What Now

An explicit-invocation workflow advisor, not a simulation of the maintainer.

1. Confirm the request

Proceed only when the user specifically invokes what-now, by name, slash command or the runtime's explicit skill expansion. A generic workflow question, source mention, quoted command, another skill's handoff or an agent's decision to load this file does not activate it. Without that user invocation, stop this procedure and leave the original request to its existing handler.

Identify the user's goal, current progress and whether they want discovery, diagnosis, writing, review or delivery advice. Ask only for consequential intent that the request and available context cannot settle.

Complete when: explicit user invocation is established and the question to advise on is clear, or this procedure has stopped without routing the request.

2. Inspect context and installed candidates

Read applicable project instructions and their relevant authority/workflow pointers. Reuse current context; inspect only what affects the recommendation. Distinguish project restrictions, existing approvals and missing permissions from personal preferences. The name “Nico” supplies no evidence of the maintainer's wishes.

Discover relevant candidates through the runtime's installed catalog or configured discovery locations. Catalog descriptions are leads, not proof. Before saying what a candidate does, recommending it or suggesting a step can be skipped, read its complete SKILL.md and any conditional references needed to establish that claim. Record its resolved source/path and revision or content digest when available. Inspect required companion availability when it affects whether the proposed route is usable; reading instructions is not invoking them.

Candidates may include external installed skills. A repository source directory alone does not establish installation. Do not assume a fixed installation tree, exhaustive catalog, capability from a name, or compatibility between same-named copies. If the entry cannot be read, report it as unverified rather than endorsing it. If competing copies or overlapping routes remain ambiguous, explain the distinction or ask the smallest necessary question.