$ca-sprint — autonomous sprint

The autonomy mode. Brainstorm a sprint spec with the user — the one interactive gate — then execute the approved plan end-to-end without per-batch checkpoints, deciding "as the user" via SMARTS on every non-hard-gate point. Every auto-decision lands in .codearbiter/sprint-log.md (append-only) with a confidence flag; the low-confidence entries are exactly what the user reviews afterward. Nothing is hidden behind autonomy.

Flow

Load and follow SPRINT.md — it is the procedure. In brief:

1. Sprint spec (STOP) — brainstorming scoped to a sprint, then writing-plans. Explicit user approval of spec AND plan before autonomy begins.
2. Autonomous execution (BLOCK) — subagent-driven-development runs the plan; test-first via tdd, two-pass reviewed, fresh-run verified. SMARTS decides non-hard-gate points; everything logs.
3. Land & summarize (BLOCK) — commit-gate, then finishing-a-development-branch, which auto-selects open-PR. $ca-sprint never merges and never discards; the merge decision is the user's.

Hard gates — security-controls, crypto/secrets/auth, irreversible ops, /override, an unresolvable [CONFIRM-NN], merge-to-default — are NEVER auto-decided. They halt and surface.

Arguments

• "goal" — seed for the sprint-spec brainstorm.
• --farm — cost-arbitrage backend: cheap workers implement under the same gates; Claude still authors spec, failing tests, plan, and reviews everything. Pre-flights FARM_API_KEY.

Routes to

SPRINT.md (mode body), which routes through brainstorming, writing-plans, subagent-driven-development, commit-gate, finishing-a-development-branch.

When NOT to use

• A single feature with human checkpoints → $ca-feature.
• Work whose spec cannot be made concrete up front — the one interactive gate is load-bearing; a thin spec makes hard-gate stops frequent instead of rare.