+  → This is a feature request, not a question.
+    Run: /speckit.specify "[describe what you need]"
+  ```
+
+---
+
+## Phase 1 — Load context
+
+Run `{SCRIPT}` from repo root only if the question category requires reading a project file (see table above). Parse `FEATURE_DIR` and `AVAILABLE_DOCS`.
+
+Load only the files identified in Phase 0 — and only the sections relevant to the question. Do not load artifacts speculatively.
+
+**Always read `constitution.md` when:**
+- The question touches a project principle, constraint, or architectural decision
+- The answer would suggest a change to an existing artifact
+- The question category is `constitution` or `consistency`
+
+**Never read `constitution.md` proactively** for pure workflow questions.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 2 — Answer
+
+Produce a structured response:
+
+```
+QUESTION     : [restate the question in one line]
+CATEGORY     : [workflow | spec | plan | constitution | consistency | open]
+GROUNDED IN  : [knowledge | constitution.md | spec.md | plan.md | tasks.md | multiple]
+CONFIDENCE   : [high — answer is unambiguous | medium — interpretation required | low — insufficient context]
+
+ANSWER
+──────
+[Direct, precise answer. Reference file:section when quoting a spec or plan.
+ If CONFIDENCE = low, state clearly what additional context is needed and why.
+ Do not hedge unnecessarily — if you know, say it directly.]
+```
+
+### Rules for the answer
+
+1. **Base every answer on evidence** — quote the relevant section of the artifact when possible.
+2. **Separate fact from recommendation** — clearly distinguish "the spec says X" from "best practice suggests Y".
+3. **Respect the constitution** — if the answer would conflict with a principle, say so explicitly. Do not suggest actions that violate it.
+4. **Acknowledge gaps honestly** — if the information needed to answer is absent from all artifacts, say so. Do not invent an answer.
+5. **One question at a time** — if the input contains multiple questions, answer them in order, each with its own block. Do not merge unrelated answers.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 3 — Route
+
+After the answer, produce a routing suggestion based on what the question revealed:
+
+```
+SUGGESTED NEXT
+──────────────
+[command]   [reason — what this command would do given what was just answered]
+```
+
+Use this routing table:
+
+| What the answer revealed | Suggested command |
+|---|---|
+| The spec has a gap or ambiguity | `/speckit.clarify "[the unresolved point]"` |
+| A new behavior needs to be defined | `/speckit.specify "[what the system must do]"` |
+| A technical decision needs to be made or revisited | `/speckit.plan` |
+| Artifacts are inconsistent with each other | `/speckit.analyze` |
+| A task is missing or mis-ordered | `/speckit.tasks` |
+| An error or broken behavior was surfaced | `/speckit.fix "[the error]"` |
+| Everything looks correct | No action needed — state this explicitly |
+| Cross-feature impact is possible | `/speckit.analyze` (after the fix or change) |
+
+**Multiple suggestions are allowed** — rank them by urgency (most blocking first).
+
+**Never suggest a command without a reason.** Each suggestion must say *why* that command is warranted given the answer.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 4 — Confidence check
+
+If `CONFIDENCE = low` was set in Phase 2, append:
+
+```
+BEFORE PROCEEDING
+─────────────────
+To answer this confidently, I need:
+  1. [specific missing piece — e.g., "the full stack trace", "the spec.md of feature X", "which architecture was chosen in plan.md"]
+  2. [optional second missing piece]
+
+You can provide this directly in the next message, or run the suggested command above to generate it.
+```
+
+Do not ask more than 2 clarifying questions. Do not ask for information that can be inferred from the artifacts already loaded.