---
name: prospect
description: >-
  Discover a NEW continuous-improvement opportunity from vault and execution
  signals, form a testable hypothesis, gather evidence, then recommend Accept or
  Reject. Unlike mine (many insights, no decision), prospect ends in one A/R
  gate. Use /prospect for discovery; /prospect [item] to review an existing try.
---

# Prospect

**Discover → hypothesise → evidence → Accept/Reject.**

Search for improvement signals the way mine does, but synthesise **one new** continuous-improvement proposition and end with an Accept/Reject gate.

**Read-only default:** do not edit the vault or task tracker until the user replies **A** or **R**.

## Two modes

| Mode | Input | Behaviour |
|------|-------|-----------|
| **Discover** *(default)* | `/prospect` or `/prospect [lens]` | Find friction → novel proposition → hypothesis → A/R |
| **Review** | `/prospect [item]` | Assess an existing spark: adopt or skip |

## Discover mode

### Step 0: Lens

State one focus before searching (same sources as mine).

### Step 1: Discovery

Look for signals, not backlog items already queued:

| Signal type | What to look for |
|-------------|------------------|
| `friction` | Manual repeat steps, tool switches, duplicate tracking |
| `drift` | Vault says X, tracker or scorecard says Y |
| `waste` | Hours in the wrong bucket, stale active projects, abandoned tries |
| `missing loop` | Outcome with no measurement, decision with no review cadence |
| `automation gap` | A repeated chat pattern that could become a skill, script, or reminder |

**Hard rule:** the proposition must be novel relative to current state: not already an open try, not the obvious next quest on the project page.

Briefly note 2–3 runners-up so the search is visible.

### Step 2: Proposition

One line: verb + object + intended improvement. Tag the home project.

### Step 3: Hypothesis

> **If we accept**, we expect [measurable outcome] because [mechanism], within [time/cost bound].

> **If we reject**, we avoid [cost] and keep [status quo alternative].

Must be falsifiable and time-boxed.

### Step 4: Evidence

| Supports Accept | Supports Reject |
|-----------------|-----------------|
| cites | cites |

### Step 5: Certainty + A/R

| Score | Meaning |
|-------|---------|
| **High (75–100%)** | Strong, bounded, fits the week; no material contradictions |
| **Medium (40–74%)** | Worth a time-boxed try, or one missing fact |
| **Low (0–39%)** | Weak signal, duplicates existing work, or cost exceeds upside |

## Output format

```markdown
**Lens:** [one line]

**Proposition:** [new CI opportunity: one line]
*Novelty:* [why this is not already queued]

**Runners-up:** [1–3 one-liners]

## Hypothesis
[Accept case / Reject case]

## Evidence
| Supports Accept | Supports Reject |
|-----------------|-----------------|
| … | … |

**Gaps:** …

## Certainty
**[High | Medium | Low] (~N%)**: …

## Recommendation
**[Accept | Reject]**: …

### Options
- **(A)ccept**: create a bounded try with hypothesis and due date
- **(R)eject**: discard; log a one-line reason unless asked to write it down
```

## On Accept / Reject

- **Accept:** create one bounded try issue (or equivalent) plus a short vault stub with the hypothesis and due date.
- **Reject (Discover):** no vault write by default.
- **Reject (Review):** close the existing try and note the reason.

## vs mine

| | **mine** | **prospect** |
|---|----------|--------------|
| Output | Up to 9 insights, show top 3 | **One** novel proposition |
| Decision | None | **Accept / Reject** gate |
| Use when | Landscape scan | One improvement bet with a commit decision |

## Do not

- Default Discover mode to existing try backlog
- Exceed one proposition per run
- Auto-accept or auto-reject without **A** / **R**