User is expected to write "continue"?

[alexander]

Is it expected that user needs to prompt "continue" to iterate to next phases? Expected that all phases are iterated (and models are correctly redirected).

[leing2021]

Hi @alexander, thanks for the feedback!

This is intentional design, not a bug. Super Pi is a workflow discipline layer, not a fully autonomous agent. Keeping a "continue" gate between stages is a core design decision:

• Every stage artifact requires human confirmation: 01-brainstorm produces requirements, 02-plan produces the implementation plan. These drive hours of downstream code changes, so the cost of a wrong direction is too high to skip the user and advance automatically.
• Checkpoint/resume is designed around this: the system expects sessions to be interruptible.
• Automation already exists where it is bounded: e.g. the autofix loop in 04-review iterates automatically — that is the right granularity, low-risk with clear boundaries.

Practical usage suggestions:

• Between 01 → 02, automation is not recommended — requirement discovery and plan confirmation need you in the loop.
• After 03-work, if you want the remaining stages to run automatically, there are two ways:
  1. Simply tell Pi: "execute the remaining stages automatically"
  2. For a reusable approach: write it once as a prompt template, then invoke it with / whenever needed — Pi will follow the super-pi workflow and run through the remaining stages automatically.

One question to make sure we understand you correctly: are you expecting a single command that runs all five stages end-to-end? If so, that conflicts with the current design philosophy — we prefer to keep the "when to advance" control in the user's hands. If you ran into friction at specific stage boundaries in practice, please share the scenario and we'll look into improving it.