name: qual-init description: Initialize a new qualitative research project with Socratic onboarding. Guides researchers through philosophical foundation establishment via interactive dialogue. Use when starting a new project, setting up epistemic stance, or configuring methodological preferences. type: flow
qual-init: Project Initialization Flow
Flow skill for Socratic onboarding into Interpretive Orchestration.
Flow Overview
flowchart TD
BEGIN([BEGIN]) --> CHECK{Project exists?}
CHECK -->|Yes| LOAD[Load existing config]
CHECK -->|No| CREATE[Create new project]
LOAD --> Q1[Question 1: Ontology]
CREATE --> Q1
Q1 --> SAVE1[Save checkpoint]
SAVE1 --> Q2[Question 2: Epistemology]
Q2 --> SAVE2[Save checkpoint]
SAVE2 --> Q3[Question 3: Methodology]
Q3 --> SAVE3[Save checkpoint]
SAVE3 --> Q4[Question 4: AI Relationship]
Q4 --> SAVE4[Save checkpoint]
SAVE4 --> Q5[Question 5: Stage 1 Plan]
Q5 --> GENERATE[Generate config.json + stance.md]
GENERATE --> STRUCTURE[Create folder structure]
STRUCTURE --> SUMMARY[Show summary + next steps]
SUMMARY --> END([END])
The 5 Questions
Q1: Ontology — What is "data"?
Question: When you read research data, what are you encountering?
Options:
- A) Objective facts waiting to be discovered (Realist)
- B) Meanings requiring systematic interpretation (Interpretivist) ← Default
- C) Co-created realities with participants (Constructivist)
- D) Let me think about this
Follow-up if D: Socratic dialogue to help researcher decide.
Q2: Epistemology — How do we know?
Question: How do you believe we can generate knowledge from qualitative data?
Options:
- A) Through rigorous objective analysis
- B) Through systematic interpretation balancing rigor and sensitivity ← Default
- C) Through co-construction with participants
- D) I'm not sure
Q3: Methodology — Your tradition
Question: Which qualitative tradition resonates with your approach?
Options:
- A) Gioia & Corley Systematic Interpretivism ← Default
- B) Charmaz Constructivist Grounded Theory
- C) Classic Glaserian Grounded Theory
- D) Phenomenology
- E) Ethnography
- F) Other / Not sure
Q4: AI Relationship
Question: How do you want AI to support your research?
Options:
- A) As a tool that automates tasks
- B) As a thinking partner that deepens my reflexivity ← Default
- C) I'm not sure what AI can offer
Teaching moment: Explain "calculator mindset" vs. "epistemic partnership"
Q5: Stage 1 Planning
Question: How will you approach Stage 1 (manual foundation building)?
Options:
- A) Full plan — I'll code 10-15 documents before AI collaboration ← Recommended
- B) Minimum — I'll try 5 documents first
- C) I don't have time for manual coding
Response if C: Explain why this matters, offer minimum viable path.
Savepoints
After each question, save checkpoint to .interpretive-orchestration/checkpoint.json:
{
"checkpoint_id": "q3_epistemology",
"responses": {
"q1": {"answer": "B", "elaboration": "..."},
"q2": {"answer": "B", "elaboration": "..."},
"q3": {"answer": "A", "elaboration": "..."}
},
"timestamp": "2026-01-15T10:30:00Z"
}
Generated Files
config.json
Machine-readable configuration based on responses.
epistemic-stance.md
Human-readable philosophical statement.
README.md
Project documentation with quick start.
Usage
/flow:qual-init # Start onboarding
/flow:qual-init --resume # Resume from checkpoint
/flow:qual-init --reconfigure # Re-run with existing config
Next Steps After Flow
After completion, researcher should:
- Review
epistemic-stance.md - Begin Stage 1 manual coding
- Use
@stage1-listenerfor thinking partnership - Complete 10-15 documents before Stage 2
Note: @stage1-listener routing works when you run Kimi with:
kimi --agent-file .agents/agents/interpretive-orchestrator.yaml
Part of Interpretive Orchestration for Kimi CLI