fix(explore): name the propose workflow at every handoff

.changeset/explore-names-the-propose-handoff.md

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+---
+"@fission-ai/openspec": patch
+---
+
+Name the workflow where explore hands off. Explore mode refuses to implement, but every place it said what to do instead described the next step as prose ("create a change proposal") without naming the workflow that does it: the refusal itself, the "flow into a proposal" ending, the closing summary, and the do-not-implement guardrail. Its seamless capture path was worse: it scaffolded a change, wrote artifacts, and then said nothing at all about what came next. With no named exit, agents finished the discovery questions and started writing code, which is the failure reported through GitHub Copilot in #869, and which the docs already promised would not happen ("when the picture is clear, it hands off to `/opsx:propose`").
+
+The explore skill and command now name `/opsx:propose` at all four prose handoffs, and the capture path ends by naming `/opsx:propose` for the remaining planning artifacts and `/opsx:apply` for implementation, with an explicit note that capturing artifacts is not permission to implement them. The references are written in the canonical `/opsx:<id>` form so each tool renders the invocation it actually registers (`/openspec-propose` for skills-only delivery, `/opsx-propose`, `/opsx:propose`, or `@opsx-propose` for command surfaces). The handoffs follow the installed workflow set: a custom profile without `propose` or `apply` gets explore's own capture path and the `openspec instructions apply` CLI instead of a command it never installed. Fixes #869.

skills/openspec-explore/SKILL.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ metadata:
 
 Enter explore mode. Think deeply. Visualize freely. Follow the conversation wherever it goes.
 
-**IMPORTANT: Explore mode is for thinking, not implementing.** You may read files, search code, investigate the codebase, and run read-only commands or tools without confirmation, but you must NEVER write code or implement features. If the user asks you to implement something, remind them to exit explore mode first and create a change proposal. You MAY create or update OpenSpec change artifacts (proposals, designs, specs) within a confirmed scope—that's capturing thinking, not implementing. Answering design or clarifying questions is never consent to write. Before the first write-capable action, name the artifacts or files you would change and what you would do, ask a direct yes/no question, and wait for the user's confirmation in a separate message. Confirmation covers only the scope you described; ask again before expanding it. An explicit request from the user to capture the exploration as a new change is itself that confirmation, covering the change and the change artifacts the request names; scaffold it first as described below.
+**IMPORTANT: Explore mode is for thinking, not implementing.** You may read files, search code, investigate the codebase, and run read-only commands or tools without confirmation, but you must NEVER write code or implement features. If the user asks you to implement something, do not start it here: say that explore mode does not implement, and point them at `/openspec-propose`, which turns the discussion into a change. The work happens from that change, never from explore mode. You MAY create or update OpenSpec change artifacts (proposals, designs, specs) within a confirmed scope—that's capturing thinking, not implementing. Answering design or clarifying questions is never consent to write. Before the first write-capable action, name the artifacts or files you would change and what you would do, ask a direct yes/no question, and wait for the user's confirmation in a separate message. Confirmation covers only the scope you described; ask again before expanding it. An explicit request from the user to capture the exploration as a new change is itself that confirmation, covering the change and the change artifacts the request names; scaffold it first as described below.
 
 **This is a stance, not a workflow.** There are no fixed steps, no required sequence, no mandatory outputs. You're a thinking partner helping the user explore.
 
@@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ If the user asks you to capture the exploration as a new change, that request is
 3. Follow the returned `template` and `instruction` fields. Read completed dependency files listed in `dependencies`, and apply `context` and `rules` as constraints without copying them into the artifact. If the instruction delegates creation to a specific skill or command, invoke it; otherwise write the artifact to `resolvedOutputPath`, using the instruction to choose a concrete path when it is a glob. Verify that the selected concrete output exists.
 4. After creating each artifact, re-run `openspec status --change "<name>" --json` (append the confirmed `--store "<id>"` only for a registered standalone store) and continue until every requested artifact is `done`, `skipped`, or was deliberately skipped because its own `instruction` stated a condition that did not apply. Tell the user about a deliberate conditional skip, remember it, and do not reconsider it. Dependencies are enablers, not gates: if a requested artifact is still `blocked` only because you deliberately skipped a conditional prerequisite, run `openspec instructions "<artifact-id>" --change "<name>" --json` (append the confirmed `--store "<id>"` only for a registered standalone store) despite the blocked status, then create it using step 3 only when those recorded conditional skips are its sole missing dependencies. If a requested artifact is blocked by a prerequisite the user did not ask to capture and cannot be conditionally skipped, explain that dependency and ask before expanding the capture.
 
-Capture the artifact(s) the user requested without asking them to invoke another workflow command. If they asked only to start a change, stop after scaffolding and show its status.
+Capture the artifact(s) the user requested without asking them to invoke another workflow command. If they asked only to start a change, stop after scaffolding and show its status. When the requested capture is done, stop there and name where the work continues: `/openspec-propose` writes the remaining planning artifacts, and `/openspec-apply-change` implements the change once tasks exist. Capturing artifacts never starts implementing them.
 
 ### When a change exists
 
@@ -304,7 +304,7 @@ You: That changes everything.
 
 There's no required ending. Discovery might:
 
-- **Flow into a proposal**: "Ready to start? I can create a change proposal."
+- **Flow into a proposal**: "Ready to start? Run `/openspec-propose` and this becomes a change."
 - **Result in artifact updates**: "Updated design.md with these decisions"
 - **Just provide clarity**: User has what they need, moves on
 - **Continue later**: "We can pick this up anytime"
@@ -321,7 +321,7 @@ When it feels like things are crystallizing, you might summarize:
 **Open questions**: [if any remain]
 
 **Next steps** (if ready):
-- Create a change proposal
+- Turn this into a change: `/openspec-propose`
 - Keep exploring: just keep talking
 ```
 
@@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ But this summary is optional. Sometimes the thinking IS the value.
 
 ## Guardrails
 
-- **Don't implement** - Never write code or implement features. Workflow configuration counts too: creating or editing schemas, templates, or `openspec/config.yaml` is a change, not thinking. Creating or updating OpenSpec change artifacts within the confirmed scope is fine, writing anything else is not.
+- **Don't implement** - Never write code or implement features. Workflow configuration counts too: creating or editing schemas, templates, or `openspec/config.yaml` is a change, not thinking. Creating or updating OpenSpec change artifacts within the confirmed scope is fine, writing anything else is not. When the user is ready to build, name the handoff rather than starting: `/openspec-propose` turns the discussion into a change, and the work happens there.
 - **Don't fake understanding** - If something is unclear, dig deeper
 - **Don't rush** - Discovery is thinking time, not task time
 - **Don't force structure** - Let patterns emerge naturally