Survey

foreman:survey — ground-truth the roadmap's near-term candidates

This is the one Foreman flow that deliberately investigates the codebase against the roadmap. foreman:roadmap's pick-next-task branch explicitly does not do this — see the 0.4.4-alpha changelog entry, where doing exactly this at pick time burned ~100k tokens on every invocation. Keeping it a separate, explicitly-triggered skill is what makes both halves cheap: the fast path stays mechanical, and ground-truthing only runs when someone actually asks for it.

All reads/writes to ROADMAP.jsonl go through ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/roadmap.js — never Read/Edit the file directly. Skim ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/roadmap-schema.md for field semantics.

Pre-check: if ROADMAP.jsonl doesn't exist at the project root, tell the user to run /foreman:init first and stop here.

---

1. Pick the scope

If args named specific task ids, list --ids (validate they exist and are planned). Otherwise:

node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/roadmap.js next-candidates (default --limit 3) — candidates already include each one's own depends_on, no separate call needed just to get that.

Survey the top candidates only — same 3 by default as foreman:roadmap shows. This is deliberately not the whole backlog: a hidden dependency or stale claim matters most for what's about to be picked, and checking every planned entry every time would make this as expensive as the thing it's trying to avoid. If total_unblocked is larger than what you surveyed, say so when reporting back — don't imply full coverage silently.

Collect the exact set of dependency ids referenced across all candidates' depends_on (dedup). If non-empty, resolve just those — node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/roadmap.js list --ids — never the unfiltered list, which loads the whole file just to answer a question about a handful of ids.

Mechanical pre-check, not an agent's job: for each resolved dependency entry with status:"done", verify each of its commits actually exists — git cat-file -e (Bash), exit code tells you, no reasoning involved. Build a small per-commit exists: true/false map from this before moving to step 2 — a dispatched agent re-deriving something a shell command already answered for free is pure waste, one git cat-file call is cheaper than N parallel agents each running their own git log.

Same reasoning applies to touches: collect every path named across the candidates being surveyed (dedup), and check existence directly — test -e (Bash) / Test-Path (PowerShell), relative to the project root, one call per unique path (or a short loop in one call). Build a path_exists: true/false map from this too. A missing path is already stale-touches evidence on its own — no agent needs a Read/Glob round trip just to learn a file isn't there.

---

2. Investigate each candidate in parallel

Dispatch one Agent (subagent_type: Explore) per candidate, in parallel (single message, multiple tool calls). Each gets a self-contained prompt — it has no memory of this conversation — built from the candidate's own fields plus the resolved-dependency and exists-map context gathered in step 1:

• The candidate's id, title, why, what, touches, depends_on.
• For each path in touches: the pre-computed path_exists flag from step

1 — the agent consumes this fact, it does not re-check it with its own Read/Glob call.

• For each id in depends_on: that entry's title, status, commits,

and the pre-computed exists flag for each of those commits — the agent consumes this fact, it does not re-derive it.

• Ask it to check, and report a verdict for each:

1. Touches still real? Any path step 1 already flagged missing is

stale-touches evidence on its own — no further check needed for it. For paths confirmed to exist, does their current content still match what what describes? (git log --oneline -- plus a read of the file's current state.)

1. Dependencies actually satisfied? If step 1's exists map already

flags a done entry's commit as missing, that alone is a red flag — no further check needed. Otherwise, for commits confirmed to exist, do they plausibly implement what that entry's title/what claims? (this half stays semantic — read the commit, judge the match)

1. Hidden dependency? Reading the code the candidate's touches

point to, does it already reference/import/call something that another not-done task's touches claims to own, which isn't in this candidate's depends_on? Only report this with a concrete file:line citation — no hunches.

1. Already done, or duplicate? Does the working tree already contain

what what describes, or does it closely overlap another entry?

Verdict per candidate: valid (nothing found) | hidden-dependency | stale-touches | already-done | duplicate. Every non-valid verdict must cite the file:line or commit that grounds it — refuse to report a finding it can't point to concretely.

---

3. Confirm before writing anything

Present findings to the user — one line per candidate, valid ones need no more than a mention. For anything else, ask before persisting (AskUserQuestion) — a survey finding is Claude's read of the evidence, not an automatic mutation:

• hidden-dependency → on confirm:

echo '{"id":"","add_depends_on":[""]}' | node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/roadmap.js update-deps This is structural — next-candidates will now correctly treat the candidate as blocked until ` is done`. This is the mechanism that makes a finding from this session visible to a completely different session later: it's baked into the graph the ranking algorithm reads, not a note someone has to remember to check.

• already-done / duplicate → on confirm:

echo '{"id":"","status":"dropped","notes":"survey : "}' | node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/roadmap.js update-status (or "done" with the actual commit if the evidence points to a specific commit that already did the work).

• stale-touches with no structural fix (the description just needs

updating, nothing to block on) → notes-only, status untouched: echo '{"id":"","notes":"survey : "}' | node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/roadmap.js annotate annotate exists precisely for this write: unlike update-status, it can't regress the entry to a status read before the survey ran (e.g. re-asserting planned on an entry another session has since moved to in_progress). This is a soft signal, not a mechanical reorder — next-candidates now returns this candidate's notes, so the next foreman:roadmap pick sees it as context, but ranking itself (unblocks_total, then unblocks, then no-collision, then created_at) doesn't change. Say this explicitly if the user expects a guaranteed reorder — that would need a stored priority field this schema deliberately doesn't have (see roadmap-schema.md's comment on why not).

Never write on an unconfirmed finding, and never touch ROADMAP.jsonl directly — every write above goes through roadmap.js, same as every other Foreman flow.

---

4. Report

Short summary: candidates surveyed (and how many were left unsurveyed, if any), verdicts, what got written. If nothing was confirmed, say the roadmap is unchanged — this skill running is not itself news.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: V-Songbird
• Source: V-Songbird/foreman
• License: MIT
• Homepage: https://github.com/V-Songbird/foundry

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.