CalvinBackup/gstack
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git synced 2026-09-27 15:11:47 +02:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

v1.89.0.0 feat: add shared-code extraction audit (#2925)

Browse Source 
* feat: bind shared-code review advice to source and branch

* feat: add shared-code extraction audit and scoped review checks

* test: recognize complete source reads and explicit coverage legends

* chore: bump version and changelog (v1.88.0.0)

Co-Authored-By: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* test: capture native review questions and retain public evidence

Capture the actual first public native question with strict ownership and display matching. Preserve terminal failures and raw evidence, and retain SDK completion checks.

* test: recognize verified review evidence and complete fixtures

Recognize complete source and diagram evidence, concrete design and developer-experience decisions, and the complete planted scenario contracts. Preserve negative controls and grading thresholds.

* fix: preserve decision brief structure in native questions

Keep the required pros-and-cons heading and final Net field in native question text. Regenerate host outputs and document the release and evaluation repairs.

Co-Authored-By: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* docs: update project documentation for v1.88.0.0

Co-Authored-By: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* fix: correct eval retry accounting and ship workflow gates

* fix: capture native eval evidence and stabilize CI fixtures

* fix: keep shared-code eval skips read-only

Choose explicit no-change answers instead of mixed fix/preservation options.
Reuse the bounded revalidation prompt for path fixtures so required review
metadata is available without repeated discovery. Preserve source checks,
retry limits, and failed native terminal outcomes.

Add captured-question and callback regressions, plus evaluation selection
coverage for the affected fixtures.

---------

Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan
2026-09-24 01:53:58 -04:00
committed by GitHub
co-authored by OpenAI Codex
parent b9706f3635
commit 06ed920a97
177 changed files with 13244 additions and 2477 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
test/fixtures/context-budget.json
Vendored
+8 -7
View File
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
{
"_comment": "Context-budget ratchet ceilings (~tokens). Regenerate: bun test/helpers/capture-context-budget.ts. Headroom: alwaysOnTotal x1.05, eagerPerInvocation x1.1. Graded by test/context-budget-ratchet.test.ts via lib/context-bill.ts checkBudget.",
"alwaysOnTotal": 6397,
"alwaysOnTotal": 6465,
"eagerPerInvocation": {
"autoplan": 18022,
"benchmark": 7657,
@@ -17,15 +17,16 @@
"design-html": 14429,
"design-review": 34471,
"design-shotgun": 13856,
"devex-review": 20292,
"deslop-shared-libs": 3525,
"devex-review": 20242,
"diagram": 4279,
"document-generate": 12352,
"document-release": 10683,
"freeze": 990,
"gstack": 3976,
"gstack": 4011,
"gstack-upgrade": 4586,
"guard": 889,
"health": 10805,
"health": 11771,
"investigate": 12276,
"ios-clean": 8710,
"ios-design-review": 8891,
@@ -46,17 +47,17 @@
"plan-ceo-review": 20824,
"plan-design-review": 20648,
"plan-devex-review": 17884,
"plan-eng-review": 14930,
"plan-eng-review": 15037,
"plan-tune": 14761,
"qa": 15847,
"qa-only": 17218,
"retro": 19122,
"review": 16010,
"review": 19464,
"scrape": 6904,
"setup-browser-cookies": 3194,
"setup-deploy": 11557,
"setup-gbrain": 15554,
"ship": 20347,
"ship": 20297,
"skillify": 12196,
"spec": 14993,
"sync-gbrain": 13975,
test/fixtures/design-count-sep20-calls.json
Vendored
+341
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,341 @@
{
"provenance": {
"source": "2026-09-20 shared-libs ship periodic plan-design-finding-count retry",
"sourceLogSha256": "a7604146887bf04ef50aad495463c3bc639a24bd7cafa27db3eb1843490b528f",
"kind": "Exact completed public native question calls from the failed observation; no hidden reasoning.",
"outcome": "ceiling_reached",
"reviewCount": 8,
"expectedCeiling": 7,
"unseededHeaders": [
"Issue 3",
"Issue 7",
"Issue 8"
]
},
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "a55ade1a-0cdd-4811-9479-29db6282ad87",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01YA8ZvjXcqHcbzLWit9wVtY",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: main branch of the settings-page plan fixture; one-time gstack onboarding before the design review.\nELI10: gstack skills work best when CLAUDE.md tells the agent which slash skill matches which kind of request (bugs → /investigate, ship → /ship, and so on). Without it you invoke each skill by hand. This is a one-time setup prompt per project.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Wrong pick means either an unwanted CLAUDE.md section, or repeatedly typing skill names manually. Both are easy to reverse.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules save typing and make the review pipeline discoverable; note that plan mode blocks file edits, so the CLAUDE.md append and commit would happen after plan mode ends.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience of auto-routing vs keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Skills auto-route from natural requests, so you stop memorizing slash names. ✅ Makes the CEO/design/eng review pipeline discoverable to anyone on the repo. ❌ Adds a ~15-line section to CLAUDE.md; the append and commit must wait until plan mode exits."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, invoke manually",
"description": "✅ CLAUDE.md stays exactly as checked in, nothing extra to review. ✅ You keep full control over when a skill runs. ❌ Every skill has to be typed by name each time, and this prompt won't repeat for this project."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: main branch of the settings-page plan fixture; one-time gstack onboarding before the design review.\nELI10: gstack skills work best when CLAUDE.md tells the agent which slash skill matches which kind of request (bugs → /investigate, ship → /ship, and so on). Without it you invoke each skill by hand. This is a one-time setup prompt per project.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Wrong pick means either an unwanted CLAUDE.md section, or repeatedly typing skill names manually. Both are easy to reverse.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules save typing and make the review pipeline discoverable; note that plan mode blocks file edits, so the CLAUDE.md append and commit would happen after plan mode ends.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience of auto-routing vs keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.": "Add routing rules (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-20T18:36:49.788Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a55ade1a-0cdd-4811-9479-29db6282ad87",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01FGGnCKa72C27F8FoZgGqay",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 — Let gstack search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, settings-page plan review; one-time gstack learnings setup.\nELI10: gstack saves small lessons from each session (pitfalls, project quirks). It can search only this project's lessons, or also lessons from other repos on this machine. Nothing leaves your computer either way.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Cross-project on a multi-client machine could surface one client's quirks in another's review; project-only means fewer hints.\nRecommendation: A because this is a solo fixture repo with no client separation concern.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: more reusable hints vs strict per-repo isolation.",
"header": "Learnings",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Reviews can reuse patterns learned in your other repos on this machine. ✅ Stays local; no data leaves the machine. ❌ Lessons from unrelated codebases may occasionally surface as noise."
},
{
"label": "Project-scoped only",
"description": "✅ Strict isolation, right for machines that hold multiple client codebases. ✅ Zero chance of cross-repo hints appearing. ❌ Each repo starts from zero and learns more slowly."
}
]
},
{
"question": "D3 — Review all 7 design dimensions, or focus on specific ones?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings-page redesign rated 6/10 on design completeness.\nELI10: The plan already nails behavior. Its five listed gaps (Save not visually primary, uneven spacing, failing error contrast, three label sizes, no Save spinner) are the biggest holes, and each maps to a DESIGN.md token but still needs your call. You asked for all seven dimensions; I'll confirm that here so I don't narrow scope on my own.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Focusing too narrowly leaves a gap unreviewed; going wide costs a few more decision prompts.\nRecommendation: A because you asked for all seven and the five gaps span hierarchy, spacing, color, type, and motion anyway.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10\nNet: full coverage with a handful more prompts vs a shorter session that only fixes the five named gaps.",
"header": "Focus",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "All 7 dimensions (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Every pass gets a score and a fix path, including state coverage and the journey storyboard. ✅ Catches anything the five named gaps missed, such as the missing Export error state detail. ❌ More decision prompts, roughly one per unresolved finding."
},
{
"label": "Only the five named gaps",
"description": "✅ Fastest path: five decisions, then done. ✅ Each already has a DESIGN.md token to apply. ❌ Passes 2, 3, and 7 get a quick score only, so unlisted gaps stay unreviewed."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 — Let gstack search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, settings-page plan review; one-time gstack learnings setup.\nELI10: gstack saves small lessons from each session (pitfalls, project quirks). It can search only this project's lessons, or also lessons from other repos on this machine. Nothing leaves your computer either way.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Cross-project on a multi-client machine could surface one client's quirks in another's review; project-only means fewer hints.\nRecommendation: A because this is a solo fixture repo with no client separation concern.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: more reusable hints vs strict per-repo isolation.": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"D3 — Review all 7 design dimensions, or focus on specific ones?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings-page redesign rated 6/10 on design completeness.\nELI10: The plan already nails behavior. Its five listed gaps (Save not visually primary, uneven spacing, failing error contrast, three label sizes, no Save spinner) are the biggest holes, and each maps to a DESIGN.md token but still needs your call. You asked for all seven dimensions; I'll confirm that here so I don't narrow scope on my own.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Focusing too narrowly leaves a gap unreviewed; going wide costs a few more decision prompts.\nRecommendation: A because you asked for all seven and the five gaps span hierarchy, spacing, color, type, and motion anyway.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10\nNet: full coverage with a handful more prompts vs a shorter session that only fixes the five named gaps.": "All 7 dimensions (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-20T18:38:37.833Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a55ade1a-0cdd-4811-9479-29db6282ad87",
"toolUseId": "toolu_014BD1k8vjdBsHwzvDGegQRE",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 — Issue 1: How should the header action group signal that Save is the primary action?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 1 Information Architecture, gap G1.\nELI10: Save, Reset, Cancel and Export currently look identical. A user who just edited their email has to read all four labels to find the one that stores their change. Making one button visually dominant answers \"what do I see first\" without adding anything to the page. Principle: hierarchy as service; if everything shouts, nothing is heard.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Ship four look-alike buttons and users hesitate at the moment of highest intent, or misclick Reset next to Save.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already names the tokens (filled #1d4ed8 Save, neutral ghost for the other three) and the Button component has those variants, so this is a zero-invention fix.\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=8/10, 1C=2/10\nNet: one filled button with three ghosts uses the approved system; anything else is new visual exploration the plan explicitly excludes.",
"header": "Issue 1",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "1A Apply DESIGN.md tokens (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Save becomes the only filled button (#1d4ed8, white text); Reset, Cancel, Export become neutral ghost buttons with existing variants (human: ~30min / CC: ~3min). ✅ White-on-#1d4ed8 passes AA and matches the focus ring, so the hierarchy reads for color-blind users too. ❌ Export loses visual weight, which is correct for a rarely used action but worth confirming."
},
{
"label": "1B Filled Save plus outlined Export",
"description": "✅ Gives Export a middle tier so power users find the download faster. ✅ Still makes Save the single dominant control. ❌ Adds a third button style DESIGN.md does not define, which counts as visual exploration the plan rules out (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)."
},
{
"label": "1C Keep four identical buttons",
"description": "✅ No visual change to review or test. ✅ Zero implementation cost. ❌ Leaves the plan violating DESIGN.md and users scanning four labels at the moment they want to save."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 — Issue 1: How should the header action group signal that Save is the primary action?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 1 Information Architecture, gap G1.\nELI10: Save, Reset, Cancel and Export currently look identical. A user who just edited their email has to read all four labels to find the one that stores their change. Making one button visually dominant answers \"what do I see first\" without adding anything to the page. Principle: hierarchy as service; if everything shouts, nothing is heard.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Ship four look-alike buttons and users hesitate at the moment of highest intent, or misclick Reset next to Save.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already names the tokens (filled #1d4ed8 Save, neutral ghost for the other three) and the Button component has those variants, so this is a zero-invention fix.\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=8/10, 1C=2/10\nNet: one filled button with three ghosts uses the approved system; anything else is new visual exploration the plan explicitly excludes.": "1A Apply DESIGN.md tokens (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-20T18:39:09.487Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a55ade1a-0cdd-4811-9479-29db6282ad87",
"toolUseId": "toolu_019FsvN42ar1ctGn5M5sEUox",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 — Issue 2: What does the user see during the 2 to 5 second Save?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 2 state coverage, gap G5.\nELI10: Today the page freezes after clicking Save with no sign anything happened, so people click again or assume it broke. The plan lists \"spinner or skeleton\" as options but never picks one. The fix has to fit the accepted rule that pending feedback belongs to the Save button and the status live region stays quiet. Principle: visibility of system status (Nielsen); users muddle through, so the signal must be where their eyes already are.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A skeleton hides the fields the user just typed into and breaks \"preserve unsaved values\"; a status-line message double-announces to screen readers.\nRecommendation: 2A because DESIGN.md already defines the pattern, the Export button uses the same one, and it keeps the live region rule intact.\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=5/10, 2C=4/10\nNet: reuse the established in-button spinner vs invent a form-wide loading treatment that contradicts two accepted rules.",
"header": "Issue 2",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "2A In-button spinner beside “Saving…” (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Existing DESIGN.md pattern: inline spinner plus “Saving…” inside the aria-disabled Save button, aria-busy=true, static text under reduced motion (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min). ✅ Matches Export's pending state, so the two request buttons behave identically. ❌ The button label changes width slightly; reserve min-width so the row does not reflow."
},
{
"label": "2B Skeleton over the form while saving",
"description": "✅ Very obvious that something is happening. ✅ Reuses the existing loading skeleton component. ❌ Hides the values the user just entered and fights the accepted \"preserve unsaved values\" and \"do not move focus\" rules (human: ~2h / CC: ~10min)."
},
{
"label": "2C “Saving…” text in the InlineStatus line",
"description": "✅ One place for all status text. ✅ Trivial to implement. ❌ Directly contradicts the accepted rule that the live region stays unchanged while pending, and double-announces for screen reader users."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 — Issue 2: What does the user see during the 2 to 5 second Save?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 2 state coverage, gap G5.\nELI10: Today the page freezes after clicking Save with no sign anything happened, so people click again or assume it broke. The plan lists \"spinner or skeleton\" as options but never picks one. The fix has to fit the accepted rule that pending feedback belongs to the Save button and the status live region stays quiet. Principle: visibility of system status (Nielsen); users muddle through, so the signal must be where their eyes already are.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A skeleton hides the fields the user just typed into and breaks \"preserve unsaved values\"; a status-line message double-announces to screen readers.\nRecommendation: 2A because DESIGN.md already defines the pattern, the Export button uses the same one, and it keeps the live region rule intact.\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=5/10, 2C=4/10\nNet: reuse the established in-button spinner vs invent a form-wide loading treatment that contradicts two accepted rules.": "2A In-button spinner beside “Saving…” (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-20T18:40:10.840Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a55ade1a-0cdd-4811-9479-29db6282ad87",
"toolUseId": "toolu_011nY7e1xqcLFfwyBDn9DGsT",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 — Issue 3: What do the network-failure messages say for Save, Export, and initial load?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 2 state coverage, unlisted gap.\nELI10: The plan says a failed save, export, or load shows \"the error message\" next to a Retry button, but nobody has written the message. Left open, the engineer ships \"Something went wrong\" or a raw HTTP error. Good error copy says what happened, that the user's typing is safe, and what to do next. Principle: help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors (Nielsen); replenish the goodwill reservoir by telling them their work is safe.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Vague copy makes users think their edits were lost and retype or abandon; technical copy erodes trust.\nRecommendation: 3A because it fixes exact strings now in the plan's own voice (utility language, one sentence each) and confirms edits are kept, so implementation and tests have a single source.\nCompleteness: 3A=10/10, 3B=6/10, 3C=3/10\nNet: three short sentences decided now vs whatever the engineer types under deadline.",
"header": "Issue 3",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "3A Specify the three strings now (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Save: “Couldn’t save your changes. Your edits are still here.” Export: “Couldn’t prepare your export.” Load: “Couldn’t load your settings.” each with the existing error icon and a sibling Retry (human: ~20min / CC: ~2min). ✅ Names the recovery path and confirms unsaved values survive, matching the accepted preserve-edits rule. ❌ Copy may still get a wording pass from whoever owns product voice."
},
{
"label": "3B One generic string for all three",
"description": "✅ Single string to translate and test: “Something went wrong. Try again.” ✅ Fastest to implement. ❌ Does not tell the user whether their edits survived, which is the one thing they want to know after a failed save."
},
{
"label": "3C Leave copy to implementation",
"description": "✅ No decision needed now. ✅ Zero plan edits. ❌ The plan stays ambiguous on a user-visible string and the QA pass has nothing to assert against."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D6 — Issue 3: What do the network-failure messages say for Save, Export, and initial load?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 2 state coverage, unlisted gap.\nELI10: The plan says a failed save, export, or load shows \"the error message\" next to a Retry button, but nobody has written the message. Left open, the engineer ships \"Something went wrong\" or a raw HTTP error. Good error copy says what happened, that the user's typing is safe, and what to do next. Principle: help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors (Nielsen); replenish the goodwill reservoir by telling them their work is safe.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Vague copy makes users think their edits were lost and retype or abandon; technical copy erodes trust.\nRecommendation: 3A because it fixes exact strings now in the plan's own voice (utility language, one sentence each) and confirms edits are kept, so implementation and tests have a single source.\nCompleteness: 3A=10/10, 3B=6/10, 3C=3/10\nNet: three short sentences decided now vs whatever the engineer types under deadline.": "3A Specify the three strings now (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-20T18:40:54.075Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a55ade1a-0cdd-4811-9479-29db6282ad87",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01H8kFd8awCUoExFGLT8Z5Nb",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D7 — Issue 4: Which vertical spacing rhythm should the form use?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 5 design system alignment, gap G2.\nELI10: Section gaps are currently 24px in some places, 32px in others, and 16px in a third. Uneven gaps make related things look unrelated and vice versa, so the eye cannot tell where Profile ends and Notifications begins. DESIGN.md already sets an 8px scale: 32px between sections, 24px between field groups, 8px from label to input. Principle: Gestalt proximity; spacing is how the layout says \"these belong together\".\nStakes if we pick wrong: Users misread grouping, and every future field added to the form inherits a different gap.\nRecommendation: 4A because the tokens exist and the fix is three CSS values on the existing fieldset, field, and label rules.\nCompleteness: 4A=10/10, 4B=7/10, 4C=2/10\nNet: adopt the approved 32/24/8 scale vs keep today's mixture or invent a tighter one.",
"header": "Issue 4",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "4A Apply DESIGN.md 32/24/8 scale (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Sections 32px apart, field groups 24px, label-to-input 8px, all multiples of the 8px base (human: ~30min / CC: ~3min). ✅ Also applies to the header: 24px from action group to InlineStatus and 32px from status to the first fieldset, so the whole column shares one rhythm. ❌ Slightly taller page than the 16px variant on a 320px viewport; no horizontal impact."
},
{
"label": "4B Tighter 24/16/8 scale",
"description": "✅ Shorter page on small screens. ✅ Still a consistent 8px-based rhythm. ❌ Departs from the DESIGN.md tokens, so this form would differ from every other settings surface that follows them (human: ~30min / CC: ~3min)."
},
{
"label": "4C Leave spacing as is",
"description": "✅ No CSS change. ✅ No visual regression risk on the current layout. ❌ Keeps three different section gaps and the plan stays out of line with DESIGN.md."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D7 — Issue 4: Which vertical spacing rhythm should the form use?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 5 design system alignment, gap G2.\nELI10: Section gaps are currently 24px in some places, 32px in others, and 16px in a third. Uneven gaps make related things look unrelated and vice versa, so the eye cannot tell where Profile ends and Notifications begins. DESIGN.md already sets an 8px scale: 32px between sections, 24px between field groups, 8px from label to input. Principle: Gestalt proximity; spacing is how the layout says \"these belong together\".\nStakes if we pick wrong: Users misread grouping, and every future field added to the form inherits a different gap.\nRecommendation: 4A because the tokens exist and the fix is three CSS values on the existing fieldset, field, and label rules.\nCompleteness: 4A=10/10, 4B=7/10, 4C=2/10\nNet: adopt the approved 32/24/8 scale vs keep today's mixture or invent a tighter one.": "4A Apply DESIGN.md 32/24/8 scale (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-20T18:42:33.756Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a55ade1a-0cdd-4811-9479-29db6282ad87",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Hn3gx75i3mGztAye3ZFXBK",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D8 — Issue 5: How many text sizes should the form use, and which?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 5 design system alignment, gap G4.\nELI10: Labels currently come in 14px, 16px, and 18px with no rule for which is which, so size stops meaning anything. DESIGN.md defines two roles: 16px for body, labels, and helper text, and 20px for the Profile and Notifications headings. Fewer sizes with a clear jump makes the hierarchy readable at a glance. Principle: flat or arbitrary type hierarchy is noise; users scan, and size is the first cue they read.\nStakes if we pick wrong: 14px text fails the plan's own no-small-type rule on a 320px phone, and three sizes leave every new field guessing.\nRecommendation: 5A because it matches DESIGN.md exactly, drops the 14px size that hurts legibility, and the h1 keeps the existing shell size.\nCompleteness: 5A=10/10, 5B=6/10, 5C=2/10\nNet: two roles from the approved system vs a bespoke three-tier scale that needs its own rulebook.",
"header": "Issue 5",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "5A Two roles: 16px text, 20px section headings (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Labels, inputs, helper text, status, error copy and button labels all 16px; Profile and Notifications h2 at 20px; h1 keeps the shell size (human: ~30min / CC: ~3min). ✅ Nothing below 16px, so body text passes the universal small-type rule on every viewport. ❌ Helper text loses its current 14px de-emphasis; use color contrast within AA rather than size to make it quieter."
},
{
"label": "5B Three roles: 14px helper, 16px labels, 20px headings",
"description": "✅ Keeps a visibly smaller helper text tier some teams prefer. ✅ Still removes the stray 18px label size. ❌ 14px helper text sits below the 16px body-text floor and adds a role DESIGN.md does not define (human: ~45min / CC: ~4min)."
},
{
"label": "5C Leave sizes as they are",
"description": "✅ No change to review. ✅ No risk of wrapping differences at 320px. ❌ Three unexplained label sizes remain and the plan stays inconsistent with DESIGN.md."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D8 — Issue 5: How many text sizes should the form use, and which?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 5 design system alignment, gap G4.\nELI10: Labels currently come in 14px, 16px, and 18px with no rule for which is which, so size stops meaning anything. DESIGN.md defines two roles: 16px for body, labels, and helper text, and 20px for the Profile and Notifications headings. Fewer sizes with a clear jump makes the hierarchy readable at a glance. Principle: flat or arbitrary type hierarchy is noise; users scan, and size is the first cue they read.\nStakes if we pick wrong: 14px text fails the plan's own no-small-type rule on a 320px phone, and three sizes leave every new field guessing.\nRecommendation: 5A because it matches DESIGN.md exactly, drops the 14px size that hurts legibility, and the h1 keeps the existing shell size.\nCompleteness: 5A=10/10, 5B=6/10, 5C=2/10\nNet: two roles from the approved system vs a bespoke three-tier scale that needs its own rulebook.": "5A Two roles: 16px text, 20px section headings (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-20T18:43:27.090Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a55ade1a-0cdd-4811-9479-29db6282ad87",
"toolUseId": "toolu_011tirX2ENtfDpANQhU651eP",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D9 — Issue 6: How should error messages be colored so they pass WCAG AA?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 6 accessibility, gap G3.\nELI10: The error text is red on light pink at about 3:1 contrast. WCAG AA needs 4.5:1 for text that size, so people with low vision or a dim phone screen cannot read the one message telling them what went wrong. DESIGN.md already defines error.text #991b1b on error.surface #fef2f2 (about 7.6:1) with an icon and explicit text, so the state never depends on color alone. Principle: accessibility is not optional; trust is earned at the pixel level, and the error moment is where trust is most fragile.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Failed saves become unreadable for the users most likely to need the message, and the plan ships a known AA failure.\nRecommendation: 6A because the tokens exist, exceed AA with margin, and the icon plus text already satisfy the no-color-alone rule.\nCompleteness: 6A=10/10, 6B=8/10, 6C=1/10\nNet: apply the approved error tokens vs hand-tune a new red that still needs its own contrast check.",
"header": "Issue 6",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "6A Apply error.text #991b1b on error.surface #fef2f2 (recommended)",
"description": "✅ About 7.6:1 contrast, comfortably above the 4.5:1 AA floor, with the existing error icon and explicit text so color is never the only cue (human: ~20min / CC: ~2min). ✅ Same tokens for field errors, the error summary, and the inline network-error area, so all three read as one system. ❌ Darker red reads heavier than the current pink treatment; that weight is appropriate for an error."
},
{
"label": "6B Keep pink surface, darken text only",
"description": "✅ Minimal visual shift from today. ✅ Can reach AA by picking a darker red on the existing pink. ❌ Introduces a second red that is not a DESIGN.md token and must be contrast-measured separately (human: ~30min / CC: ~5min)."
},
{
"label": "6C Leave the current colors",
"description": "✅ No change. ✅ No visual regression. ❌ Ships a measured WCAG AA failure on the most important message in the form."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D9 — Issue 6: How should error messages be colored so they pass WCAG AA?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 6 accessibility, gap G3.\nELI10: The error text is red on light pink at about 3:1 contrast. WCAG AA needs 4.5:1 for text that size, so people with low vision or a dim phone screen cannot read the one message telling them what went wrong. DESIGN.md already defines error.text #991b1b on error.surface #fef2f2 (about 7.6:1) with an icon and explicit text, so the state never depends on color alone. Principle: accessibility is not optional; trust is earned at the pixel level, and the error moment is where trust is most fragile.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Failed saves become unreadable for the users most likely to need the message, and the plan ships a known AA failure.\nRecommendation: 6A because the tokens exist, exceed AA with margin, and the icon plus text already satisfy the no-color-alone rule.\nCompleteness: 6A=10/10, 6B=8/10, 6C=1/10\nNet: apply the approved error tokens vs hand-tune a new red that still needs its own contrast check.": "6A Apply error.text #991b1b on error.surface #fef2f2 (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-20T18:44:20.430Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a55ade1a-0cdd-4811-9479-29db6282ad87",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01CraZfgsGShEKqe7jE2um2L",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D10 — Issue 7: Should Save be enabled when the form has no unsaved changes?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 7 unresolved decisions.\nELI10: The plan says dirty state must not rely on whether Save is enabled, but it never says whether Save IS enabled on a clean form. If enabled, a click re-sends identical values and the timestamp changes, which is harmless but odd. If disabled, the primary button greys out on arrival and the row of four has no filled control until the user types. Principle: users muddle through; a primary button that does nothing, or that sometimes cannot be reached, both cost goodwill.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Either a confusing greyed-out primary on page load, or a Save that appears to do something when nothing changed.\nRecommendation: 7A because the page's visual anchor stays present, keyboard users always have a focusable Save, and the accepted status text already tells them there is nothing pending.\nCompleteness: 7A=9/10, 7B=8/10\nNet: a stable, always-available primary that no-ops cleanly vs a primary that greys out to signal cleanliness the status line already communicates.",
"header": "Issue 7",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "7A Save stays enabled; clean click is a no-op (recommended)",
"description": "✅ The filled Save is always visible and focusable, so the header hierarchy from Decision 1 holds on page load and after a save (human: ~30min / CC: ~3min). ✅ A clean click sends no request and changes nothing, including the “Saved at” timestamp, so the status stays truthful. ❌ Some users expect a press to do something; the unchanged status is the only feedback."
},
{
"label": "7B Save disabled when clean",
"description": "✅ Makes “nothing to save” obvious at a glance for sighted users. ✅ Mirrors how Reset is already disabled when clean. ❌ Primary button greys out on arrival and aria-disabled state churn adds screen reader noise; the plan already says enabled state must not carry dirty meaning (human: ~30min / CC: ~3min)."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D10 — Issue 7: Should Save be enabled when the form has no unsaved changes?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 7 unresolved decisions.\nELI10: The plan says dirty state must not rely on whether Save is enabled, but it never says whether Save IS enabled on a clean form. If enabled, a click re-sends identical values and the timestamp changes, which is harmless but odd. If disabled, the primary button greys out on arrival and the row of four has no filled control until the user types. Principle: users muddle through; a primary button that does nothing, or that sometimes cannot be reached, both cost goodwill.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Either a confusing greyed-out primary on page load, or a Save that appears to do something when nothing changed.\nRecommendation: 7A because the page's visual anchor stays present, keyboard users always have a focusable Save, and the accepted status text already tells them there is nothing pending.\nCompleteness: 7A=9/10, 7B=8/10\nNet: a stable, always-available primary that no-ops cleanly vs a primary that greys out to signal cleanliness the status line already communicates.": "7A Save stays enabled; clean click is a no-op (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-20T18:45:15.804Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a55ade1a-0cdd-4811-9479-29db6282ad87",
"toolUseId": "toolu_018E4ENQbQqKbWEWoLD5oEcm",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D11 — Issue 8: What filename should the Export download use?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 7 unresolved decisions.\nELI10: Export downloads the saved preferences as JSON, but the plan never names the file. Left open, the browser saves it as download.json or whatever the server emits, and a user with several exports cannot tell them apart in their Downloads folder. Principle: the design does not end at the viewport; the file on disk is the last thing the user sees from this feature.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Indistinguishable or cryptic files erode trust in the export and generate support questions.\nRecommendation: 8A because a fixed prefix plus the local date is readable, sortable, safe on every filesystem, and needs no personal data in the name.\nCompleteness: 8A=10/10, 8B=7/10, 8C=2/10\nNet: a predictable dated name decided now vs whatever the download attribute defaults to.",
"header": "Issue 8",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "8A account-settings-YYYY-MM-DD.json (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Readable, sorts chronologically, and contains no email or display name, so nothing personal leaks into a filename (human: ~15min / CC: ~2min). ✅ Date uses the user's local calendar day, consistent with the local-time “Saved at” timestamp. ❌ Two exports on the same day get the same name; the browser appends (1), which is acceptable."
},
{
"label": "8B account-settings.json",
"description": "✅ Shortest, simplest name. ✅ Trivial to implement and test. ❌ Every export collides in the Downloads folder and the user cannot tell which is current (human: ~10min / CC: ~1min)."
},
{
"label": "8C Leave to implementation",
"description": "✅ No decision now. ✅ No plan edit. ❌ Ships as download.json or a server default, and QA has nothing to assert."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D11 — Issue 8: What filename should the Export download use?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 7 unresolved decisions.\nELI10: Export downloads the saved preferences as JSON, but the plan never names the file. Left open, the browser saves it as download.json or whatever the server emits, and a user with several exports cannot tell them apart in their Downloads folder. Principle: the design does not end at the viewport; the file on disk is the last thing the user sees from this feature.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Indistinguishable or cryptic files erode trust in the export and generate support questions.\nRecommendation: 8A because a fixed prefix plus the local date is readable, sortable, safe on every filesystem, and needs no personal data in the name.\nCompleteness: 8A=10/10, 8B=7/10, 8C=2/10\nNet: a predictable dated name decided now vs whatever the download attribute defaults to.": "8A account-settings-YYYY-MM-DD.json (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-20T18:45:49.550Z"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/design-count-sep21-confirm-first-call.json
Vendored
+41
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
{
"provenance": {
"source": "September 21 fresh plan-design-finding-count confirmation",
"runId": "shared-libs-design-confirm-sep21",
"sourceCallSha256": "129093ff57df4abafb2184384525bde132620981e3dae7c7b5e756e45582fe1f"
},
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "6001f9ea-6d4b-44e0-a37c-3598680da835",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01VRFDkXuLgHgy7cVBmWBpe4",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Issue 1 Save",
"question": "D1 — Issue 1: Save is indistinguishable from Reset/Cancel/Export in the header. How should the plan fix it?\n\nProject/branch/task: main branch, design review of the account-settings form plan against DESIGN.md.\nELI10: Four buttons in a row all look the same, so someone who just changed their email has to read every label to find the one that keeps their work. Design principle: hierarchy as service — the user should see first, second, third without thinking. Right now nothing is first.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users mis-hit Reset or Cancel next to Save and lose edits, or hesitate on every save. Either drains the goodwill reservoir on the page whose whole job is confidence.\nRecommendation: A because DESIGN.md already names the exact treatment, so this is a one-token change with no new visual exploration.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=0/10\nNet: A restores a single filled primary for one CSS token; B nudges weight only and still fails the DESIGN.md rule; C leaves the top gap in the plan open.",
"options": [
{
"label": "1A Filled primary Save (recommended)",
"description": "Save becomes the only filled primary (#1d4ed8, white text). Reset, Cancel, Export become neutral ghost buttons. Same DOM order, same 44px geometry. (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min) ✅ Matches DESIGN.md exactly; one primary per page. ✅ Works at 320px because the mobile stack already puts Save first. ❌ Ghost buttons need their own hover/disabled states verified for contrast."
},
{
"label": "1B Bold label only",
"description": "Keep all four the same size and color; bold Save's label weight only. (human: ~15min / CC: ~2min) ✅ Smallest diff, no new button variant. ✅ Keeps the current visual calm. ❌ Weight-only emphasis is weak at a glance and still violates DESIGN.md's filled-primary rule."
},
{
"label": "1C Defer",
"description": "Leave the four buttons uniform for now and record it as unresolved design debt. ✅ Zero work in this PR. ✅ Can be revisited with a live /design-review after ship. ❌ Ships a form with no clear primary action, the most visible gap in the plan."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Issue 1: Save is indistinguishable from Reset/Cancel/Export in the header. How should the plan fix it?\n\nProject/branch/task: main branch, design review of the account-settings form plan against DESIGN.md.\nELI10: Four buttons in a row all look the same, so someone who just changed their email has to read every label to find the one that keeps their work. Design principle: hierarchy as service — the user should see first, second, third without thinking. Right now nothing is first.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users mis-hit Reset or Cancel next to Save and lose edits, or hesitate on every save. Either drains the goodwill reservoir on the page whose whole job is confidence.\nRecommendation: A because DESIGN.md already names the exact treatment, so this is a one-token change with no new visual exploration.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=0/10\nNet: A restores a single filled primary for one CSS token; B nudges weight only and still fails the DESIGN.md rule; C leaves the top gap in the plan open.": "1A Filled primary Save (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-21T17:22:25.728Z"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/design-count-sep21-declared-first-call.json
Vendored
+41
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
{
"provenance": {
"source": "September 21 final design-count diagnostic",
"runId": "shared-libs-design-final-sep21",
"sourceCallSha256": "a377c46b875e3c22841403a75aa088e363882249622a8351591c05e0bd7fb529"
},
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "f88caf33-9daa-4975-b2be-584db7424e05",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01KHwBM18zikG3ooKJQYyPo7",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 — Issue 1: Save has no visual primacy in the header action group\nProject/branch/task: main — account-settings form update reviewed against DESIGN.md.\nELI10: Four buttons sit in a row and all look the same. The person who just edited their email has to read every label to find the one that keeps their work. DESIGN.md already says Save is the only filled blue button and the other three are quiet ghost buttons, but the proposed form ignores that. Nothing else on the page tells them which action is the safe, expected one.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users misclick Reset or Cancel next to Save and hit a discard dialog, or hesitate on every save; the header reads as noise rather than hierarchy.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already defines the exact tokens and the Button component already has both variants, so this is zero new design and restores the scan order (title → Save → status).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=3/10, C=7/10\nPrinciple: Visual hierarchy is everything — if everything shouts, nothing is heard.\nNet: we are trading a one-token change for whether the page has a primary action at all.",
"header": "Issue 1",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "1A — Save filled primary, others ghost (Recommended)",
"description": "✅ Matches DESIGN.md exactly: Save #1d4ed8 with white text, Reset/Cancel/Export neutral ghost buttons, 44px targets unchanged. ✅ Reuses the existing Button variants; no new component or exploration (human: ~30min / CC: ~3min). ❌ Export loses visual weight even though some users come only to download."
},
{
"label": "1B — Keep four identical buttons, rely on Save being first",
"description": "✅ Zero visual change to the current form; nothing to re-verify. ✅ Position still gives Save a mild advantage in tab order and scan order. ❌ Violates DESIGN.md and leaves the primary action indistinguishable at a glance, especially at 640px where all four are the same width."
},
{
"label": "1C — Save filled primary, Export outlined secondary, Reset/Cancel ghost",
"description": "✅ Gives Export a middle tier so download-only visitors still find it quickly. ✅ Save remains the single filled anchor, preserving the primary scan target. ❌ Introduces a third button tier DESIGN.md does not define, so it needs a new token and a DESIGN.md amendment (human: ~2h / CC: ~10min)."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 — Issue 1: Save has no visual primacy in the header action group\nProject/branch/task: main — account-settings form update reviewed against DESIGN.md.\nELI10: Four buttons sit in a row and all look the same. The person who just edited their email has to read every label to find the one that keeps their work. DESIGN.md already says Save is the only filled blue button and the other three are quiet ghost buttons, but the proposed form ignores that. Nothing else on the page tells them which action is the safe, expected one.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users misclick Reset or Cancel next to Save and hit a discard dialog, or hesitate on every save; the header reads as noise rather than hierarchy.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already defines the exact tokens and the Button component already has both variants, so this is zero new design and restores the scan order (title → Save → status).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=3/10, C=7/10\nPrinciple: Visual hierarchy is everything — if everything shouts, nothing is heard.\nNet: we are trading a one-token change for whether the page has a primary action at all.": "1A — Save filled primary, others ghost (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-21T17:39:30.327Z"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/design-count-sep21-first-call.json
Vendored
+43
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
{
"provenance": {
"source": "September 21 bounded plan-design-finding-count confirmation",
"runId": "shared-libs-design-count-sep21",
"observedReviewCount": 0,
"observedStep0Count": 6,
"sourceCallSha256": "e56b9c057b1a69193d2a932eafac5ca81c8dbe8ed21009d147adc59c881b2052"
},
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "1a7d5895-da78-46d8-9fa9-e8b681038344",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Fes64xV7Kq6QiS9HH49Drc",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Issue 1: Save is visually identical to Reset, Cancel, and Export. How should the primary action be distinguished?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-PXjOyl on main, design review of PLAN.md (Settings Page UI redesign).\nELI10: Four buttons in a row all look the same, so the person has to read every label to find the one they came for. Making Save the only filled button turns a reading task into a glance. The stakes: mis-taps on Reset or Cancel open a discard dialog, and the page reads as unfinished.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users hesitate at the action row or hit a secondary action, and the redesign ships looking like the old form.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already names the token (filled #1d4ed8 with white text, ghosts for the rest) and the existing Button component supports it. Principle: hierarchy as service. \nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nNet: 1A applies the approved system; 1B and 1C invent something DESIGN.md does not sanction.",
"header": "Save primary",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "1A: Filled Save, ghost others (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Matches DESIGN.md exactly: Save filled #1d4ed8 with white text, Reset/Cancel/Export neutral ghost buttons. ✅ Uses existing Button variants; no new styles, 44px geometry and focus ring unchanged. ❌ Ghost buttons rely on the existing Button component's neutral text color meeting AA; verify in QA. (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)"
},
{
"label": "1B: Filled Save plus visual divider before Export",
"description": "✅ Also separates the non-destructive Export from the two discard actions. ✅ Keeps DOM and tab order intact. ❌ Adds a divider element DESIGN.md does not define, so it needs its own token and responsive rule at 640px. ❌ More chrome on an already busy header row. (human: ~2h / CC: ~10min)"
},
{
"label": "1C: Keep four equal buttons, bold the Save label only",
"description": "✅ Smallest change to the existing markup and stylesheet. ✅ No color work, so no contrast verification needed. ❌ Weight alone is a weak signal at a glance and violates DESIGN.md, which names Save the only filled action. ❌ Leaves the primary action undiscoverable for scanning users. (human: ~20min / CC: ~2min)"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Issue 1: Save is visually identical to Reset, Cancel, and Export. How should the primary action be distinguished?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-PXjOyl on main, design review of PLAN.md (Settings Page UI redesign).\nELI10: Four buttons in a row all look the same, so the person has to read every label to find the one they came for. Making Save the only filled button turns a reading task into a glance. The stakes: mis-taps on Reset or Cancel open a discard dialog, and the page reads as unfinished.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users hesitate at the action row or hit a secondary action, and the redesign ships looking like the old form.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already names the token (filled #1d4ed8 with white text, ghosts for the rest) and the existing Button component supports it. Principle: hierarchy as service. \nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nNet: 1A applies the approved system; 1B and 1C invent something DESIGN.md does not sanction.": "1A: Filled Save, ghost others (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-21T17:11:29.350Z"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/design-count-sep21-header-first-call.json
Vendored
+41
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
{
"provenance": {
"source": "September 21 design-count facts diagnostic",
"runId": "shared-libs-design-facts-sep21",
"sourceCallSha256": "37ff256f4b3485c59bf9e823bfa1b4d2c79e39757fdb68397339041b416126c2"
},
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "f46fbe04-3291-4d12-98d7-bddda43b1681",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015hpK1GGLDc2UpK1e8RRodu",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Issue 1: Save",
"question": "D1 — Should Save become the only filled primary action in the header, per DESIGN.md?\n\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count on main, account-settings form conformance update.\nELI10: Right now Save, Reset, Cancel and Export look identical. A user scanning the header cannot tell which one finishes their task, and Reset and Cancel are destructive-ish choices sitting at the same visual weight as Save. Users satisfice: they click the first plausible button. Equal weight makes a wrong click as likely as a right one.\nStakes if we pick wrong: accidental Reset/Cancel taps on mobile, and a “which button do I press?” pause on every visit that drains goodwill.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already names the exact tokens and it keeps one accent color on the page (Hierarchy as service; Use conventions).\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=8/10, 1C=2/10\nNet: one filled button versus a second tier that DESIGN.md does not define, versus leaving the page with no primary action.",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "1A) DESIGN.md primary (recommended)",
"description": "Save: filled #1d4ed8 with white text, 44px. Reset, Cancel, Export: neutral ghost buttons. ✅ Uses the exact approved tokens; nothing new to design or maintain. ✅ Single accent color keeps the header calm and the primary action obvious in a 3-second scan. ❌ Export loses any visual distinction from the two discard actions; its label must carry the meaning alone. (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)"
},
{
"label": "1B) Three tiers: filled, outlined, ghost",
"description": "Save filled #1d4ed8; Export outlined #1d4ed8 border; Reset and Cancel ghost. ✅ Separates the non-destructive Export from the two discard actions at a glance. ✅ Still leaves Save as the only filled button. ❌ Adds a button variant DESIGN.md does not define, so it needs a new token and a DESIGN.md amendment. ❌ Two blue elements in one row compete for the first glance. (human: ~3h / CC: ~15min)"
},
{
"label": "1C) Keep four equal buttons",
"description": "No change; rely on position (Save first) alone. ✅ Zero implementation cost. ✅ No risk of visual drift from the current build. ❌ Leaves a known DESIGN.md violation and no primary action; on 640px and below, Save is full-width but still looks like the others. ❌ Lowers Pass 1 and Pass 5 final scores."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Should Save become the only filled primary action in the header, per DESIGN.md?\n\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count on main, account-settings form conformance update.\nELI10: Right now Save, Reset, Cancel and Export look identical. A user scanning the header cannot tell which one finishes their task, and Reset and Cancel are destructive-ish choices sitting at the same visual weight as Save. Users satisfice: they click the first plausible button. Equal weight makes a wrong click as likely as a right one.\nStakes if we pick wrong: accidental Reset/Cancel taps on mobile, and a “which button do I press?” pause on every visit that drains goodwill.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already names the exact tokens and it keeps one accent color on the page (Hierarchy as service; Use conventions).\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=8/10, 1C=2/10\nNet: one filled button versus a second tier that DESIGN.md does not define, versus leaving the page with no primary action.": "1A) DESIGN.md primary (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-21T18:09:29.711Z"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/devex-seed-sep21-calls.json
Vendored
+186
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,186 @@
{
"source": {
"runId": "shared-libs-dx-repro-2026-09-21",
"captureAt": "2026-09-21T17:15:53.984Z",
"capture": ".context/shared-libs-ship-paid-results/dx-repro/pty-count/shared-libs-dx-repro-2026-09-21/plan-devex-review-1790010406415-8VXR4w/observation.json",
"note": "Exact completed public native D3-D7 calls; retained during the diagnostic run. This fixture establishes parser behavior, not a paid passing result."
},
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "e9a0749c-b8ca-495d-89dd-79fbf3e7bec2",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01JGLhZ5V8qQE3X6bBKBWF9d",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 — Journey stage HELLO WORLD: the quickstart command points at a file that does not ship\nProject/branch/task: EvalKit SDK beta polish on main; first-run path after pip install.\nELI10: README.md line 11 tells the developer to run `python examples/first_eval.py`. docs/package-contents.txt shows the published wheel contains evalkit/__init__.py, client.py, demo.py, sample_responses.json and README.md. There is no examples/ directory in the package or the examples archive. The very first command in the quickstart fails with 'No such file or directory'. The working demo, `python -m evalkit.demo`, is three paragraphs lower.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the first command a developer types fails, and the README loses credibility before the SDK has shown a single score. That's a minute-one abandon.\nRecommendation: A because the demo module is already shipped, tested, and is the approved delivery vehicle. One golden path beats two; a broken second path is worse than none.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=8/10, C=4/10, D=1/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Make `python -m evalkit.demo` the quickstart command; delete the examples/first_eval.py reference (recommended)\n ✅ Every command in the quickstart runs against the published package inventory as it exists today\n ✅ Single golden path; the approved terminal demo becomes the first thing the developer types (human: ~1 hour / CC: ~2 min)\n ❌ Loses a copy-pasteable script the developer can open and edit as a starting point for their own eval\nB) Ship examples/first_eval.py in the package and archive so the current README command works\n ✅ Gives the developer an editable file that mirrors what they will write for their own dataset\n ✅ Keeps the existing README wording and any external links to it intact\n ❌ Two first-run paths (script plus demo module) means two things to keep working; package data inclusion is easy to regress (human: ~half day / CC: ~15 min)\nC) Keep the reference but tell developers to download the example from the repo first\n ✅ No package change; ships this week\n ✅ Repo example can evolve independently of the wheel\n ❌ Adds a clone-or-download step before hello world, which is the opposite of the under-2-minute target\nD) Acceptable friction, skip\n ✅ Zero work\n ✅ Developers who read the whole README find the demo anyway\n ❌ First quickstart command fails; this alone can cost the majority of first-time developers\nNet: I'm trading an editable starter file against a quickstart whose first command is guaranteed to run.",
"header": "Quickstart",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Point quickstart at evalkit.demo (recommended)",
"description": "README quickstart becomes: pip install, then python -m evalkit.demo. Remove the examples/first_eval.py reference."
},
{
"label": "Ship examples/first_eval.py",
"description": "Add the file to the wheel and examples archive; keep the README command as is."
},
{
"label": "Tell devs to download the example",
"description": "Keep the reference; add a download/clone step to the README."
},
{
"label": "Acceptable friction, skip",
"description": "Leave the README and package as they are."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 — Journey stage HELLO WORLD: the quickstart command points at a file that does not ship\nProject/branch/task: EvalKit SDK beta polish on main; first-run path after pip install.\nELI10: README.md line 11 tells the developer to run `python examples/first_eval.py`. docs/package-contents.txt shows the published wheel contains evalkit/__init__.py, client.py, demo.py, sample_responses.json and README.md. There is no examples/ directory in the package or the examples archive. The very first command in the quickstart fails with 'No such file or directory'. The working demo, `python -m evalkit.demo`, is three paragraphs lower.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the first command a developer types fails, and the README loses credibility before the SDK has shown a single score. That's a minute-one abandon.\nRecommendation: A because the demo module is already shipped, tested, and is the approved delivery vehicle. One golden path beats two; a broken second path is worse than none.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=8/10, C=4/10, D=1/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Make `python -m evalkit.demo` the quickstart command; delete the examples/first_eval.py reference (recommended)\n ✅ Every command in the quickstart runs against the published package inventory as it exists today\n ✅ Single golden path; the approved terminal demo becomes the first thing the developer types (human: ~1 hour / CC: ~2 min)\n ❌ Loses a copy-pasteable script the developer can open and edit as a starting point for their own eval\nB) Ship examples/first_eval.py in the package and archive so the current README command works\n ✅ Gives the developer an editable file that mirrors what they will write for their own dataset\n ✅ Keeps the existing README wording and any external links to it intact\n ❌ Two first-run paths (script plus demo module) means two things to keep working; package data inclusion is easy to regress (human: ~half day / CC: ~15 min)\nC) Keep the reference but tell developers to download the example from the repo first\n ✅ No package change; ships this week\n ✅ Repo example can evolve independently of the wheel\n ❌ Adds a clone-or-download step before hello world, which is the opposite of the under-2-minute target\nD) Acceptable friction, skip\n ✅ Zero work\n ✅ Developers who read the whole README find the demo anyway\n ❌ First quickstart command fails; this alone can cost the majority of first-time developers\nNet: I'm trading an editable starter file against a quickstart whose first command is guaranteed to run.": "Point quickstart at evalkit.demo (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-21T17:09:27.588Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "e9a0749c-b8ca-495d-89dd-79fbf3e7bec2",
"toolUseId": "toolu_014FqgCRPiwY5UgcLLAHmhth",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 — Journey stage HELLO WORLD: the mandatory 5-minute remote CI check gates the first local result\nProject/branch/task: EvalKit SDK beta polish on main; the single largest gap to the agreed under-2-minute target.\nELI10: docs/current-contracts.md lines 3 to 5: on the first local evaluation the SDK requires a successful remote CI check and blocks for five minutes, with no skip flag or offline path. README.md lines 17 to 23 confirm the keyless demo also waits on it. The demo evaluates bundled sample JSON through a mock transport; nothing in that computation needs the network. The completed study (docs/benchmarks.md) measured 6 minutes total, 5 of them this wait, against peers at 2 to 4 minutes. The target is under 2 minutes. The progress lines and timeout message are good, but arithmetic says the target is unreachable while this gate exists on the first run.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the approved terminal demo cannot hit the approved benchmark, the first-run experience stays at Red Flag tier (>5 min wait for nothing), and the developer never gets to the parts of the SDK that already work.\nRecommendation: A because the demo and any mock-transport evaluation are local by construction; verifying the sample-project binding matters for live CI wiring, not for a laptop score. Move the check to where it earns its cost.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=8/10, C=6/10, D=2/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Remove the CI gate from first-run local and mock-transport evaluations; run the binding check on the first live (API-keyed) evaluation, non-blocking with the existing progress and timeout messages (recommended)\n ✅ Demo prints scores in seconds; total first-result time drops from 6 minutes to roughly install time, inside the under-2-minute target\n ✅ Keeps the binding check for the case that actually needs it (live CI), reusing the existing progress line, timeout code, and check URL unchanged (human: ~3 days / CC: ~30 min)\n ❌ Changes a documented first-run contract, so current-contracts.md, README.md, and the changelog all need updating in the same release\nB) Keep the check but make it non-blocking: return the local result immediately and complete the CI verification in the background, surfacing its status at the end or on the next call\n ✅ Developer sees a score right away while the binding still gets verified on every first run\n ✅ Smaller contract change; the check still happens on run one\n ❌ Adds background-task state, a second output channel, and a failure mode where the result printed but the check later failed; harder to explain than 'no check locally' (human: ~1 week / CC: ~1 hour)\nC) Add an explicit opt-out: `--skip-ci-check` flag and EVALKIT_SKIP_CI_CHECK env var; demo passes it by default\n ✅ Cheapest code change; existing gate behavior stays the default for anyone who wants it\n ✅ Demo becomes fast without touching the check's logic\n ❌ A developer's own first eval still waits 5 minutes unless they know the flag; the escape hatch is not the pit of success (human: ~1 day / CC: ~15 min)\nD) Keep the mandatory gate as documented\n ✅ No contract change, no changelog entry\n ✅ Every first run is verified against CI before any result is shown\n ❌ Under-2-minute target is arithmetically impossible; the study already showed this costs 4 minutes against the fastest peer\nNet: I'm trading a first-run contract rewrite against the only path that lets the approved demo hit the approved benchmark.",
"header": "CI gate",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Drop gate for local/mock; check on first live eval (recommended)",
"description": "No remote check for the demo or mock-transport runs. Binding verification moves to the first API-keyed evaluation, non-blocking, same messages."
},
{
"label": "Keep check, make it non-blocking",
"description": "Return the local score immediately; CI verification completes in the background and reports status afterwards."
},
{
"label": "Add --skip-ci-check opt-out",
"description": "Flag plus env var; demo sets it by default; developer-run evals still block unless they pass it."
},
{
"label": "Keep the mandatory gate",
"description": "Ship the documented 5-minute first-run block unchanged."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 — Journey stage HELLO WORLD: the mandatory 5-minute remote CI check gates the first local result\nProject/branch/task: EvalKit SDK beta polish on main; the single largest gap to the agreed under-2-minute target.\nELI10: docs/current-contracts.md lines 3 to 5: on the first local evaluation the SDK requires a successful remote CI check and blocks for five minutes, with no skip flag or offline path. README.md lines 17 to 23 confirm the keyless demo also waits on it. The demo evaluates bundled sample JSON through a mock transport; nothing in that computation needs the network. The completed study (docs/benchmarks.md) measured 6 minutes total, 5 of them this wait, against peers at 2 to 4 minutes. The target is under 2 minutes. The progress lines and timeout message are good, but arithmetic says the target is unreachable while this gate exists on the first run.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the approved terminal demo cannot hit the approved benchmark, the first-run experience stays at Red Flag tier (>5 min wait for nothing), and the developer never gets to the parts of the SDK that already work.\nRecommendation: A because the demo and any mock-transport evaluation are local by construction; verifying the sample-project binding matters for live CI wiring, not for a laptop score. Move the check to where it earns its cost.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=8/10, C=6/10, D=2/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Remove the CI gate from first-run local and mock-transport evaluations; run the binding check on the first live (API-keyed) evaluation, non-blocking with the existing progress and timeout messages (recommended)\n ✅ Demo prints scores in seconds; total first-result time drops from 6 minutes to roughly install time, inside the under-2-minute target\n ✅ Keeps the binding check for the case that actually needs it (live CI), reusing the existing progress line, timeout code, and check URL unchanged (human: ~3 days / CC: ~30 min)\n ❌ Changes a documented first-run contract, so current-contracts.md, README.md, and the changelog all need updating in the same release\nB) Keep the check but make it non-blocking: return the local result immediately and complete the CI verification in the background, surfacing its status at the end or on the next call\n ✅ Developer sees a score right away while the binding still gets verified on every first run\n ✅ Smaller contract change; the check still happens on run one\n ❌ Adds background-task state, a second output channel, and a failure mode where the result printed but the check later failed; harder to explain than 'no check locally' (human: ~1 week / CC: ~1 hour)\nC) Add an explicit opt-out: `--skip-ci-check` flag and EVALKIT_SKIP_CI_CHECK env var; demo passes it by default\n ✅ Cheapest code change; existing gate behavior stays the default for anyone who wants it\n ✅ Demo becomes fast without touching the check's logic\n ❌ A developer's own first eval still waits 5 minutes unless they know the flag; the escape hatch is not the pit of success (human: ~1 day / CC: ~15 min)\nD) Keep the mandatory gate as documented\n ✅ No contract change, no changelog entry\n ✅ Every first run is verified against CI before any result is shown\n ❌ Under-2-minute target is arithmetically impossible; the study already showed this costs 4 minutes against the fastest peer\nNet: I'm trading a first-run contract rewrite against the only path that lets the approved demo hit the approved benchmark.": "Drop gate for local/mock; check on first live eval (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-21T17:09:57.112Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "e9a0749c-b8ca-495d-89dd-79fbf3e7bec2",
"toolUseId": "toolu_016KzCZX1H8n7FypBLQLQwNf",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 — Journey stage REAL USAGE: the two evaluation functions take the same two arguments in opposite positional order\nProject/branch/task: EvalKit SDK beta polish on main; the first code the developer writes after the demo.\nELI10: docs/api.md lines 5 to 9: `run_eval(dataset, evaluator)` and `run_batch(evaluator, dataset)`. Same two concepts, reversed order, positional only, and the reversal is described as intentional. A developer who learns run_eval and then calls run_batch by analogy passes the evaluator where the dataset goes. Since both are Python objects, the error is either a confusing TypeError deep inside the batch loop or, worse, no error at all with wrong scores. Python's pit of success here is a single order plus keyword-only arguments so that misuse cannot compile.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the SDK's two headline functions are a trap. Every ML engineer who uses both will hit it at least once, and the beta is the last cheap moment to change a signature.\nRecommendation: A because the beta is the moment to fix signature shape, and making the two arguments keyword-only turns a silent swap into an immediate, obvious error.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=5/10, D=1/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Unify to `(dataset, evaluator)` for both and make both parameters keyword-only (`*, dataset, evaluator`); accept positional for one beta cycle with a DeprecationWarning that names the correct call (recommended)\n ✅ A swapped call fails at the call site with a clear TypeError instead of producing wrong scores\n ✅ Both functions read identically in docs and autocomplete; one mental model (human: ~1 day / CC: ~10 min)\n ❌ Positional callers get a warning during the beta and a break at GA; needs a changelog entry and an api.md rewrite\nB) Unify the positional order to `(dataset, evaluator)` for both, keep positional allowed\n ✅ Removes the reversal, the root cause of the swap\n ✅ Smallest visible change for current run_eval callers\n ❌ Still allows silent swaps by anyone who mis-remembers the order; run_batch callers break with no warning path\nC) Keep both orders but add runtime type checks that raise a clear error when the arguments look swapped\n ✅ No signature change for anyone\n ✅ Catches the common swap with an actionable message\n ❌ Keeps the trap and papers over it; type checks are heuristic when dataset and evaluator are both plain objects (human: ~1 day / CC: ~15 min)\nD) Keep the reversed positional order as documented\n ✅ Zero work\n ✅ No changelog entry\n ❌ Every developer who uses both functions hits a swap; the docs themselves call the inconsistency intentional, which reads as a warning sign\nNet: I'm trading a one-cycle deprecation for a public API that cannot be called wrong.",
"header": "Signatures",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Unify order + keyword-only with beta deprecation (recommended)",
"description": "Both become run_x(*, dataset, evaluator). Positional accepted for one beta cycle with a DeprecationWarning naming the fix."
},
{
"label": "Unify positional order only",
"description": "Both take (dataset, evaluator) positionally; no keyword-only enforcement."
},
{
"label": "Keep orders, add swap detection",
"description": "Runtime checks raise a clear error when the arguments appear reversed."
},
{
"label": "Keep reversed order as documented",
"description": "Ship api.md unchanged."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 — Journey stage REAL USAGE: the two evaluation functions take the same two arguments in opposite positional order\nProject/branch/task: EvalKit SDK beta polish on main; the first code the developer writes after the demo.\nELI10: docs/api.md lines 5 to 9: `run_eval(dataset, evaluator)` and `run_batch(evaluator, dataset)`. Same two concepts, reversed order, positional only, and the reversal is described as intentional. A developer who learns run_eval and then calls run_batch by analogy passes the evaluator where the dataset goes. Since both are Python objects, the error is either a confusing TypeError deep inside the batch loop or, worse, no error at all with wrong scores. Python's pit of success here is a single order plus keyword-only arguments so that misuse cannot compile.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the SDK's two headline functions are a trap. Every ML engineer who uses both will hit it at least once, and the beta is the last cheap moment to change a signature.\nRecommendation: A because the beta is the moment to fix signature shape, and making the two arguments keyword-only turns a silent swap into an immediate, obvious error.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=5/10, D=1/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Unify to `(dataset, evaluator)` for both and make both parameters keyword-only (`*, dataset, evaluator`); accept positional for one beta cycle with a DeprecationWarning that names the correct call (recommended)\n ✅ A swapped call fails at the call site with a clear TypeError instead of producing wrong scores\n ✅ Both functions read identically in docs and autocomplete; one mental model (human: ~1 day / CC: ~10 min)\n ❌ Positional callers get a warning during the beta and a break at GA; needs a changelog entry and an api.md rewrite\nB) Unify the positional order to `(dataset, evaluator)` for both, keep positional allowed\n ✅ Removes the reversal, the root cause of the swap\n ✅ Smallest visible change for current run_eval callers\n ❌ Still allows silent swaps by anyone who mis-remembers the order; run_batch callers break with no warning path\nC) Keep both orders but add runtime type checks that raise a clear error when the arguments look swapped\n ✅ No signature change for anyone\n ✅ Catches the common swap with an actionable message\n ❌ Keeps the trap and papers over it; type checks are heuristic when dataset and evaluator are both plain objects (human: ~1 day / CC: ~15 min)\nD) Keep the reversed positional order as documented\n ✅ Zero work\n ✅ No changelog entry\n ❌ Every developer who uses both functions hits a swap; the docs themselves call the inconsistency intentional, which reads as a warning sign\nNet: I'm trading a one-cycle deprecation for a public API that cannot be called wrong.": "Unify order + keyword-only with beta deprecation (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-21T17:10:25.496Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "e9a0749c-b8ca-495d-89dd-79fbf3e7bec2",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01FGWGhkCpeYjGNt9sg5wPji",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 — Journey stage DEBUG: an invalid API key raises `AuthError(\"request failed\")` with no cause, code, or fix\nProject/branch/task: EvalKit SDK beta polish on main; the first error the developer hits after exporting EVALKIT_API_KEY.\nELI10: docs/api.md lines 11 to 13: a bad key raises AuthError(\"request failed\"). No error code, no statement that the key was rejected, no pointer to the key page. docs/current-contracts.md line 22 says every other SDK error already names the cause, the relevant argument, and an actionable fix, and redacts secrets. Auth is the one exception, and it is the error a new developer is most likely to hit (mis-paste, wrong project, revoked key). 'request failed' also collides with network and rate-limit failures, so the developer cannot tell whether to fix their key or retry.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the developer's first live call fails with a message that gives them nothing to act on, right after the demo earned their trust. They will assume the service is down, not that their key is wrong.\nRecommendation: A because the SDK already has the problem/cause/fix pattern for every other error; auth just needs to join it, and the key-management URL already exists in README.md line 26.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Bring AuthError up to the existing error contract: stable code (EVALKIT_AUTH_INVALID_KEY), cause ('API key was rejected by the EvalKit API for project <name>'), fix ('create or rotate a key at https://console.evalkit.example/settings/api-keys and export EVALKIT_API_KEY'), key shown redacted (last 4 chars), plus a `.code` attribute and distinct codes for missing key vs invalid key vs wrong project (recommended)\n ✅ Matches the problem + cause + fix + link shape every other EvalKit error already has, so it is consistent, not novel (human: ~1 day / CC: ~15 min)\n ✅ Missing key gets its own message before any network call, so the most common first mistake never leaves the laptop\n ❌ The message string changes, so any test or log matcher on 'request failed' needs updating\nB) Improve the message text only: 'Invalid API key. Create or rotate one at <url>.' with no code or attribute\n ✅ Developer gets the fix in one line\n ✅ Smallest change (human: ~1 hour / CC: ~3 min)\n ❌ No stable code means CI scripts and log filters still have to string-match; missing vs invalid key still look identical\nC) Keep `AuthError(\"request failed\")` as documented\n ✅ Zero work\n ✅ Existing matchers keep working\n ❌ Violates the SDK's own documented error contract and leaves the developer guessing between key, network, and service problems\nNet: I'm trading one message-string change against an auth error that tells the developer exactly what to do next.",
"header": "Auth error",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Full error contract: code, cause, fix, redacted key (recommended)",
"description": "Distinct codes for missing/invalid/wrong-project; message names the fix and the key page; .code attribute for programmatic handling."
},
{
"label": "Better message text only",
"description": "One-line message with the key page URL; no error code or attribute."
},
{
"label": "Keep 'request failed'",
"description": "Ship the documented message unchanged."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D6 — Journey stage DEBUG: an invalid API key raises `AuthError(\"request failed\")` with no cause, code, or fix\nProject/branch/task: EvalKit SDK beta polish on main; the first error the developer hits after exporting EVALKIT_API_KEY.\nELI10: docs/api.md lines 11 to 13: a bad key raises AuthError(\"request failed\"). No error code, no statement that the key was rejected, no pointer to the key page. docs/current-contracts.md line 22 says every other SDK error already names the cause, the relevant argument, and an actionable fix, and redacts secrets. Auth is the one exception, and it is the error a new developer is most likely to hit (mis-paste, wrong project, revoked key). 'request failed' also collides with network and rate-limit failures, so the developer cannot tell whether to fix their key or retry.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the developer's first live call fails with a message that gives them nothing to act on, right after the demo earned their trust. They will assume the service is down, not that their key is wrong.\nRecommendation: A because the SDK already has the problem/cause/fix pattern for every other error; auth just needs to join it, and the key-management URL already exists in README.md line 26.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Bring AuthError up to the existing error contract: stable code (EVALKIT_AUTH_INVALID_KEY), cause ('API key was rejected by the EvalKit API for project <name>'), fix ('create or rotate a key at https://console.evalkit.example/settings/api-keys and export EVALKIT_API_KEY'), key shown redacted (last 4 chars), plus a `.code` attribute and distinct codes for missing key vs invalid key vs wrong project (recommended)\n ✅ Matches the problem + cause + fix + link shape every other EvalKit error already has, so it is consistent, not novel (human: ~1 day / CC: ~15 min)\n ✅ Missing key gets its own message before any network call, so the most common first mistake never leaves the laptop\n ❌ The message string changes, so any test or log matcher on 'request failed' needs updating\nB) Improve the message text only: 'Invalid API key. Create or rotate one at <url>.' with no code or attribute\n ✅ Developer gets the fix in one line\n ✅ Smallest change (human: ~1 hour / CC: ~3 min)\n ❌ No stable code means CI scripts and log filters still have to string-match; missing vs invalid key still look identical\nC) Keep `AuthError(\"request failed\")` as documented\n ✅ Zero work\n ✅ Existing matchers keep working\n ❌ Violates the SDK's own documented error contract and leaves the developer guessing between key, network, and service problems\nNet: I'm trading one message-string change against an auth error that tells the developer exactly what to do next.": "Full error contract: code, cause, fix, redacted key (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-21T17:10:49.458Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "e9a0749c-b8ca-495d-89dd-79fbf3e7bec2",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01HA7vyWcFHtspyuVLanVbMf",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D7 — Journey stage UPGRADE: v2 removes `Client.evaluate()` immediately with no alias, warning, or migration guide\nProject/branch/task: EvalKit SDK beta polish on main; every existing v1 user's first experience of 2.0.\nELI10: docs/api.md lines 15 to 18: v1 exposes Client.evaluate(); v2 renames it to Client.run() and removes the old name at once. No compatibility alias, no DeprecationWarning, no migration guide, no codemod. A v1 user who upgrades gets AttributeError: 'Client' object has no attribute 'evaluate', with nothing pointing at run(). The rest of the changelog is complete, so this is the one hole in an otherwise boring upgrade. Boring upgrades are the goal.\nStakes if we pick wrong: every existing production integration breaks on upgrade with an unexplained error. That is the fastest way to teach users to pin v1 forever.\nRecommendation: A because the alias costs a few lines, the SDK already ships a changelog to host the migration note, and a warning that names run() turns a production break into a one-line edit.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=8/10, C=5/10, D=1/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Keep `Client.evaluate()` as a thin alias that calls `run()` and emits a DeprecationWarning naming `Client.run()` and the removal version; add a v1-to-v2 migration section to the changelog; ship a one-line codemod (sed/regex or libcst) in the docs (recommended)\n ✅ Existing v1 code keeps working on 2.0 with a clear warning; users upgrade on their own schedule (human: ~half day / CC: ~10 min)\n ✅ Migration note plus codemod make the rename a mechanical edit instead of an investigation\n ❌ The alias has to be tracked and actually removed in a later release, or it lives forever\nB) Alias plus DeprecationWarning, no migration guide or codemod\n ✅ Code does not break; the warning names the replacement\n ✅ Smaller doc change\n ❌ Users with many call sites still hunt through their code by hand; changelog stays silent on the rename\nC) No alias, but raise a custom AttributeError that says 'Client.evaluate() was renamed to Client.run() in 2.0; see <changelog link>'\n ✅ Forces the rename immediately while still telling the user what happened\n ✅ No alias to remove later\n ❌ Still a hard production break on upgrade; the user must edit code before anything works again (human: ~2 hours / CC: ~5 min)\nD) Remove `evaluate()` immediately as documented\n ✅ Zero work\n ✅ Cleanest v2 surface from day one\n ❌ Every v1 integration breaks with a bare AttributeError and no hint; upgrade fear becomes justified\nNet: I'm trading one alias to remove later against an upgrade that does not break anyone's production code.",
"header": "v1 to v2",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Alias + warning + migration guide + codemod (recommended)",
"description": "evaluate() delegates to run() with a DeprecationWarning naming the removal version; changelog gets a v1-to-v2 section and a one-line codemod."
},
{
"label": "Alias + DeprecationWarning only",
"description": "Keep evaluate() working with a warning; no migration guide or codemod."
},
{
"label": "Remove, but raise a helpful error",
"description": "No alias; a custom AttributeError names run() and links the changelog."
},
{
"label": "Remove immediately as documented",
"description": "Ship api.md unchanged; v1 callers get a bare AttributeError."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D7 — Journey stage UPGRADE: v2 removes `Client.evaluate()` immediately with no alias, warning, or migration guide\nProject/branch/task: EvalKit SDK beta polish on main; every existing v1 user's first experience of 2.0.\nELI10: docs/api.md lines 15 to 18: v1 exposes Client.evaluate(); v2 renames it to Client.run() and removes the old name at once. No compatibility alias, no DeprecationWarning, no migration guide, no codemod. A v1 user who upgrades gets AttributeError: 'Client' object has no attribute 'evaluate', with nothing pointing at run(). The rest of the changelog is complete, so this is the one hole in an otherwise boring upgrade. Boring upgrades are the goal.\nStakes if we pick wrong: every existing production integration breaks on upgrade with an unexplained error. That is the fastest way to teach users to pin v1 forever.\nRecommendation: A because the alias costs a few lines, the SDK already ships a changelog to host the migration note, and a warning that names run() turns a production break into a one-line edit.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=8/10, C=5/10, D=1/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Keep `Client.evaluate()` as a thin alias that calls `run()` and emits a DeprecationWarning naming `Client.run()` and the removal version; add a v1-to-v2 migration section to the changelog; ship a one-line codemod (sed/regex or libcst) in the docs (recommended)\n ✅ Existing v1 code keeps working on 2.0 with a clear warning; users upgrade on their own schedule (human: ~half day / CC: ~10 min)\n ✅ Migration note plus codemod make the rename a mechanical edit instead of an investigation\n ❌ The alias has to be tracked and actually removed in a later release, or it lives forever\nB) Alias plus DeprecationWarning, no migration guide or codemod\n ✅ Code does not break; the warning names the replacement\n ✅ Smaller doc change\n ❌ Users with many call sites still hunt through their code by hand; changelog stays silent on the rename\nC) No alias, but raise a custom AttributeError that says 'Client.evaluate() was renamed to Client.run() in 2.0; see <changelog link>'\n ✅ Forces the rename immediately while still telling the user what happened\n ✅ No alias to remove later\n ❌ Still a hard production break on upgrade; the user must edit code before anything works again (human: ~2 hours / CC: ~5 min)\nD) Remove `evaluate()` immediately as documented\n ✅ Zero work\n ✅ Cleanest v2 surface from day one\n ❌ Every v1 integration breaks with a bare AttributeError and no hint; upgrade fear becomes justified\nNet: I'm trading one alias to remove later against an upgrade that does not break anyone's production code.": "Alias + warning + migration guide + codemod (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-21T17:11:15.112Z"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/golden/claude-ship-SKILL.md
Vendored
+212 -256
View File
@@ -134,13 +134,13 @@ Completeness: use `Completeness: N/10` only when options differ in coverage. 10
Accepted shortcuts leave a trail: when the user selects an option that is BOTH Completeness ≤ 7 AND a durable-scope call (architecture or scope-cut — never a turn-level choice), log it via `gstack-decision-log` with the ceiling and the upgrade trigger in the rationale, and — as part of implementing that option, same edit, no follow-up question — mark each cut corner in code with `gstack-shortcut(dec-<id>): <ceiling>, upgrade when <trigger>` in the language's comment syntax. Never agent-initiated: the marker exists only downstream of the user's explicit choice. /retro harvests these into a debt ledger, joined on the decision id.
Pros / cons: use ✅ and ❌. Minimum 2 pros and 1 con per option when the choice is real; Minimum 40 characters per bullet. Hard-stop escape for one-way/destructive confirmations: `✅ No cons — this is a hard-stop choice`.
`Pros / cons:` in question text; descriptions use literal ✅/❌ bullets, not Pro:/Con:. Each real option: ≥2 pros and ≥1 con, ≥40 chars each. One-way/destructive escape: `✅ No cons — this is a hard-stop choice`.
Neutral posture: `Recommendation: <default> — this is a taste call, no strong preference either way`; `(recommended)` STAYS on the default option for AUTO_DECIDE.
Effort both-scales: when an option involves effort, label both human-team and CC+gstack time, e.g. `(human: ~2 days / CC: ~15 min)`. Makes AI compression visible at decision time.
Net line closes the tradeoff. Per-skill instructions may add stricter rules.
`Net:` line closes question text. Per-skill instructions may add stricter rules.
### Handling 5+ options — split, never drop
@@ -172,10 +172,10 @@ Before calling AskUserQuestion, verify:
- [ ] ELI10 paragraph present (stakes line too)
- [ ] Recommendation line present with concrete reason
- [ ] Completeness scored (coverage) OR kind-note present (kind)
- [ ] Every option has ≥2 ✅ and ≥1 ❌, each ≥40 chars (or hard-stop escape)
- [ ] `Pros / cons:` in question; options: ≥2 ✅, ≥1 ❌, ≥40 chars/bullet (or escape)
- [ ] (recommended) label on one option (even for neutral-posture)
- [ ] Dual-scale effort labels on effort-bearing options (human / CC)
- [ ] Net line closes the decision
- [ ] `Net:` closes question text
- [ ] You are calling the tool, not writing prose — unless `CONDUCTOR_SESSION: true` (then prose is the DEFAULT, not the tool) OR the documented failure fallback applies (then: the prose fallback's mandatory triad + a "reply with a letter" instruction, then STOP); in `SESSION_KIND: spawned` (the echoed STATUS line only) you should never reach this checklist — auto-choose the recommended option, no tool call, no prose
- [ ] Non-ASCII characters (CJK / accents) written directly, NOT \u-escaped
- [ ] If you had 5+ options, you split (or batched into ≤4-groups) — did NOT drop any
@@ -457,6 +457,63 @@ A step sometimes requires action on an external website the user controls: regis
5. **If the user declines or defers, or no browser is usable,** provide the manual steps and mark the step blocked on the user. Recommending Aside by name is the one sanctioned exception to the no-new-products rule — never install anything yourself, and never raise the download pitch more than once per task.
# Ship: Fully Automated Ship Workflow
Run `/ship` through to the PR URL. This request authorizes routine work without confirmation; explicit safety and user-decision gates still apply.
**Follow every STOP and AskUserQuestion gate**, including:
- On the base branch (abort)
- Merge conflicts that can't be auto-resolved (stop, show conflicts)
- In-branch test failures (pre-existing failures are triaged, not auto-blocking)
- Pre-landing review finds ASK items that need user judgment
- Prior Learnings needs its first-time cross-project setting (Step 8)
- MINOR or MAJOR version bump needed (ask — see Step 12)
- Greptile review comments that need user decision (complex fixes, false positives)
- AI-assessed coverage below target (see Step 7 for minimum/target decisions)
- Plan items NOT DONE or UNVERIFIABLE (see Step 8)
- Plan verification failures (see Step 8.1)
- TODOS.md missing and user wants to create one (ask — see Step 14)
- TODOS.md disorganized and user wants to reorganize (ask — see Step 14)
**Never stop for:**
- Uncommitted changes (always include them)
- Version bump choice (auto-pick MICRO or PATCH — see Step 12)
- CHANGELOG content (auto-generate from diff)
- Commit message approval (auto-commit)
- Multi-file changesets (auto-split into bisectable commits)
- TODOS.md completed-item detection (auto-mark)
- Auto-fixable review findings (dead code, N+1, stale comments — fixed automatically)
- Test coverage gaps within target threshold (generate, verify, then commit with Step 15; flag any remaining gaps in the PR body)
**Re-run behavior (idempotency):**
Every invocation repeats verification: tests, coverage, plan completion, both
reviews, VERSION/CHANGELOG, TODOS and doc-sync. Only *actions* are idempotent:
- Step 12: If VERSION already bumped, skip the bump but still read the version
- Step 17: If already pushed, skip the push command
- Step 19: If PR exists, update the body instead of creating a new PR
Prior execution never exempts verification.
---
## Section index — Read each section when its situation applies
This skill is a decision-tree skeleton. The steps below point to on-demand
sections. Read a section in full before doing its step; do not work from memory.
| When | Read this section |
|------|-------------------|
| the ship target is an Apple platform app (.xcodeproj, .xcworkspace, or an app-product Swift package) — read BEFORE Step 1's branch gate and any preflight; store distribution never routes through the branch/PR ceremony | `sections/apple-release.md` |
| running the test suites and (if prompt files changed) the eval suites (Steps 4-6) | `sections/tests.md` |
| auditing test coverage of the diff (Step 7) | `sections/test-coverage.md` |
| auditing plan completion, verification, and scope drift (Step 8) | `sections/plan-completion.md` |
| the pre-landing review and specialist dispatch (Step 9) | `sections/review-army.md` |
| addressing Greptile review comments when a PR exists (Step 10) | `sections/greptile.md` |
| the adversarial review and learnings capture (Step 11) | `sections/adversarial.md` |
| writing the CHANGELOG entry (Step 13) | `sections/changelog.md` |
| dispatching the /document-release subagent to sync docs (Step 18) and then creating or updating the PR/MR (Step 19) | `sections/pr-body.md` |
---
## Step 0: Detect platform and base branch
First, detect the git hosting platform from the remote URL:
@@ -496,76 +553,18 @@ branch name wherever the instructions say "the base branch" or `<default>`.
---
`<base>` means the detected branch name for fetch/helper arguments;
`origin/<base>` is its remote-tracking ref for comparisons. Step 1 fetches it.
# Ship: Fully Automated Ship Workflow
You are running the `/ship` workflow. Automate routine work without confirmation. The user said `/ship` which authorizes that work, but does not waive the explicit safety and user-decision gates below. Run through to the PR URL unless a gate requires input or reports a blocker.
**Stop for blockers and explicit decision gates.** Follow every STOP or AskUserQuestion instruction in the steps below and the preamble. Common gates include:
- On the base branch (abort)
- Merge conflicts that can't be auto-resolved (stop, show conflicts)
- In-branch test failures (pre-existing failures are triaged, not auto-blocking)
- Pre-landing review finds ASK items that need user judgment
- MINOR or MAJOR version bump needed (ask — see Step 12)
- Greptile review comments that need user decision (complex fixes, false positives)
- AI-assessed coverage below target (see Step 7 for minimum/target decisions)
- Plan items NOT DONE or UNVERIFIABLE (see Step 8)
- Plan verification failures (see Step 8.1)
- TODOS.md missing and user wants to create one (ask — see Step 14)
- TODOS.md disorganized and user wants to reorganize (ask — see Step 14)
**Never stop for:**
- Uncommitted changes (always include them)
- Version bump choice (auto-pick MICRO or PATCH — see Step 12)
- CHANGELOG content (auto-generate from diff)
- Commit message approval (auto-commit)
- Multi-file changesets (auto-split into bisectable commits)
- TODOS.md completed-item detection (auto-mark)
- Auto-fixable review findings (dead code, N+1, stale comments — fixed automatically)
- Test coverage gaps within target threshold (auto-generate and commit, or flag in PR body)
**Re-run behavior (idempotency):**
Re-running `/ship` means "run the whole checklist again." Every verification step
(tests, coverage audit, plan completion, pre-landing review, adversarial review,
VERSION/CHANGELOG check, TODOS, document-release) runs on every invocation.
Only *actions* are idempotent:
- Step 12: If VERSION already bumped, skip the bump but still read the version
- Step 17: If already pushed, skip the push command
- Step 19: If PR exists, update the body instead of creating a new PR
Never skip a verification step because a prior `/ship` run already performed it.
---
## Section index — Read each section when its situation applies
This skill is a decision-tree skeleton. The steps below point to on-demand
sections. Read a section in full before doing its step; do not work from memory.
| When | Read this section |
|------|-------------------|
| the ship target is an Apple platform app (.xcodeproj, .xcworkspace, or an app-product Swift package) — read BEFORE Step 1's branch gate and any preflight; store distribution never routes through the branch/PR ceremony | `sections/apple-release.md` |
| running the test suites and (if prompt files changed) the eval suites (Steps 4-6) | `sections/tests.md` |
| auditing test coverage of the diff (Step 7) | `sections/test-coverage.md` |
| auditing plan completion, verification, and scope drift (Step 8) | `sections/plan-completion.md` |
| the pre-landing review and specialist dispatch (Step 9) | `sections/review-army.md` |
| addressing Greptile review comments when a PR exists (Step 10) | `sections/greptile.md` |
| the adversarial review and learnings capture (Step 11) | `sections/adversarial.md` |
| writing the CHANGELOG entry (Step 13) | `sections/changelog.md` |
| dispatching the /document-release subagent to sync docs (Step 18) and then creating or updating the PR/MR (Step 19) | `sections/pr-body.md` |
---
## Step 0.9: Apple target detection
Shipping to the App Store is not landing a PR. If the repository contains an
`.xcodeproj`, `.xcworkspace`, or a Swift package with an app product AND the
user's ask is store distribution (App Store, TestFlight, "release my app"),
**STOP and Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ship/sections/apple-release.md` FIRST**
— before the branch gate and any preflight below. Store distribution proceeds
from whatever branch the user is on (a clean tree on the base branch is the
solo developer's normal case, not an error) and follows the adapter end to
end. The branch gate and repository-landing pipeline below apply ONLY to
If the repo has an `.xcodeproj`, `.xcworkspace`, or Swift app package AND the ask
is App Store/TestFlight distribution, **STOP and Read
`~/.claude/skills/gstack/ship/sections/apple-release.md` FIRST**. Store distribution proceeds
through that adapter from the current branch, including a clean base branch.
The branch gate and repository-landing pipeline below apply ONLY to
repository-landing asks, including on Apple repos.
## Step 1: Pre-flight
@@ -574,9 +573,14 @@ repository-landing asks, including on Apple repos.
2. Run `git status` (never use `-uall`). Uncommitted changes are always included — no need to ask.
3. Run `git diff <base>...HEAD --stat` and `git log <base>..HEAD --oneline` to understand what's being shipped.
3. Run `git fetch origin <base>` before inspecting the diff. If fetch fails, STOP:
report the error and restore access before continuing. Then inspect
`git diff origin/<base> --stat`, untracked files from status, and
`git log origin/<base>..HEAD --oneline`.
4. Check review readiness:
4. Display historical review readiness. This preflight snapshot does not replace
Step 9's mandatory review or its blocker, ASK, and convergence gates — even
when prior reviews are CLEAR or the dashboard's global skip is enabled.
## Review Readiness Dashboard
@@ -613,7 +617,7 @@ Display:
```
**Review tiers:**
- **Eng Review (required by default):** The only review that gates shipping. Covers architecture, code quality, tests, performance. Can be disabled globally with \`gstack-config set skip_eng_review true\` (the "don't bother me" setting).
- **Eng Review (historical readiness):** Required for a CLEARED dashboard, not for continuing Step 1. Step 9 remains mandatory, with its finding, approval and convergence gates. The skip_eng_review setting changes this dashboard only.
- **CEO Review (optional):** Use your judgment. Recommend it for big product/business changes, new user-facing features, or scope decisions. Skip for bug fixes, refactors, infra, and cleanup.
- **Design Review (optional):** Use your judgment. Recommend it for UI/UX changes. Skip for backend-only, infra, or prompt-only changes.
- **Adversarial Review (automatic):** Always-on for every review. Every diff gets a native adversarial pass and, when enabled and available, a host-selected outside challenge. Large diffs (200+ lines) additionally get a structured outside review with P1 gate.
@@ -632,17 +636,13 @@ Display:
- Plan-tier fallback only: parse `---HEAD---`. For entries with a different `commit`, count elapsed commits: `git rev-list --count STORED_COMMIT..HEAD`. If that command FAILS, grade UNKNOWN and treat as stale. Display: "Note: {skill} review from {date} may be stale — {N} commits since review". Missing commit tracking retains the legacy note to consider re-running.
- If all reviews grade CURRENT, do not display staleness notes
If the Eng Review is NOT "CLEAR":
Print: "No prior eng review found — ship will run its own pre-landing review in Step 9."
Check diff size: `git diff <base>...HEAD --stat | tail -1`. If the diff is >200 lines, add: "Note: This is a large diff. Consider running `/plan-eng-review` or `/autoplan` for architecture-level review before shipping."
If Eng Review is not CLEAR, print its actual status and reason: "Eng Review: {status} — {reason}. Ship will run its pre-landing review in Step 9." For diffs >200 lines (`git diff origin/<base> --stat | tail -1`), recommend `/plan-eng-review` or `/autoplan` for architecture review.
If CEO Review is missing, mention as informational ("CEO Review not run — recommended for product changes") but do NOT block.
For Design Review: run `source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-diff-scope <base> 2>/dev/null)`. If `SCOPE_FRONTEND=true` and no design review (plan-design-review or design-review-lite) exists in the dashboard, mention: "Design Review not run — this PR changes frontend code. The lite design check will run automatically in Step 9, but consider running /design-review for a full visual audit post-implementation." Still never block.
For Design Review: run `source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-diff-scope <base> 2>/dev/null)`. If `SCOPE_FRONTEND=true` and no design review exists, mention: "Design Review not run — Step 9 includes the lite check; consider /design-review for a full visual audit."
Continue to Step 2 — do NOT block or ask. Ship runs its own review in Step 9.
Continue to Step 2 without a preflight approval question. Apply the review gates when Step 9 runs.
---
@@ -655,6 +655,7 @@ service with existing deployment — verify that a distribution pipeline exists.
```bash
git diff origin/<base> --name-only | grep -E '(cmd/.*/main\.go|bin/|Cargo\.toml|setup\.py|package\.json)' | head -5
```
Also inspect matching untracked files from Step 1's status.
2. If new artifact detected, check for a release workflow:
```bash
@@ -666,7 +667,7 @@ service with existing deployment — verify that a distribution pipeline exists.
- "This PR adds a new binary/tool but there's no CI/CD pipeline to build and publish it.
Users won't be able to download the artifact after merge."
- A) Add a release workflow now (CI/CD release pipeline — GitHub Actions or GitLab CI depending on platform)
- B) Defer — add to TODOS.md
- B) Defer — add a P1 distribution TODO in Step 14
- C) Not needed — this is internal/web-only, existing deployment covers it
4. **If release pipeline exists:** Continue silently.
@@ -676,10 +677,10 @@ service with existing deployment — verify that a distribution pipeline exists.
## Step 3: Merge the base branch (BEFORE tests)
Fetch and merge the base branch into the feature branch so tests run against the merged state:
Merge the base ref fetched in Step 1 so tests cover the same state used by Step 2:
```bash
git fetch origin <base> && git merge origin/<base> --no-edit
git merge origin/<base> --no-edit
```
**If there are merge conflicts:** Try to auto-resolve if they are simple (VERSION, schema.rb, CHANGELOG ordering). If conflicts are complex or ambiguous, **STOP** and show them.
@@ -717,21 +718,22 @@ for slot selection. Bump level and queue collisions remain agent decisions.
```
Save the JSON `baseVersion` as `BASE_VERSION`, then read `state` and dispatch:
- **FRESH** → do the bump (steps 2-4).
- **ALREADY_BUMPED** → skip the bump, but run the queue-drift check (step 3) with the reported `currentVersion`. If the queue moved (next free version differs), **AskUserQuestion**: rebump to the new version (rewrites CHANGELOG header + PR title) or keep current (CI version-gate will reject until resolved).
- **DRIFT_STALE_PKG** → run `gstack-version-bump repair` (syncs package.json to VERSION). No re-bump; reuse `currentVersion` for CHANGELOG + PR.
- **ALREADY_BUMPED** → keep `NEW_VERSION` at `currentVersion`; recover the prior `BUMP_LEVEL` from the release decision (or base/current version difference), then run step 3's queue check. Do not bump again without approval.
- **DRIFT_STALE_PKG** → run `gstack-version-bump repair`, then reclassify. On success, follow **ALREADY_BUMPED**, including its queue check; on failure, STOP. Repair alone never re-bumps.
- **DRIFT_UNEXPECTED** → **STOP**. package.json disagrees with VERSION while VERSION matches base — a manual edit bypassed /ship. Reconcile manually, then re-run.
2. **Decide the bump level** from the diff (agent judgment):
- **MICRO**: <50 lines, trivial tweaks/config. **PATCH**: 50+ lines, no feature signals.
- **MINOR**: AskUserQuestion for any feature signal (new route/page, migration, new module), OR 500+ lines. **MAJOR**: AskUserQuestion for milestones or breaking changes. Offer the recommended level with rationale, a smaller level, or cancel; wait for the answer.
Save as `BUMP_LEVEL`. The level is the user-intended bump; queue-aware placement may advance the slot without changing the level.
- **MINOR**: AskUserQuestion for any feature signal (new route/page, migration, new module), OR 500+ lines. **MAJOR**: AskUserQuestion for milestones or breaking changes. Offer the recommended level with rationale, a smaller level, or cancel; wait for the answer. Cancel ends this ship attempt before release writes or push; preserve existing work.
Save `BUMP_LEVEL` as lowercase `micro`, `patch`, `minor`, or `major`. Queue placement may advance the slot without changing the intended level.
3. **Queue-aware pick** (workspace-aware ship):
```bash
QUEUE_JSON=$(bun run ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-next-version --base <base> --bump "$BUMP_LEVEL" --current-version "$BASE_VERSION" 2>/dev/null || echo '{"offline":true}')
NEW_VERSION=$(echo "$QUEUE_JSON" | jq -r '.version // empty')
CANDIDATE_VERSION=$(echo "$QUEUE_JSON" | jq -r '.version // empty')
```
If `offline`/util fails: fall back to local `BUMP_LEVEL` arithmetic and print `⚠ workspace-aware ship offline — using local bump only`. If `claimed` is non-empty, render the queue table so the user sees landing order. If an active sibling workspace holds a version `>= NEW_VERSION`, **AskUserQuestion**: advance past (unrelated work) or abort and sync with the sibling.
- **Usable candidate** (including `offline:true` with `fallback:"git"`): print warnings and any claimed queue. FRESH sets `NEW_VERSION` to `CANDIDATE_VERSION`. ALREADY_BUMPED compares it with `currentVersion`; if different, ask to rebump (refresh CHANGELOG/PR title) or keep current (CI rejects a collision). Only approval changes the existing version. An active sibling is a workspace listed in JSON `active_siblings`; use its `branch` and `version`. If one holds `>= NEW_VERSION`, ask to advance past it or stop this attempt and sync.
- **No usable candidate** (utility failure or empty result): print queue-unverified; FRESH sets `NEW_VERSION` using local `BUMP_LEVEL` arithmetic, while ALREADY_BUMPED keeps `currentVersion`. Do not use the candidate branch above.
4. **Write the bump** (FRESH, or an approved rebump):
```bash
@@ -752,159 +754,57 @@ for slot selection. Bump level and queue collisions remain agent decisions.
## Step 14: TODOS.md (auto-update)
Match TODOS.md to this diff. Mark completed items automatically; ask if missing or disorganized.
Persist approved follow-ups, then conservatively mark completed work.
Read `.claude/skills/review/TODOS-format.md` for the canonical format reference.
**1. Check if TODOS.md exists** in the repository root.
**1. Open or create:** Read root `TODOS.md`. An earlier explicit "add TODO" choice authorizes its creation with `# TODOS` and `## Completed`. Otherwise, if missing, ask: "Create a component/priority-organized TODOS.md?" Options: A) Create now, B) Skip. If B, continue to Step 15 with the outcome in the summary below.
**If TODOS.md does not exist:** Use AskUserQuestion:
- Message: "GStack recommends maintaining a TODOS.md organized by skill/component, then priority (P0 at top through P4, then Completed at bottom). See TODOS-format.md for the full format. Would you like to create one?"
- Options: A) Create it now, B) Skip for now
- If A: Create `TODOS.md` with a skeleton (# TODOS heading + ## Completed section). Continue to step 3.
- If B: Skip the rest of Step 14. Continue to Step 15.
**2. Organization:** Expect component headings, `**Priority:**` P0–P4 fields, and `## Completed` at the bottom. If disorganized, ask: A) Reorganize (recommended), B) Leave as-is. A preserves all content; B continues without restructuring.
**2. Check structure and organization:**
**3. Add approved deferrals:**
- Step 2: add the approved distribution follow-up as P1 with the missing pipeline and affected artifact.
- Step 8: add each approved P1 plan deferral with `Deferred from plan: {plan file path}` and the missing work.
- Step 5: retain P0 test-failure entries already written; deduplicate by failure and source, adding missing approved entries with error output and branch.
Never turn dropped scope into TODOs or invent unapproved follow-ups. Reuse matching existing entries rather than duplicating them.
Read TODOS.md and verify it follows the recommended structure:
- Items grouped under `## <Skill/Component>` headings
- Each item has `**Priority:**` field with P0-P4 value
- A `## Completed` section at the bottom
**4. Detect completed TODOs:** Match titles, files, and behavior against `git diff origin/<base>`, untracked files from status, and `git log origin/<base>..HEAD --oneline`. Only clear evidence earns completion; leave uncertain items open. Move completed items to `## Completed` and append `**Completed:** vX.Y.Z (YYYY-MM-DD)`.
**If disorganized** (missing priority fields, no component groupings, no Completed section): Use AskUserQuestion:
- Message: "TODOS.md doesn't follow the recommended structure (skill/component groupings, P0-P4 priority, Completed section). Would you like to reorganize it?"
- Options: A) Reorganize now (recommended), B) Leave as-is
- If A: Reorganize in-place following TODOS-format.md. Preserve all content — only restructure, never delete items.
- If B: Continue to step 3 without restructuring.
**3. Detect completed TODOs:**
Automatically use the previously gathered diff and history:
- `git diff <base>...HEAD` (full diff against the base branch)
- `git log <base>..HEAD --oneline` (all commits being shipped)
Match each TODO's title, files, and described behavior against commits and the diff.
**Be conservative:** Only mark a TODO as completed if there is clear evidence in the diff. If uncertain, leave it alone.
**4. Move completed items** to the `## Completed` section at the bottom. Append: `**Completed:** vX.Y.Z (YYYY-MM-DD)`
**5. Output summary:**
- `TODOS.md: N items marked complete (item1, item2, ...). M items remaining.`
- Or: `TODOS.md: No completed items detected. M items remaining.`
- Or: `TODOS.md: Created.` / `TODOS.md: Reorganized.`
**6. If TODOS.md cannot be written:** warn and continue; a TODO write failure never blocks shipping.
Save this summary — it goes into the PR body in Step 19.
**5. Save the summary:** Report added/deferred items, items marked complete, remaining count, and any creation/reorganization. If creation was declined or a write fails, warn and retain the unpersisted follow-ups in the Step 19 PR summary; never claim they were saved. A TODO write failure remains non-blocking.
---
## Step 15: Commit (bisectable chunks)
### Step 15.0: WIP Commit Squash (continuous checkpoint mode only)
### Step 15.0: Preserve checkpoint context
If `CHECKPOINT_MODE` is `"continuous"`, the branch likely contains `WIP:` commits
from auto-checkpointing. These must be squashed INTO the corresponding logical
commits before the bisectable-grouping logic in Step 15.1 runs. Non-WIP commits
on the branch (earlier landed work) must be preserved.
**Detection:**
```bash
WIP_COUNT=$(git log <base>..HEAD --oneline --grep="^WIP:" 2>/dev/null | wc -l | tr -d ' ')
echo "WIP_COMMITS: $WIP_COUNT"
```
If `WIP_COUNT` is 0: skip this sub-step entirely.
If `WIP_COUNT` > 0, collect the WIP context first so it survives the squash:
Run `~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get checkpoint_mode`. `continuous` means automatic `WIP:`
checkpoint commits; any other value skips WIP consolidation. In continuous mode,
count `WIP:` commits in `origin/<base>..HEAD`. If none exist, skip Step 15.2.
Otherwise preserve their context before committing or rewriting history:
```bash
# Export [gstack-context] blocks from all WIP commits on this branch.
# This file becomes input to the CHANGELOG entry and may inform PR body context.
mkdir -p "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)/.gstack"
git log <base>..HEAD --grep="^WIP:" --format="%H%n%B%n---END---" > \
"$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)/.gstack/wip-context-before-squash.md" 2>/dev/null || true
git log origin/<base>..HEAD --grep="^WIP:" --format="%H%n%B%n---END---" > \
"$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)/.gstack/wip-context-before-squash.md"
```
**Non-destructive squash strategy:**
`git reset --soft <merge-base>` WOULD uncommit everything including non-WIP commits.
DO NOT DO THAT. Instead, use `git rebase` scoped to filter WIP commits only.
Option 1 (preferred, if there are non-WIP commits mixed in):
Only rewrite unpublished commits. If any are already on the remote, stop and ask
before rewriting; never force-push. Prepare a rebase todo in a temporary file:
list commits oldest-first, keep every non-WIP commit as `pick` in its original
relative order, move each WIP directly after its corresponding logical commit,
and mark it `fixup`. Inspect the diffs to choose each target; if a WIP's target
is ambiguous or outside this branch, stop and ask. Every commit must appear
exactly once, and the first entry must be `pick`. Set `WIP_TODO` below to that
prepared file's absolute path. Do not run with an empty or unreviewed todo.
```bash
export WIP_TODO="<absolute path to prepared todo>"
test -s "$WIP_TODO" || exit 1
ORIGINAL_TREE=$(git rev-parse 'HEAD^{tree}')
GIT_SEQUENCE_EDITOR='cp "$WIP_TODO"' git rebase -i "$(git merge-base HEAD origin/<base>)" || {
echo "Rebase conflict. Aborting: git rebase --abort"
git rebase --abort
echo "STATUS: BLOCKED — manual WIP squash required"
exit 1
}
test "$ORIGINAL_TREE" = "$(git rev-parse 'HEAD^{tree}')" || {
echo "STATUS: BLOCKED — squash changed file contents; inspect before continuing"
exit 1
}
```
Option 2 (simpler, if the branch is ALL WIP commits so far — no landed work):
```bash
# Branch contains only WIP commits. Reset-soft is safe here because there's
# nothing non-WIP to preserve. Verify first.
NON_WIP=$(git log <base>..HEAD --oneline --invert-grep --grep="^WIP:" 2>/dev/null | wc -l | tr -d ' ')
if [ "$NON_WIP" -eq 0 ]; then
git reset --soft $(git merge-base HEAD origin/<base>)
echo "WIP-only branch, reset-soft to merge base. Step 15.1 will create clean commits."
fi
```
Decide at runtime which option applies. If unsure, prefer stopping and asking the
user via AskUserQuestion rather than destroying non-WIP commits.
**Anti-footgun rules:**
- NEVER blind `git reset --soft` if there are non-WIP commits. Codex flagged this
as destructive — it would uncommit real landed work and turn the push step into
a non-fast-forward push for anyone who already pushed.
- Only proceed to Step 15.1 after WIP commits are successfully squashed/absorbed
or the branch has been verified to contain only WIP work.
If export fails, do not rewrite history. Step 13 already read these bodies for
CHANGELOG; retain this PR context locally, outside commits.
### Step 15.1: Bisectable Commits
Create small, logical commits for `git bisect`. If all changes are already committed, skip to Step 16; never create an empty commit.
Create small, logical commits for `git bisect`. If all changes are already committed, continue to Step 15.2; never create an empty commit.
1. Analyze the diff and group changes into logical commits. Each commit should represent **one coherent change** — not one file, but one logical unit.
2. **Commit ordering** (earlier commits first):
- **Infrastructure:** migrations, config changes, route additions
- **Models & services:** new models, services, concerns (with their tests)
- **Controllers & views:** controllers, views, JS/React components (with their tests)
- **VERSION + CHANGELOG + TODOS.md:** always in the final commit
3. **Rules for splitting:**
- A model and its test file go in the same commit
- A service and its test file go in the same commit
- A controller, its views, and its test go in the same commit
- Migrations are their own commit (or grouped with the model they support)
- Config/route changes can group with the feature they enable
- If the total diff is small (< 50 lines across < 4 files), a single commit is fine
4. **Each commit must be independently valid** — no broken imports, no references to code that doesn't exist yet. Order commits so dependencies come first.
5. Compose each commit message:
- First line: `<type>: <summary>` (type = feat/fix/chore/refactor/docs)
- Body: brief description of what this commit contains
- Only the **final commit** (VERSION + CHANGELOG) gets the version tag and co-author trailer:
1. Group by coherent change. Keep each model/service/controller with its tests;
keep controller views together. Migrations may stand alone or accompany their
model; config/routes may accompany the feature they enable. A diff under
50 lines across fewer than 4 files may use one commit.
2. Order dependencies first: infrastructure → models/services → controllers/views.
Each commit must work independently, without broken imports or missing code.
VERSION + CHANGELOG + TODOS.md belong in the final commit.
3. Use `<type>: <summary>` (feat/fix/chore/refactor/docs) and a brief body.
Only the final VERSION/CHANGELOG commit gets the version tag and co-author trailer:
```bash
git commit -m "$(cat <<'EOF'
@@ -915,46 +815,94 @@ EOF
)"
```
### Step 15.2: Consolidate WIP commits when safe
After Step 15.1, run only for continuous-mode WIP commits. Require a clean working
tree except the context export. Run `git fetch origin`; failure means STOP.
Inspect `WIP_BASE..HEAD`, where `WIP_BASE` is `git merge-base HEAD origin/<base>`:
- **merge commits:** do not replay or flatten Step 3's integration merge.
- **published commits** (`git branch -r --contains <sha>` returns a ref): never rewrite.
- For either, ask to preserve WIP history and continue to Step 16 (recommended),
or stop for manual consolidation. Never rebase or force-push these paths.
For a linear, unpublished range, prepare and inspect an oldest-first todo.
Keep non-WIP commits as `pick` in relative order; put each WIP after its verified
logical target as `fixup`. Include every commit exactly once. An ambiguous or
out-of-range target needs a preserve-history/stop decision. First entry stays
`pick` or `reword`; all-WIP ranges retain a logical `reword` anchor. Rewording
requires a noninteractive `WIP_EDITOR` script that writes descriptive messages;
picks/fixups alone use `true`. Set the reviewed todo's absolute path below:
```bash
export WIP_TODO="<absolute path to prepared todo>"
test -s "$WIP_TODO" || exit 1
WIP_BASE=$(git merge-base HEAD origin/<base>) || exit 1
test -z "$(git status --porcelain -- . ':(exclude).gstack/wip-context-before-squash.md')" || exit 1
test -z "$(git rev-list --merges "$WIP_BASE"..HEAD)" || exit 1
for sha in $(git rev-list "$WIP_BASE"..HEAD); do
test -z "$(git branch -r --contains "$sha")" || exit 1
done
ORIGINAL_TREE=$(git rev-parse 'HEAD^{tree}')
GIT_EDITOR="${WIP_EDITOR:-true}" GIT_SEQUENCE_EDITOR='cp "$WIP_TODO"' git rebase -i "$WIP_BASE" || {
git rebase --abort
echo "STATUS: BLOCKED — WIP consolidation conflicted; original history restored"
exit 1
}
test "$ORIGINAL_TREE" = "$(git rev-parse 'HEAD^{tree}')" || {
echo "STATUS: BLOCKED — consolidation changed contents; inspect before continuing"
exit 1
}
```
Only an unchanged tree after successful consolidation may proceed to Step 16.
---
## Step 16: Verification Gate
**IRON LAW: NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE.**
The evidence ledger is the mechanical arm of this law. Check it FIRST:
Find generation/build commands in CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md, package scripts, and build
configuration; run them first, skipping only when none are defined. A failed build blocks push. If it changes tracked files, inspect the
changes, run affected checks from Steps 6–11, refresh release facts, and commit
under Step 15 before returning here. Reuse unchanged results and actual approvals.
Then check test evidence against the final content:
```bash
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-evidence check --label tests --expect-cmd '<exact tests-lane command from Step 5>' --label vitest --expect-cmd '<exact vitest-lane command from Step 5>' --max-age 24 --allow-paths CHANGELOG.md,VERSION,package.json,agents-digest/gstack-AGENTS.md
```
Include only lane labels actually run in Step 5; `vitest` is an example, not a required framework.
Pass each `--expect-cmd` the exact command string the wrapped Step 5 lane ran —
that binds FRESH to the real suite (a green `echo ok` recorded under the label
can never satisfy the check). Residual risk, accepted: `package.json` sits on
the allow-list because Step 12's version bump writes its version field between
the test run and this gate (and, in the gstack repo, regenerates the
version-stamped `agents-digest/gstack-AGENTS.md`); a behavior-changing
package.json edit in that window would not invalidate evidence. The check is
advisory either way.
Use only Step 5's actual lane labels and exact commands; `vitest` is an example.
If Step 4 explicitly declined testing and no lanes exist, report that gap instead
of inventing FRESH evidence. Build verification still applies.
- **Every line FRESH (exit 0):** the recorded runs were green and the working-tree
content is identical to what was tested, modulo the allow-listed release files
(this mechanizes the "CHANGELOG edits don't count" rule — VERSION/CHANGELOG
commits between Step 5 and here don't invalidate the run). Cite the evidence
lines (label, exit, ts, log path) as the verification evidence and continue.
- **Any STALE/MISSING (exit non-zero):** run live, wrapped, so the fresh run is
recorded: `~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-evidence run --label <lane> -- '<command>'`.
The check is an advisory guardrail — a failed CHECK never blocks; a failed RUN does.
The allow-list covers release bookkeeping, including Step 12's package/digest
version stamps. Behavioral package.json edits still require live tests despite
the path exemption. Do not add `TODOS.md` or generated tests to the allow-list:
Step 7 tests, review fixes, and Step 14 TODO edits intentionally make evidence STALE.
Before pushing, re-verify if code changed at any point after Step 5:
- **Every line FRESH (exit 0):** recorded runs passed on identical content except
the listed release files. Cite label, exit, timestamp, and log path; continue.
- **Any STALE/MISSING (exit non-zero):** rerun the stale/missing lanes on final
content, wrapped as `~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-evidence run --label <lane> -- '<command>'`.
Read results and recheck once. A content, command, or age mismatch requires
relevant fresh verification. If the ledger alone cannot record or verify a
successful live run, confirm unchanged final content and cite the exact command,
exit, and log; report ledger unavailable and continue, but never label the ledger FRESH.
If unchanged content cannot be confirmed, STOP. Do not rerun green suites solely for bookkeeping.
A failed CHECK selects live verification: a failed CHECK never blocks; a failed RUN does, except for the explicit triage waiver below.
1. **Test verification:** If ANY code changed after Step 5's test run (fixes from review findings, CHANGELOG edits don't count), re-run the test suite. The evidence check above IS this rule, mechanized — trust FRESH, re-run on STALE. Paste fresh output when you re-run. Stale output from Step 5 with changed content is NOT acceptable.
Paste build and rerun results. Later code, test, or build-input changes return
through this gate before pushing. Step 18 owns validation of its post-push
docs-only edits; follow repository-required checks there too. Do not claim an
earlier test run covered changed inputs.
2. **Build verification:** If the project has a build step, run it. Paste output.
3. Confidence, earlier results on different code, and "trivial change" are not verification. Run the checks.
**If tests fail here:** STOP. Do not push. Fix the issue and return to Step 5.
**If tests fail here:** apply Step 5's triage. A prior explicit waiver remains valid
only for the same verified pre-existing failures and approved scope; cite that
approval and actual failing counts, never FRESH or all-green evidence. New,
changed, or unwaived failures STOP publication and return to Step 5.
Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
@@ -1023,9 +971,13 @@ Branch on the echoed values:
**Idempotency check:** Check if the branch is already pushed and up to date.
```bash
git fetch origin <branch-name> 2>/dev/null
LOCAL=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
REMOTE=$(git rev-parse origin/<branch-name> 2>/dev/null || echo "none")
LOCAL=$(git rev-parse HEAD) || exit 1
REMOTE_REF=$(git ls-remote --heads origin refs/heads/<branch-name>) || {
echo "STATUS: BLOCKED — cannot verify remote branch; restore access before pushing"
exit 1
}
REMOTE=$(printf '%s\n' "$REMOTE_REF" | awk '{print $1}')
REMOTE=${REMOTE:-none}
echo "LOCAL: $LOCAL REMOTE: $REMOTE"
[ "$LOCAL" = "$REMOTE" ] && echo "ALREADY_PUSHED" || echo "PUSH_NEEDED"
```
@@ -1036,7 +988,15 @@ If `ALREADY_PUSHED`, skip the push but continue to Step 18. Otherwise push with
git push -u origin <branch-name>
```
**You are NOT done.** The code is pushed but Step 18 (dispatch the /document-release subagent to sync docs) and Step 19 (create the PR/MR) are mandatory final steps. Continue to Step 18.
**If the push fails, STOP.** Report its error; do not run Steps 18–19 or claim
publication. For a non-fast-forward rejection, fetch and inspect the remote branch,
merge its changes without rewriting history, and return to Step 5 through Step 16
before retrying. Resolve ambiguous conflicts with the user; never force-push.
For authentication, hook, or network failures, fix that cause, rerun affected checks
if content changed, then recheck Step 16 before retrying. Never bypass a failed guard.
Only a successful push or verified `ALREADY_PUSHED` proceeds.
Continue to mandatory Step 18 (dispatch /document-release), then Step 19 (create/update PR/MR). A push alone does not complete /ship.
---
@@ -1049,14 +1009,10 @@ git push -u origin <branch-name>
## Step 20: Persist ship metrics
Log coverage and plan completion data so `/retro` can track trends.
Route the append through `gstack-review-log`. It resolves the project slug and
the canonical branch form itself, creates the directory, validates the JSON, and
enqueues the row for gbrain sync. It takes **no path argument** — never build a
`<branch>-reviews.jsonl` path by hand. A branch with a `/` in it turns a
hand-built path into a subdirectory write, and the row goes somewhere `/retro`
will never look.
Log coverage and plan completion for `/retro` through `gstack-review-log`.
It resolves the project/branch, validates JSON, creates storage and queues sync.
It takes **no path argument**: hand-built `<branch>-reviews.jsonl` paths break
branches containing `/`.
```bash
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"ship","timestamp":"'"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"'","coverage_pct":COVERAGE_PCT,"plan_items_total":PLAN_TOTAL,"plan_items_done":PLAN_DONE,"verification_result":"VERIFY_RESULT","version":"VERSION","branch":"'"$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)"'"}'
test/fixtures/golden/codex-ship-SKILL.md
Vendored
+387 -349
View File
File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff
test/fixtures/golden/factory-ship-SKILL.md
Vendored
+409 -359
View File
File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff
test/fixtures/native-auq-boxed-full-body-sep21.json
Vendored
+35
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
{
"publicCall": {
"sessionId": "6465d382-6e7e-4ec4-b8b7-ebe3db9dce52",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01RgYcZf1o16DbbJxjkJ1EZy",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Who should receive the assignment notification email?\nProject/branch/task: On main, spec'ing a task-assignment email notification feature from a one-line intent.\nELI10: When a task gets assigned, we send an email. But to whom? Just the new assignee? Also the person who did the assigning? Task watchers/subscribers too? This is the biggest scope decision because it drives the recipient lookup, the number of emails per event, and the risk of inbox fatigue.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Under-notify and assignees miss real work handoffs; over-notify and people mute the channel and miss the actual signal.\nRecommendation: Assignee only because it matches the literal ask, ships the MVP fastest, and expanding later is purely additive.\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=8/10, C=9/10, D=10/10\nPros / cons: see options.\nNet: Trading off signal breadth vs inbox noise and build cost — start narrow, add recipients later if the value shows up.",
"header": "Recipients",
"options": [
{
"label": "Assignee only (recommended)",
"description": "Email goes to the person the task was assigned to.\n✅ Matches the literal request wording exactly, no interpretation drift\n✅ Simplest lookup: assignee_id → user.email, one row, one send\n❌ Task creator won't know their handoff landed unless they check the UI"
},
{
"label": "Assignee + task creator",
"description": "Both the new assignee and whoever created the task get emailed.\n✅ Closes the loop for the creator so they know their delegation stuck\n✅ Still tightly bounded — max two emails per assignment event\n❌ Creator often IS the assigner, causing self-notifications unless we suppress"
},
{
"label": "Assignee + creator + watchers",
"description": "Everyone with a stake (assignee, creator, subscribers) gets emailed.\n✅ Keeps every interested party synchronized without them polling the UI\n✅ Reuses any existing subscription/watcher plumbing if the project already has it\n❌ Requires a watcher model that may not exist yet, expanding scope well beyond the ask"
},
{
"label": "Per-user preferences",
"description": "Users configure which assignment events they want emails for; system honors that.\n✅ Long-term correct answer — users control their own inbox load\n✅ Handles the digest/mute/immediate axes cleanly once built\n❌ Adds a preferences table, settings UI, and default-migration work — much bigger scope than an MVP"
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": false,
"failed": false,
"source": "pre_tool_use"
},
"viewport": " multiple unlocked scope decisions — the most load-bearing early one is who the notification actually goes to, because\n it determines the data model, the lookup path, and the volume of email traffic.\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n ☐ Recipients\n\n│ D1 — Who should receive the assignment notification email?\n│ Project/branch/task: On main, spec'ing a task-assignment email notification feature from a one-line intent.\n│ ELI10: When a task gets assigned, we send an email. But to whom? Just the new assignee? Also the person who did the\n│ assigning? Task watchers/subscribers too? This is the biggest scope decision because it drives the recipient lookup,\n│ the number of emails per event, and the risk of inbox fatigue.\n│ Stakes if we pick wrong: Under-notify and assignees miss real work handoffs; over-notify and people mute the channel\n│ and miss the actual signal.\n│ Recommendation: Assignee only because it matches the literal ask, ships the MVP fastest, and expanding later is purely\n│ additive.\n│ Completeness: A=7/10, B=8/10, C=9/10, D=10/10\n│ Pros / cons: see options.\n│ Net: Trading off signal breadth vs inbox noise and build cost — start narrow, add recipients later if the value shows\n│ up.\n\n❯ 1. Assignee only (recommended)\n Email goes to the person the task was assigned to.�✅ Matches the literal request wording exactly, no\n interpretation drift�✅ Simplest lookup: assignee_id → user.email, one row, one send�❌ Task creator won't know\n their handoff landed unless they check the UI\n 2. Assignee + task creator\n Both the new assignee and whoever created the task get emailed.�✅ Closes the loop for the creator so they know\n their delegation stuck�✅ Still tightly bounded — max two emails per assignment event�❌ Creator often IS the\n assigner, causing self-notifications unless we suppress\n 3. Assignee + creator + watchers\n Everyone with a stake (assignee, creator, subscribers) gets emailed.�✅ Keeps every interested party synchronized\n without them polling the UI�✅ Reuses any existing subscription/watcher plumbing if the project already has it�❌\n Requires a watcher model that may not exist yet, expanding scope well beyond the ask\n 4. Per-user preferences\n Users configure which assignment events they want emails for; system honors that.�✅ Long-term correct answer —\n users control their own inbox load�✅ Handles the digest/mute/immediate axes cleanly once built�❌ Adds a\n preferences table, settings UI, and default-migration work — much bigger scope than an MVP\n 5. Type something. \n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n 6. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · Esc to cancel"
}
test/fixtures/native-auq-clipped-elided-sep21.json
Vendored
+31
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
{
"publicCall": {
"sessionId": "212c1e58-16da-4ed1-80e2-6a5fca02ecc5",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Pwt2tjGdF4MnMxnxmn484g",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Reduce the pricing-tier plan to a minimal version, or proceed with all four components as written?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, reviewing plan.md (\"developer-friendly\" pricing tier).\nELI10: The plan builds four new things (Stripe tier, pricing page, entitlements table, Redis cache) to test a hunch that developers find us too expensive. Nobody has asked a developer yet. If the hunch is wrong, all four pieces are wasted and we now maintain a cache and a table nobody needed. If the hunch is right, a single Stripe price plus a feature-flagged page proves it just as well.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Over-build and we carry Redis plus an extra table forever for a tier that may not move signups. Under-build and we ship a tier we can't measure or roll back.\nRecommendation: A because the goal is learning whether price is the barrier, and a Stripe price + flagged page + one column answers that with the least surface area to secure, test, and roll back.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=7/10, C=5/10 (C has more parts but ships with no tests, no auth check, no rollout, so it covers less of what matters)\nPros / cons:\nA) Minimal: validate premise, Stripe price, flagged pricing page, plan column, no Redis (recommended) (human: ~1 week incl. 5-8 developer conversations / CC: ~30 min build, interviews stay human-bound)\n ✅ Smallest blast radius: one Stripe price, one column, one flag, easy to roll back or delete if the hunch is wrong\n ✅ Forces a real success metric (developer signups vs. baseline over N weeks) before code is written\n ✅ Frees room in this PR for the missing tests, auth check on upgrade, and a rollout plan\n ❌ Slower to a shipped tier because talking to developers first takes calendar time\nB) Middle: Stripe tier + pricing page + entitlements table, drop Redis, add tests/auth/rollout (human: ~2 weeks / CC: ~1 hr)\n ✅ Keeps a dedicated entitlements table if you already know more tiers or per-customer overrides are coming\n ✅ Drops the one component (Redis) with no stated justification while keeping the rest of the team's intent\n ❌ Still builds a schema abstraction for a single tier before the premise is validated\nC) Proceed as-is: all four components including Redis (human: ~3-4 weeks / CC: ~2 hr)\n ✅ Matches what the team already agreed to, no re-litigating the design internally\n ✅ Redis is in place if entitlement reads ever become a measured hot path\n ❌ Adds a cache and a table for an unobserved performance problem, and the plan currently has no tests, no auth on upgrade, and no rollout path\nNet: You're trading a few days of developer conversations and a smaller diff against carrying two pieces of infrastructure for a hypothesis nobody has tested.",
"header": "Scope",
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Minimal + validate first (Recommended)",
"description": "✅ Smallest blast radius, easy rollback. ✅ Forces a measurable success metric before code. ✅ Leaves room for tests, auth check, rollout plan. ❌ Slower to ship because developer conversations take calendar time. Completeness: 9/10. (human: ~1 week / CC: ~30 min build)"
},
{
"label": "B) Middle: drop Redis, keep table",
"description": "✅ Keeps entitlements table if more tiers or per-customer overrides are already planned. ✅ Removes the one component with no stated justification. ❌ Still builds schema abstraction for one tier before the premise is validated. Completeness: 7/10. (human: ~2 weeks / CC: ~1 hr)"
},
{
"label": "C) Proceed as-is",
"description": "✅ Matches what the team already agreed to. ✅ Redis ready if entitlement reads ever become a measured hot path. ❌ Adds cache and table for an unobserved problem, and plan has no tests, no auth on upgrade, no rollout. Completeness: 5/10. (human: ~3-4 weeks / CC: ~2 hr)"
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": false,
"failed": false,
"source": "pre_tool_use"
},
"viewport": "│ Project/branch/task: main branch, reviewing plan.md (\"developer-friendly\" pricing tier).\n│ ELI10: The plan builds four new things (Stripe tier, pricing page, entitlements table, Redis cache) to test a hunch\n│ that developers find us too expensive. Nobody has asked a developer yet. If the hunch is wrong, all four pieces are\n│ wasted and we now maintain a cache and a table nobody needed. If the hunch is right, a single Stripe price plus a\n│ feature-flagged page proves it just as well.\n│ Stakes if we pick wrong: Over-build and we carry Redis plus an extra table forever for a tier that may not move\n│ signups. Under-build and we ship a tier we can't measure or roll back.\n│ Recommendation: A because the goal is learning whether price is the barrier, and a Stripe price + flagged page + one\n│ column answers that with the least surface area to secure, test, and roll back.\n│ Completeness: A=9/10, B=7/10, C=5/10 (C has more parts but ships with no tests, no auth check, no rollout, so it\n│ covers less of what matters)\n│ Pros / cons:\n│ A) Minimal: validate premise, Stripe price, flagged pricing page, plan column, no Redis (recommended) (human: ~1 week\n│ incl. 5-8 developer conversations / CC: ~30 min build, interviews stay human-bound)\n│ ✅ Smallest blast radius: one Stripe price, one column, one flag, easy to roll back or delete if the hunch is wrong\n│ ✅ Forces a real success metric (developer signups vs. baseline over N weeks) before code is written\n│ ✅ Frees room in this PR for the missing tests, auth check on upgrade, and a rollout plan\n│ ❌ Slower to a shipped tier because talking to developers first takes calendar time\n│ B) Middle: Stripe tier + pricing page + entitlements table, drop Redis, add tests/auth/rollout (human: ~2 weeks / CC:\n│ ~1 hr)\n│ ✅ Keeps a dedicated entitlements table if you already know more tiers or per-customer overrides are coming\n│ ✅ Drops the one component (Redis) with no stated…\n\n❯ 1. A) Minimal + validate first (Recommended)\n ✅ Smallest blast radius, easy rollback. ✅ Forces a measurable success metric before code. ✅ Leaves room for\n tests, auth check, rollout plan. ❌ Slower to ship because developer conversations take calendar time.\n Completeness: 9/10. (human: ~1 week / CC: ~30 min build)\n 2. B) Middle: drop Redis, keep table\n ✅ Keeps entitlements table if more tiers or per-customer overrides are already planned. ✅ Removes the one\n component with no stated justification. ❌ Still builds schema abstraction for one tier before the premise is\n validated. Completeness: 7/10. (human: ~2 weeks / CC: ~1 hr)\n 3. C) Proceed as-is\n ✅ Matches what the team already agreed to. ✅ Redis ready if entitlement reads ever become a measured hot path. ❌\n Adds cache and table for an unobserved problem, and plan has no tests, no auth on upgrade, no rollout.\n Completeness: 5/10. (human: ~3-4 weeks / CC: ~2 hr)\n 4. Type something. \n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n 5. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · Esc to cancel"
}
test/fixtures/native-auq-devex-clipped-elided-sep21.json
Vendored
+35
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
{
"publicCall": {
"sessionId": "2e0077ea-64bf-4bdf-b3a0-ae291dd57450",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01LyJhrg8sG6wbph3zeNbEtH",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — What kind of developer product is this plan shipping?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, DX review of plan.md (\"developer-friendly pricing tier\" with a `mytool pricing` CLI command and setup wizard).\nELI10: A DX review only makes sense if we agree on what developers actually touch. This plan mixes a billing change (Stripe tier, Postgres entitlements, Redis cache, upgrade endpoint) with a small CLI surface (`mytool pricing` plus a setup wizard). The classification decides which personas I offer next, which competitors I benchmark against, and what \"time to hello world\" even means here.\nStakes if we pick wrong: I benchmark the wrong thing. Treating this as a CLI when the real friction is signup and billing (or the reverse) produces scores and fixes aimed at a surface developers never see.\nRecommendation: A because the only surface a developer directly operates in this plan is the `mytool pricing` command and wizard; everything else is backend plumbing behind it.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) CLI Tool (recommended)\n ✅ Matches the one concrete developer touchpoint the plan names: `mytool pricing` and the setup wizard\n ✅ Gives the review a measurable hello-world path: install, run the command, see the tier, upgrade\n ❌ Underweights the signup, checkout, and entitlement flow where the plan's own goal (more signups) lives\nB) Platform / hosted service\n ✅ Centers the review on account creation, billing, and entitlement checks, which is where signups are won or lost\n ✅ Surfaces the missing auth check on the upgrade endpoint as a credibility and trust issue early\n ❌ The plan describes almost none of this surface, so the review would be scoring guesses rather than the written plan\nC) Both: CLI primary, Platform secondary\n ✅ Keeps the CLI hello-world path as the spine while still auditing the upgrade and entitlement flow behind it\n ✅ Lets the persona step offer both CLI-first and evaluator personas instead of forcing one\n ❌ Roughly doubles the passes and benchmarks (human: ~1 extra hour / CC: ~5 extra min) for a plan this thin\nD) No developer-facing surface, exit and use /plan-eng-review\n ✅ Honest if `mytool pricing` is a stub and the real work is a billing backend with no DX to review\n ✅ Routes the untested, unauthenticated upgrade endpoint to the review that will actually catch it\n ❌ Abandons the CLI command and wizard, which are exactly the parts a DX review exists to sharpen\nNet: We are trading a focused review of the one written developer surface against a broader review of the billing flow the plan barely describes. <gstack-qid:plan-devex-review-product-type>",
"header": "Product type",
"options": [
{
"label": "CLI Tool (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Matches the one concrete touchpoint the plan names: `mytool pricing` and the setup wizard\n✅ Gives a measurable hello-world path: install, run the command, see the tier, upgrade\n❌ Underweights the signup, checkout, and entitlement flow where the plan's goal actually lives"
},
{
"label": "Platform / hosted service",
"description": "✅ Centers the review on account creation, billing, and entitlements, where signups are won or lost\n✅ Surfaces the missing auth check on the upgrade endpoint as a trust issue early\n❌ The plan describes almost none of this surface, so the review would score guesses, not the plan"
},
{
"label": "Both: CLI + Platform",
"description": "✅ Keeps the CLI hello-world path as the spine while auditing the upgrade and entitlement flow behind it\n✅ Lets the persona step offer both CLI-first and evaluator personas\n❌ Roughly doubles passes and benchmarks (human: ~1 extra hour / CC: ~5 extra min) for a thin plan"
},
{
"label": "No DX surface, exit",
"description": "✅ Honest if `mytool pricing` is a stub and the real work is a billing backend with no DX to review\n✅ Routes the untested, unauthenticated upgrade endpoint to /plan-eng-review, which will catch it\n❌ Abandons the CLI command and wizard, exactly the parts a DX review exists to sharpen"
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": false,
"failed": false,
"source": "pre_tool_use"
},
"viewport": "│ Stakes if we pick wrong: I benchmark the wrong thing. Treating this as a CLI when the real friction is signup and\n│ billing (or the reverse) produces scores and fixes aimed at a surface developers never see.\n│ Recommendation: A because the only surface a developer directly operates in this plan is the `mytool pricing` command\n│ and wizard; everything else is backend plumbing behind it.\n│ Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\n│ Pros / cons:\n│ A) CLI Tool (recommended)\n│ ✅ Matches the one concrete developer touchpoint the plan names: `mytool pricing` and the setup wizard\n│ ✅ Gives the review a measurable hello-world path: install, run the command, see the tier, upgrade\n│ ❌ Underweights the signup, checkout, and entitlement flow where the plan's own goal (more signups) lives\n│ B) Platform / hosted service\n│ ✅ Centers the review on account creation, billing, and entitlement checks, which is where signups are won or lost\n│ ✅ Surfaces the missing auth check on the upgrade endpoint as a credibility and trust issue early\n│ ❌ The plan describes almost none of this surface, so the review would be scoring guesses rather than the written\n│ plan\n│ C) Both: CLI primary, Platform secondary\n│ ✅ Keeps the CLI hello-world path as the spine while still auditing the upgrade and entitlement flow behind it\n│ ✅ Lets the persona step offer both CLI-first and evaluator personas instead of forci…\n\n❯ 1. CLI Tool (recommended)\n ✅ Matches the one concrete touchpoint the plan names: `mytool pricing` and the setup wizard�✅ Gives a measurable\n hello-world path: install, run the command, see the tier, upgrade�❌ Underweights the signup, checkout, and\n entitlement flow where the plan's goal actually lives\n 2. Platform / hosted service\n ✅ Centers the review on account creation, billing, and entitlements, where signups are won or lost�✅ Surfaces the\n missing auth check on the upgrade endpoint as a trust issue early�❌ The plan describes almost none of this\n surface, so the review would score guesses, not the plan\n 3. Both: CLI + Platform\n ✅ Keeps the CLI hello-world path as the spine while auditing the upgrade and entitlement flow behind it�✅ Lets\n the persona step offer both CLI-first and evaluator personas�❌ Roughly doubles passes and benchmarks (human: ~1\n extra hour / CC: ~5 extra min) for a thin plan\n 4. No DX surface, exit\n ✅ Honest if `mytool pricing` is a stub and the real work is a billing backend with no DX to review�✅ Routes the\n untested, unauthenticated upgrade endpoint to /plan-eng-review, which will catch it�❌ Abandons the CLI command and\n wizard, exactly the parts a DX review exists to sharpen\n 5. Type something. \n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n 6. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · Esc to cancel"
}
test/fixtures/native-auq-margin-elided-sep21.json
Vendored
+31
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
{
"publicCall": {
"sessionId": "5e6b2d8e-2ef4-4742-991d-f17682934099",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01HA8e6ibFKg7owzmR7vUwi9",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Reduce the pricing-tier plan to a minimal, reversible build, or proceed with all four components?\nProject/branch/task: main — plan.md, \"developer-friendly pricing tier\"\nELI10: The plan builds four new things (a Stripe tier, a pricing page, an entitlements table, a Redis cache) to test a hunch nobody has checked with a real developer. Stripe already knows who is on which plan, so a separate entitlements table means two places that can disagree about what a customer paid for. Redis has no stated reason to exist. The more we build before we learn whether price is the barrier, the more we have to unwind if it isn't.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Overbuild and you carry two sources of truth and a cache forever for a tier that might not move adoption; underbuild and you can't cleanly gate features by plan when the tier does land.\nRecommendation: A because it ships the tier behind a flag with Stripe as the single source of truth, drops the two components with no motivating requirement, and gives you a real signal (paid conversions) in days, not weeks.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Minimal, flagged build: Stripe Price + pricing page + auth'd upgrade endpoint, no new table or cache (recommended)\n ✅ Stripe stays the only source of truth for who is on which plan, so nothing drifts\n ✅ Feature flag makes rollout reversible and lets you canary to a slice of developers\n ✅ Full tests and the auth check fit easily in scope (human: ~1 week / CC: ~1-2 hrs)\n ❌ If plan-gated features later need sub-millisecond checks, you add caching then, not now\nB) Proceed as-is: all four components, with tests, auth, and rollout added as review findings\n ✅ Entitlements table gives a local, queryable record independent of Stripe API latency\n ✅ Nothing to re-architect later if the tier succeeds and feature gating gets complex\n ❌ Two sources of truth (Stripe and Postgres) plus a cache layer to keep consistent, for an unvalidated tier (human: ~3-4 weeks / CC: ~half day)\n ❌ 8+ files and 2+ new services before anyone has confirmed price is the problem\nC) Hold the build: run developer discovery first (5-10 interviews or a fake-door price test), then re-plan\n ✅ Cheapest way to learn whether price is actually the barrier before writing any code\n ✅ Produces a real goal and metric to replace \"more signups\"\n ❌ Delays any shipped tier by 1-2 weeks and gives engineering nothing to build meanwhile (human: ~1-2 weeks / CC: n/a)\nNet: You're trading a fuller data model now against a reversible experiment with one source of truth. A gets you the signal with the least to unwind. <gstack-qid:plan-eng-review-scope-reduction>",
"header": "Scope",
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Minimal flagged build (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Stripe is the single source of truth, nothing to drift. ✅ Flag makes rollout reversible and canary-able. ✅ Tests and auth check fit in scope (human: ~1 week / CC: ~1-2 hrs). ❌ Add a cache later only if plan checks prove slow."
},
{
"label": "B) Proceed as-is",
"description": "✅ Local entitlements record independent of Stripe latency. ✅ No re-architecture if gating gets complex later. ❌ Two sources of truth plus a cache to keep consistent for an unvalidated tier (human: ~3-4 weeks / CC: ~half day). ❌ 8+ files and 2+ new services before price is confirmed as the barrier."
},
{
"label": "C) Hold, do discovery first",
"description": "✅ Cheapest way to learn whether price is the real barrier. ✅ Yields a measurable goal to replace 'more signups'. ❌ Delays any shipped tier by 1-2 weeks with nothing for eng to build meanwhile (human: ~1-2 weeks / CC: n/a)."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": false,
"failed": false,
"source": "pre_tool_use"
},
"viewport": "\n│ D1 — Reduce the pricing-tier plan to a minimal, reversible build, or proceed with all four components?\n│ Project/branch/task: main — plan.md, \"developer-friendly pricing tier\"\n│ ELI10: The plan builds four new things (a Stripe tier, a pricing page, an entitlements table, a Redis cache) to test a\n│ hunch nobody has checked with a real developer. Stripe already knows who is on which plan, so a separate entitlements\n│ table means two places that can disagree about what a customer paid for. Redis has no stated reason to exist. The\n│ more we build before we learn whether price is the barrier, the more we have to unwind if it isn't.\n│ Stakes if we pick wrong: Overbuild and you carry two sources of truth and a cache forever for a tier that might not\n│ move adoption; underbuild and you can't cleanly gate features by plan when the tier does land.\n│ Recommendation: A because it ships the tier behind a flag with Stripe as the single source of truth, drops the two\n│ components with no motivating requirement, and gives you a real signal (paid conversions) in days, not weeks.\n│ Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\n│ Pros / cons:\n│ A) Minimal, flagged build: Stripe Price + pricing page + auth'd upgrade endpoint, no new table or cache (recommended)\n│ ✅ Stripe stays the only source of truth for who is on which plan, so nothing drifts\n│ ✅ Feature flag makes rollout reversible and lets you canary to a slice of developers\n│ ✅ Full tests and the auth check fit easily in scope (human: ~1 week / CC: ~1-2 hrs)\n│ ❌ If plan-gated features later need sub-millisecond checks, you add caching then, not now\n│ B) Proceed as-is: all four components, with tests, auth, and rollout added as review findings\n│ ✅ Entitlements table gives a local, queryable record independent of Stripe API latency\n│ ✅ Nothing to re-architect later if the tier succeeds and feature gating gets complex\n│ ❌ Two sources of truth (Stripe and Postgres) plus a cache layer to keep consistent, for an unvalidated tier (human:\n│ ~…\n\n❯ 1. A) Minimal flagged build (recommended)\n ✅ Stripe is the single source of truth, nothing to drift. ✅ Flag makes rollout reversible and canary-able. ✅\n Tests and auth check fit in scope (human: ~1 week / CC: ~1-2 hrs). ❌ Add a cache later only if plan checks prove\n slow.\n 2. B) Proceed as-is\n ✅ Local entitlements record independent of Stripe latency. ✅ No re-architecture if gating gets complex later. ❌\n Two sources of truth plus a cache to keep consistent for an unvalidated tier (human: ~3-4 weeks / CC: ~half day).\n ❌ 8+ files and 2+ new services before price is confirmed as the barrier.\n 3. C) Hold, do discovery first\n ✅ Cheapest way to learn whether price is the real barrier. ✅ Yields a measurable goal to replace 'more signups'.\n ❌ Delays any shipped tier by 1-2 weeks with nothing for eng to build meanwhile (human: ~1-2 weeks / CC: n/a).\n 4. Type something. \n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n 5. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · Esc to cancel"
}
test/fixtures/native-auq-packet-clipped-elided-sep21.json
Vendored
+73
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
{
"publicCall": {
"sessionId": "f5b79e56-921d-414c-9194-34abc3095185",
"toolUseId": "toolu_013SFKoGjBNUP6a3qCvDFNXR",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Confirm the product and surface before I design for it\nProject/branch/task: main branch, design consultation for the terminal-first task manager described in product.md.\nELI10: Before picking fonts, colors, and layout I need to know what I'm designing for. Your brief says a terminal-first task manager for senior engineers, pre-launch. The visual system for a TUI (text user interface) is very different from a marketing site that sells one, and both differ from a companion web dashboard. The stakes: design the wrong surface and the whole system is unusable.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a pixel-perfect web style guide is worthless if the real product is a monospace grid in a terminal, and vice versa.\nRecommendation: A because a pre-launch developer tool almost always needs both a launch site and the tool itself to share one visual voice.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) TUI plus a launch/marketing site (recommended)\n ✅ One coherent brand across the terminal, the README, and the landing page from day one\n ✅ Lets me define both a monospace-native palette and a web typography system that echo each other\n ❌ More surface to cover, so the proposal takes longer to read and review\nB) TUI only\n ✅ Tight focus: terminal palette, ANSI color mapping, layout density, keyboard affordances\n ✅ Fastest path to a DESIGN.md you can apply in code this week\n ❌ Leaves the launch site undesigned, so it risks looking like an afterthought\nC) Marketing site only\n ✅ Concentrates effort on the first impression that drives pre-launch signups\n ✅ Full web typography and color freedom without terminal constraints\n ❌ The product people actually use stays unstyled and can drift from the brand\nD) Something else\n ✅ Maybe there's a web dashboard, editor plugin, or docs site I haven't guessed\n ✅ Tell me in chat and I'll fold it in\n ❌ I'll need a sentence or two from you before I can proceed\nNet: I'm trading breadth of coverage for speed; A gets a coherent brand, B gets shipped fastest.\nAt any point you can just drop into chat and we'll talk through anything — this isn't a rigid form, it's a conversation. <gstack-qid:design-consultation-product-context>",
"header": "Product",
"options": [
{
"label": "TUI + launch site (recommended)",
"description": "✅ One coherent brand across terminal, README, and landing page\n✅ Monospace palette and web typography that echo each other\n❌ More surface to cover, longer proposal to review"
},
{
"label": "TUI only",
"description": "✅ Tight focus on terminal palette, ANSI mapping, density, keyboard affordances\n✅ Fastest path to a DESIGN.md you can apply in code this week\n❌ Launch site stays undesigned and may look like an afterthought"
},
{
"label": "Marketing site only",
"description": "✅ Concentrates effort on the first impression that drives signups\n✅ Full web typography and color freedom, no terminal constraints\n❌ The product people actually use stays unstyled and can drift"
},
{
"label": "Something else",
"description": "✅ A web dashboard, editor plugin, or docs site I haven't guessed\n✅ Tell me in chat and I'll fold it into the plan\n❌ I need a sentence or two from you before proceeding"
}
],
"multiSelect": false
},
{
"question": "Want me to research what top products in your space are doing for design (Taskwarrior, todo.txt clients, lazygit-style TUIs, Linear, Height, and the developer-tool landing pages people copy), or should I work from my design knowledge?\nRecommendation: research, because pre-launch is exactly when you want to know what the category looks like so you can deliberately break from it.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Research the space first (recommended)\n ✅ Grounds the proposal in what your users already see every day\n ✅ Surfaces the category clichés so we can pick deliberate departures\n ❌ Adds a research pass before you see any proposal (human: ~half a day / CC: ~5 min)\nB) Work from design knowledge\n ✅ You get a proposal immediately with no waiting\n ✅ Avoids anchoring on competitors you may already know well\n ❌ Risks reinventing the same dark-mode developer-tool look everyone ships\nNet: a few minutes of research buys a proposal that knows what it's rejecting.",
"header": "Research",
"options": [
{
"label": "Research the space (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Grounds the proposal in what your users see daily\n✅ Surfaces category clichés so we can pick deliberate departures\n❌ Adds a short research pass before the proposal"
},
{
"label": "Work from design knowledge",
"description": "✅ Proposal immediately, no waiting\n✅ Avoids anchoring on competitors you already know\n❌ Risks the same dark-mode dev-tool look everyone ships"
}
],
"multiSelect": false
},
{
"question": "What's the one thing you want someone to remember after they see this product for the first time? One sentence: a feeling, a visual, a claim, or a posture. Every design decision will serve it.\nRecommendation: pick the closest option or type your own — this is a taste call, no strong preference either way.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Built for people who live in the terminal (recommended)\n ✅ Signals seriousness to senior engineers who distrust polished consumer tools\n ✅ Justifies monospace-native, dense, keyboard-first design choices\n ❌ Can read as gatekeeping if the launch site leans on it too hard\nB) Fast enough to disappear\n ✅ Speed as the brand gives every screen a clear editing rule: remove anything slow\n ✅ Strong differentiator against web-first task tools that feel heavy\n ❌ Hard to show speed in a static landing page without motion work\nC) Calm, not another notification machine\n ✅ Positions against noisy project tools and earns a quieter palette\n ✅ Appeals to senior engineers who guard their focus time\n ❌ Calm can tip into forgettable if the type and color are too restrained\nD) I'll write my own\n ✅ Your words will be sharper than my guesses about your product\n ✅ Anything you type becomes the sentence the whole system serves\n ❌ Needs a sentence from you before I move on\nNet: this line becomes the tiebreaker for every later font, color, and layout decision.",
"header": "Memorable",
"options": [
{
"label": "Built for terminal natives (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Signals seriousness to senior engineers who distrust polished consumer tools\n✅ Justifies monospace-native, dense, keyboard-first choices\n❌ Can read as gatekeeping if the site leans on it too hard"
},
{
"label": "Fast enough to disappear",
"description": "✅ Speed as the brand gives every screen a clear editing rule\n✅ Strong differentiator against heavy web-first task tools\n❌ Hard to show speed on a static landing page without motion"
},
{
"label": "Calm, not a notification machine",
"description": "✅ Positions against noisy project tools and earns a quieter palette\n✅ Appeals to senior engineers who guard focus time\n❌ Calm tips into forgettable if type and color are too restrained"
},
{
"label": "I'll write my own",
"description": "✅ Your words beat my guesses about your product\n✅ Whatever you type becomes the sentence the system serves\n❌ Needs a sentence from you before I move on"
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": false,
"failed": false,
"source": "pre_tool_use"
},
"viewport": "│ terminal, and vice versa.\n│ Recommendation: A because a pre-launch developer tool almost always needs both a launch site and the tool itself to\n│ share one visual voice.\n│ Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\n│ Pros / cons:\n│ A) TUI plus a launch/marketing site (recommended)\n│ ✅ One coherent brand across the terminal, the README, and the landing page from day one\n│ ✅ Lets me define both a monospace-native palette and a web typography system that echo each other\n│ ❌ More surface to cover, so the proposal takes longer to read and review\n│ B) TUI only\n│ ✅ Tight focus: terminal palette, ANSI color mapping, layout density, keyboard affordances\n│ ✅ Fastest path to a DESIGN.md you can apply in code this week\n│ ❌ Leaves the launch site undesigned, so it risks looking like an afterthought\n│ C) Marketing site only\n│ ✅ Concentrates effort on the first impression that drives pre-launch signups\n│ ✅ Full web typography and color freedom without terminal constraints\n│ ❌ The product people actually use stays unstyled and can drift from the brand\n│ D) Something else\n│ ✅ Maybe there's a web dashboard, editor plugin, or docs site I haven't guessed\n│ ✅ Tell me in chat and I'll fold it in\n│ ❌ I'll need a sentence or two from you before I can proceed\n│ Net: I'm trading breadth of coverage for speed; A gets…\n\n❯ 1. TUI + launch site (recommended)\n ✅ One coherent brand across terminal, README, and landing page�✅ Monospace palette and web typography that echo\n each other�❌ More surface to cover, longer proposal to review\n 2. TUI only\n ✅ Tight focus on terminal palette, ANSI mapping, density, keyboard affordances�✅ Fastest path to a DESIGN.md you\n can apply in code this week�❌ Launch site stays undesigned and may look like an afterthought\n 3. Marketing site only\n ✅ Concentrates effort on the first impression that drives signups�✅ Full web typography and color freedom, no\n terminal constraints�❌ The product people actually use stays unstyled and can drift\n 4. Something else\n ✅ A web dashboard, editor plugin, or docs site I haven't guessed�✅ Tell me in chat and I'll fold it into the\n plan�❌ I need a sentence or two from you before proceeding\n 5. Type something. \n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n 6. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select · Tab/Arrow keys to navigate · Esc to cancel"
}
test/fixtures/shared-libs-index-flags-skip-question.json
Vendored
+65
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
{
"sourceHead": "b9f6893e027ea128a92cf3cdb18dabfab2f227e2",
"ciMerge": "116ba1cc528e6bc6c6b31f65aa9f106a229bfb1a",
"qualification": "Failed fixture actor selected an affirmative fix instead of Skip. These are exact public native question/result blocks; subsequent source-preservation failure remains a failure.",
"events": [
{
"type": "assistant",
"message": {
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_use",
"id": "toolu_01PB3pA1sTW4DbQW68y53Mrx",
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
"input": {
"questions": [
{
"question": "[ADVISORY] src/retry-worker.ts:2 duplicates lib/retry-after.ts#retrySeconds verbatim (as does src/retry-route.ts at HEAD). Reuse the tested shared helper? RECOMMENDATION: Fix both — the copies are byte-identical, the helper is already tested and used by scheduler.ts, and there are no caller differences to preserve. Note: src/retry-route.ts has the skip-worktree flag set, so an edit to it will not appear in git status/diff until you run `git update-index --no-skip-worktree src/retry-route.ts`; I will not change index flags without your say-so.",
"header": "Shared helper",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Fix both (Recommended)",
"description": "Replace src/retry-worker.ts and src/retry-route.ts bodies with `export { retrySeconds } from '../lib/retry-after';` (~-28 lines). Also clear the skip-worktree flag on retry-route.ts so the change is committable.",
"preview": "// src/retry-worker.ts\nexport { retrySeconds } from '../lib/retry-after';\n\n// src/retry-route.ts\nexport { retrySeconds } from '../lib/retry-after';\n\n// then: git update-index --no-skip-worktree src/retry-route.ts"
},
{
"label": "Fix both, leave index flag",
"description": "Same two edits, but do not touch the skip-worktree flag; retry-route.ts change stays local/hidden from git until you clear it yourself.",
"preview": "// src/retry-worker.ts\nexport { retrySeconds } from '../lib/retry-after';\n\n// src/retry-route.ts\nexport { retrySeconds } from '../lib/retry-after';\n\n// skip-worktree flag left as-is (change hidden from git)"
},
{
"label": "Fix worker only",
"description": "Restore the one-line re-export in src/retry-worker.ts (the file in this diff) only; leave src/retry-route.ts as a standalone copy.",
"preview": "// src/retry-worker.ts\nexport { retrySeconds } from '../lib/retry-after';\n\n// src/retry-route.ts unchanged (still a full copy)"
},
{
"label": "Skip",
"description": "Keep the inlined copy in the worker. Recorded as an explicit skipped advisory (excluded from score/defect counts).",
"preview": "// no edits; advisory persisted as action: \"skipped\"\n// coverage will exclude src/retry-route.ts (skip-worktree, raw bytes differ)"
}
]
}
]
},
"caller": {
"type": "direct"
}
}
]
}
},
{
"type": "user",
"message": {
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_result",
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"[ADVISORY] src/retry-worker.ts:2 duplicates lib/retry-after.ts#retrySeconds verbatim (as does src/retry-route.ts at HEAD). Reuse the tested shared helper? RECOMMENDATION: Fix both — the copies are byte-identical, the helper is already tested and used by scheduler.ts, and there are no caller differences to preserve. Note: src/retry-route.ts has the skip-worktree flag set, so an edit to it will not appear in git status/diff until you run `git update-index --no-skip-worktree src/retry-route.ts`; I will not change index flags without your say-so.\"=\"Fix both, leave index flag\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01PB3pA1sTW4DbQW68y53Mrx"
}
]
}
}
]
}
test/fixtures/shared-libs-paths-max-turns-public.json
Vendored
+76
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
{
"source": {
"head": "b9f6893",
"ciMerge": "116ba1cc528e6bc6c6b31f65aa9f106a229bfb1a",
"artifact": "paid-slice-2.zip",
"entry": "shards/skill-e2e-shared-libs-paths/1.88.0-HEAD-e2e-2026-09-23-0222.json",
"name": "shared-libs-review-index-flags",
"attempt": 2,
"scenario": "skip-worktree"
},
"qualification": "Exact public final native question and answered result, immediately followed by error_max_turns. The actor answered Skip correctly; no finish or final summary followed. This historical attempt remains failed.",
"events": [
{
"type": "assistant",
"message": {
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_use",
"id": "toolu_01JxhVBm6Qkb1JZgUyxvVvsN",
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
"input": {
"questions": [
{
"question": "I found 0 defects. 1 optional advisory needs your input:\n\n1. [ADVISORY] src/retry-worker.ts:2-15 \u2014 This diff replaces the one-line re-export of lib/retry-after.ts#retrySeconds with a byte-identical 14-line copy. src/retry-route.ts:2-15 (raw file read directly; skip-worktree hides it from git diff) holds the same identical copy. src/scheduler.ts:1 already imports the lib helper, and test/retry-after.test.ts covers its contract (5 assertions, passing). No behavior differences to preserve; same runtime/repo.\n Fix: worker \u2192 `export { retrySeconds } from '../lib/retry-after';` route \u2192 same one-liner. Implementation: \u221230/+2 = 28 lines saved; total \u2248 \u221228 (no new tests needed; existing contract test covers all callers). Shared-failure blast radius is unchanged \u2014 the three copies are identical today.\n Note: a prior review on this branch skipped this exact advisory, but that decision can't be reused because retry-route.ts changed under skip-worktree.\n\nRECOMMENDATION: Fix \u2014 it's a pure reuse of a proven helper with zero preserved differences.\n\nApply the extraction?",
"header": "Advisory",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Fix as recommended (Recommended)",
"description": "Replace both inline copies (src/retry-worker.ts and src/retry-route.ts) with a one-line re-export from lib/retry-after.ts."
},
{
"label": "Fix worker only",
"description": "Re-export in src/retry-worker.ts only; leave the skip-worktree src/retry-route.ts copy untouched."
},
{
"label": "Skip",
"description": "Keep the inline copies. Recorded as an explicit skipped advisory (no score impact)."
}
]
}
]
},
"caller": {
"type": "direct"
}
}
]
}
},
{
"type": "user",
"message": {
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_result",
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"I found 0 defects. 1 optional advisory needs your input:\n\n1. [ADVISORY] src/retry-worker.ts:2-15 \u2014 This diff replaces the one-line re-export of lib/retry-after.ts#retrySeconds with a byte-identical 14-line copy. src/retry-route.ts:2-15 (raw file read directly; skip-worktree hides it from git diff) holds the same identical copy. src/scheduler.ts:1 already imports the lib helper, and test/retry-after.test.ts covers its contract (5 assertions, passing). No behavior differences to preserve; same runtime/repo.\n Fix: worker \u2192 `export { retrySeconds } from '../lib/retry-after';` route \u2192 same one-liner. Implementation: \u221230/+2 = 28 lines saved; total \u2248 \u221228 (no new tests needed; existing contract test covers all callers). Shared-failure blast radius is unchanged \u2014 the three copies are identical today.\n Note: a prior review on this branch skipped this exact advisory, but that decision can't be reused because retry-route.ts changed under skip-worktree.\n\nRECOMMENDATION: Fix \u2014 it's a pure reuse of a proven helper with zero preserved differences.\n\nApply the extraction?\"=\"Skip\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01JxhVBm6Qkb1JZgUyxvVvsN"
}
]
}
}
],
"terminal": {
"type": "result",
"subtype": "error_max_turns",
"is_error": true,
"errors": [
"Reached maximum number of turns (30)"
],
"num_turns": 31,
"duration_ms": 274014,
"total_cost_usd": 1.1031620000000002,
"stop_reason": "tool_use"
}
}
test/fixtures/shared-libs-readonly-substitution-ci16358.json
Vendored
+25
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
{
"source": {
"run": 35801633192,
"head": "16358ef00a69a6d789a7944a17e2b3c037850a16",
"ci_merge": "264f48d7",
"test": "shared-libs-read-only",
"assertion": "shell file output redirection"
},
"calls": [
{
"attempt": 1,
"tool": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "MAIN=2b4dae6e2a2cfb2d25d5c6dfaf7dcb5169dadb0f; BR=71a4a7f7b7d13343d7f51ffa3117e0315786b862\nfor f in .gitattributes .gitignore README.md bootstrap.js generated/sdk-a.ts generated/sdk-b.ts hashlib.py lib/retry-after.ts package.json src/branch-only.ts src/injected.ts src/internal-user.ts src/inventory.py src/public-user.ts src/retry-route.ts src/retry-worker.ts src/scheduler.ts src/search.py templates/client.ts.tmpl test/retry-after.test.ts vendor/copied-sdk.ts; do\n printf \"%-28s\" \"$f\"\n for ref in $MAIN $BR; do\n resp=$(gh api --method GET \"repos/fixture/shared-libs/contents/$f?ref=$ref\" 2>&1)\n if printf '%s' \"$resp\" | grep -q '\"content\"'; then\n sha=$(printf '%s' \"$resp\" | sed -n 's/.*\"sha\":\"\\([0-9a-f]*\\)\".*/\\1/p')\n if printf '%s' \"$resp\" | sed -n 's/.*\"content\":\"\\([^\"]*\\)\".*/\\1/p' | base64 -d | cmp -s - \"$f\"; then st=\"same\"; else st=\"DIFF\"; fi\n printf \" | %s %s %s\" \"${ref:0:7}\" \"${sha:0:7}\" \"$st\"\n else\n printf \" | %s ABSENT(%s)\" \"${ref:0:7}\" \"$(printf '%s' \"$resp\" | head -c 60 | tr '\\n' ' ')\"\n fi\n done; echo\ndone"
}
},
{
"attempt": 2,
"tool": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "for ref in 74ee64c04ab825366a803cc7f06ac66213b0e96f d5a8b4de5293dfc0aaee03ed5b1eb72790aecbbf; do for f in src/retry-route.ts src/retry-worker.ts lib/retry-after.ts src/inventory.py; do r=$(gh api --method GET \"repos/fixture/shared-libs/contents/$f?ref=$ref\" 2>&1); if printf '%s' \"$r\" | jq -e .sha >/dev/null 2>&1; then echo \"$f @${ref:0:7}: present blob $(printf '%s' \"$r\" | jq -r .sha)\"; else echo \"$f @${ref:0:7}: $(printf '%s' \"$r\" | head -c 80)\"; fi; done; done"
}
}
]
}
test/fixtures/shared-libs-revalidation-max-turns-public.json
Vendored
+113
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
{
"source": "ci-16358-revalidation-fix-v2 / secondary-0QDOf1 / 1790126919121-shared-libs-review-revalidation-1-3.json",
"qualification": "Exact public final persistence and read-back blocks. Native error_max_turns remains failed despite a CURRENT completed persisted review; the wider invocation was cancelled.",
"events": [
{
"type": "assistant",
"message": {
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_use",
"id": "toolu_01HmcJdGgU33AH4ZBtMqCVKC",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{\"skill\":\"review\",\"timestamp\":\"2026-09-23T01:28:17Z\",\"status\":\"clean\",\"issues_found\":0,\"critical\":0,\"informational\":0,\"quality_score\":10.0,\"specialists\":{\"maintainability\":{\"dispatched\":true,\"findings\":1,\"critical\":0,\"informational\":1},\"testing\":{\"dispatched\":false,\"reason\":\"scope\"},\"security\":{\"dispatched\":false,\"reason\":\"scope\"},\"performance\":{\"dispatched\":false,\"reason\":\"scope\"},\"data-migration\":{\"dispatched\":false,\"reason\":\"scope\"},\"api-contract\":{\"dispatched\":false,\"reason\":\"scope\"},\"design\":{\"dispatched\":false,\"reason\":\"scope\"},\"simplification\":{\"dispatched\":false,\"reason\":\"scope\"}},\"findings\":[{\"fingerprint\":\"shared-libs:af037ba20b8a3674855fb65b04f1855c7f0cb5581d3b31f1c4cf5ab648ee6d33\",\"severity\":\"INFORMATIONAL\",\"action\":\"skipped\",\"advisory\":true,\"category\":\"shared-libs\",\"path\":\"src/retry-worker.ts\",\"line\":2,\"confidence\":9,\"summary\":\"Reuse the tested parser\",\"specialist\":\"maintainability\",\"evidence_paths\":[\"src/retry-worker.ts\",\"src/retry-route.ts\",\"lib/retry-after.ts\"],\"helper_target\":{\"path\":\"lib/retry-after.ts\",\"symbol\":\"retrySeconds\"},\"snapshot_covered_paths\":[\"src/retry-worker.ts\",\"src/retry-route.ts\",\"lib/retry-after.ts\"]}],\"commit\":\"54880d2\",\"completed\":true,\"converged\":true,\"cycles\":0}' --finish 289b9a29-9514-436e-a077-03828b306894; echo \"exit=$?\"",
"description": "Persist the final review record with start token"
},
"caller": {
"type": "direct"
}
}
]
}
},
{
"type": "user",
"message": {
"content": [
{
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01HmcJdGgU33AH4ZBtMqCVKC",
"type": "tool_result",
"content": "exit=0",
"is_error": false
}
]
}
},
{
"type": "assistant",
"message": {
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_use",
"id": "toolu_01Jf5YEeGk8G3GEZRzX52mcT",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/bin/gstack-review-read | tail -n +2 | head -1 | cut -c1-1200; echo; echo \"--- footer:\"; /home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/bin/gstack-review-read | sed -n '/---CONFIG---/,$p'",
"description": "Verify the persisted review record and its binding"
},
"caller": {
"type": "direct"
}
}
]
}
},
{
"type": "user",
"message": {
"content": [
{
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01Jf5YEeGk8G3GEZRzX52mcT",
"type": "tool_result",
"content": "{\"skill\":\"review\",\"timestamp\":\"2026-09-23T01:28:17Z\",\"status\":\"clean\",\"issues_found\":0,\"critical\":0,\"informational\":0,\"quality_score\":10,\"specialists\":{\"maintainability\":{\"dispatched\":true,\"findings\":1,\"critical\":0,\"informational\":1},\"testing\":{\"dispatched\":false,\"reason\":\"scope\"},\"security\":{\"dispatched\":false,\"reason\":\"scope\"},\"performance\":{\"dispatched\":false,\"reason\":\"scope\"},\"data-migration\":{\"dispatched\":false,\"reason\":\"scope\"},\"api-contract\":{\"dispatched\":false,\"reason\":\"scope\"},\"design\":{\"dispatched\":false,\"reason\":\"scope\"},\"simplification\":{\"dispatched\":false,\"reason\":\"scope\"}},\"findings\":[{\"fingerprint\":\"shared-libs:af037ba20b8a3674855fb65b04f1855c7f0cb5581d3b31f1c4cf5ab648ee6d33\",\"severity\":\"INFORMATIONAL\",\"action\":\"skipped\",\"advisory\":true,\"category\":\"shared-libs\",\"path\":\"src/retry-worker.ts\",\"line\":2,\"confidence\":9,\"summary\":\"Reuse the tested parser\",\"specialist\":\"maintainability\",\"evidence_paths\":[\"src/retry-worker.ts\",\"src/retry-route.ts\",\"lib/retry-after.ts\"],\"helper_target\":{\"path\":\"lib/retry-after.ts\",\"symbol\":\"retrySeconds\"},\"snapshot_covered_paths\":[\"src/retry-worker.ts\",\"src/retry-route.ts\",\"lib/retry-after.ts\"]}],\"commit\":\"54880d2\",\"completed\":true,\"converged\"\n\n--- footer:\n---CONFIG---\nfalse---HEAD---\n54880d2\n---WTREE---\n858ac83c88dbfbed592f38309e8115ae1f041be4\n---TREE---\n0d6f7d79e489259c97311903f75fe9570a21645d\n---DIRTY---\ntrue",
"is_error": false
}
]
}
},
{
"type": "assistant",
"message": {
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_use",
"id": "toolu_01BZ1zmL5boWNTkrZunpvRPs",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/bin/gstack-review-read | tail -n +2 | head -1 | grep -o '\"completed\".*'",
"description": "Show binding and freshness fields of the new record"
},
"caller": {
"type": "direct"
}
}
]
}
},
{
"type": "user",
"message": {
"content": [
{
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01BZ1zmL5boWNTkrZunpvRPs",
"type": "tool_result",
"content": "\"completed\":true,\"converged\":true,\"cycles\":0,\"commit_full\":\"54880d215e8104a2ab77c59f5e9bf135bccc962b\",\"tree\":\"0d6f7d79e489259c97311903f75fe9570a21645d\",\"dirty\":true,\"review_binding\":{\"state\":\"verified\",\"start_wtree\":\"858ac83c88dbfbed592f38309e8115ae1f041be4\",\"end_wtree\":\"858ac83c88dbfbed592f38309e8115ae1f041be4\",\"started_at\":\"2026-09-23T01:24:35.774Z\",\"branch_id\":\"951d42dc02dc743167ac3dd9d8decc5eee71860498c4b1707e1d38816df1ed1d\"},\"wtree\":\"858ac83c88dbfbed592f38309e8115ae1f041be4\",\"review_freshness\":{\"status\":\"CURRENT\",\"reason\":\"completed clean pass on unchanged content\"}}",
"is_error": false
}
]
}
}
],
"terminal": {
"type": "result",
"subtype": "error_max_turns",
"terminal_reason": "max_turns",
"num_turns": 31,
"duration_ms": 274904,
"errors": [
"Reached maximum number of turns (30)"
],
"is_error": true
}
}
test/fixtures/shared-libs-review-start-public.json
Vendored
+1416
View File
File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff