#!/usr/bin/env bash
#
# Stop guard for two external-skill gates that conflict with boma conventions, where
# prose reminders repeatedly failed to hold (docs/FRICTION.md):
#
#   1. The execution-mode menu — writing-plans / subagent-driven-development script a
#      "Subagent-Driven vs Inline Execution — which approach?" menu at the plan→execution
#      handoff. boma's standing preference is to NEVER present it and proceed
#      subagent-driven. (Recorded by the 2026-06-10 kaizen review; the 2026-06-17 review
#      widened the matcher to also catch free-form *prose* re-asks of the same choice —
#      e.g. "which execution approach?" — which the literal-menu matcher missed. The
#      sibling push-vs-not re-ask is deliberately NOT hooked: a genuine "should I push?"
#      is sometimes legitimate, so it stays a soft default via the
#      dont-reask-settled-defaults memory rather than a hard block.)
#   2. The brainstorming spec-review gate — the brainstorming skill scripts "Spec written
#      and committed … please review it before … the implementation plan." The standing
#      agreement is to move directly from the committed spec to writing-plans. (Recorded
#      by the 2026-06-14 kaizen review; 06-10/06-14 recurrences.)
#
# Fails OPEN: any parse/read problem → allow the stop. Respects stop_hook_active so a
# block can never loop. Match signatures are deliberately tight so they fire on the
# actual gate text, not on meta-discussion of it.
#
set -uo pipefail

input=$(cat 2>/dev/null) || exit 0

# Loop guard: if we already blocked once for this stop, let it through.
active=$(printf '%s' "$input" | jq -r '.stop_hook_active // false' 2>/dev/null) || exit 0
[ "$active" = "true" ] && exit 0

transcript=$(printf '%s' "$input" | jq -r '.transcript_path // empty' 2>/dev/null) || exit 0
[ -z "$transcript" ] || [ ! -r "$transcript" ] && exit 0

# Last assistant message's text blocks, joined.
text=$(jq -rs '
  ([ .[] | select(.type=="assistant") ] | last) as $a
  | ($a.message.content // [])
  | if type=="array" then [ .[] | select(.type=="text") | .text ] | join("\n")
    elif type=="string" then .
    else "" end
' "$transcript" 2>/dev/null) || exit 0

low="${text,,}"

if [[ "$low" == *"inline execution"* \
      && ( "$low" == *"which approach"* || "$low" == *"two execution options"* ) ]] \
   || [[ "$low" == *"subagent-driven or inline"* || "$low" == *"inline or subagent"* ]] \
   || [[ "$low" == *"subagent-driven vs inline"* || "$low" == *"subagent vs inline"* \
         || "$low" == *"inline vs subagent"* ]] \
   || [[ "$low" == *"execution approach"* && "$low" == *"?"* ]]; then
  cat <<'JSON'
{"decision":"block","reason":"Execution-mode menu detected in your final message. boma standing preference (docs/FRICTION.md + always-subagent-driven-execution memory): never present the subagent-driven-vs-inline menu. Drop the menu and proceed with subagent-driven execution directly (superpowers:subagent-driven-development)."}
JSON
  exit 0
fi

# Brainstorming spec-review gate: asking the user to review the committed spec before
# the implementation plan. Tight signature: "implementation plan" present, plus either the
# skill's literal "spec written and committed" line, or the review+spec+before combination.
if [[ "$low" == *"implementation plan"* \
   && ( "$low" == *"spec written and committed"* \
        || ( "$low" == *"review"* && "$low" == *"the spec"* && "$low" == *"before"* ) ) ]]; then
  cat <<'JSON'
{"decision":"block","reason":"Brainstorming spec-review gate detected in your final message. boma standing agreement (docs/FRICTION.md): once the spec is written and committed, move directly to the implementation plan (superpowers:writing-plans) — do not stop to ask the user to review the spec first. Drop the gate and proceed."}
JSON
  exit 0
fi

exit 0