CalvinBackup/gstack
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git synced 2026-05-07 05:56:41 +02:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

feat: add distribution pipeline checks across skill workflow

Browse Source 
When designing CLI tools, libraries, or other standalone artifacts, the
workflow now checks whether a build/publish pipeline exists at every stage:

- /office-hours: Phase 3 premise challenge asks "how will users get it?"
  Design doc templates include a "Distribution Plan" section.

- /plan-eng-review: Step 0 Scope Challenge adds distribution check (#6).
  Architecture Review checks distribution architecture for new artifacts.

- /ship: New Step 1.5 detects new cmd/main.go additions and verifies a
  release workflow exists. Offers to add one or defer to TODOS.md.

- /review checklist: New "Distribution & CI/CD Pipeline" category in
  Pass 2 (INFORMATIONAL) covers CI version pins, cross-platform builds,
  publish idempotency, and version tag consistency.

Motivation: In a real project, we designed and shipped a complete CLI tool
(design doc, eng review, implementation, deployment) but forgot the CI/CD
release pipeline. The binary was built locally but never published — users
couldn't download it. This gap was invisible because no skill in the chain
asked "how does the artifact reach users?"

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
John Doe
2026-03-22 22:19:29 +08:00
parent dbd98aff32
commit 024fc5fea3
4 changed files with 59 additions and 2 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
office-hours/SKILL.md.tmpl
+11 -1
View File
@@ -334,7 +334,8 @@ Before proposing solutions, challenge the premises:
1. **Is this the right problem?** Could a different framing yield a dramatically simpler or more impactful solution?
2. **What happens if we do nothing?** Real pain point or hypothetical one?
3. **What existing code already partially solves this?** Map existing patterns, utilities, and flows that could be reused.
4. **Startup mode only:** Synthesize the diagnostic evidence from Phase 2A. Does it support this direction? Where are the gaps?
4. **If the deliverable is a new artifact** (CLI binary, library, package, container image, mobile app): **how will users get it?** Code without distribution is code nobody can use. The design must include a distribution channel (GitHub Releases, package manager, container registry, app store) and CI/CD pipeline — or explicitly defer it.
5. **Startup mode only:** Synthesize the diagnostic evidence from Phase 2A. Does it support this direction? Where are the gaps?
Output premises as clear statements the user must agree with before proceeding:
```
@@ -465,6 +466,11 @@ Supersedes: {prior filename — omit this line if first design on this branch}
## Success Criteria
{measurable criteria from Phase 2A}
## Distribution Plan
{how users get the deliverable — binary download, package manager, container image, web service, etc.}
{CI/CD pipeline for building and publishing — GitHub Actions, manual release, auto-deploy on merge?}
{omit this section if the deliverable is a web service with existing deployment pipeline}
## Dependencies
{blockers, prerequisites, related work}
@@ -514,6 +520,10 @@ Supersedes: {prior filename — omit this line if first design on this branch}
## Success Criteria
{what "done" looks like}
## Distribution Plan
{how users get the deliverable — binary download, package manager, container image, web service, etc.}
{CI/CD pipeline for building and publishing — or "existing deployment pipeline covers this"}
## Next Steps
{concrete build tasks — what to implement first, second, third}