mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-05-05 21:25:27 +02:00
feat: Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake (WIP, pre-merge)
Add Completeness Principle to all skill preambles, dual-time estimates, compression table, anti-pattern gallery, Lake Score, and completeness gaps review category. VERSION/CHANGELOG will be rebased after merge. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan
@@ -1,5 +1,28 @@
|
||||
# Changelog
|
||||
|
||||
## 0.5.3 — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
Every gstack skill now follows the **Completeness Principle**: always recommend the
|
||||
full implementation when AI makes the marginal cost near-zero. No more "Choose B
|
||||
because it's 90% of the value" when option A is 70 lines more code.
|
||||
|
||||
Read the philosophy: https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean
|
||||
|
||||
- **Completeness scoring**: every AskUserQuestion option now shows a completeness
|
||||
score (1-10), biasing toward the complete solution
|
||||
- **Dual time estimates**: effort estimates show both human-team and CC+gstack time
|
||||
(e.g., "human: ~2 weeks / CC: ~1 hour") with a task-type compression reference table
|
||||
- **Anti-pattern examples**: concrete "don't do this" gallery in the preamble so the
|
||||
principle isn't abstract
|
||||
- **First-time onboarding**: new users see a one-time introduction linking to the
|
||||
essay, with option to open in browser
|
||||
- **Review completeness gaps**: `/review` now flags shortcut implementations where the
|
||||
complete version costs <30 min CC time
|
||||
- **Lake Score**: CEO and Eng review completion summaries show how many recommendations
|
||||
chose the complete option vs shortcuts
|
||||
- **CEO + Eng review dual-time**: temporal interrogation, effort estimates, and delight
|
||||
opportunities all show both human and CC time scales
|
||||
|
||||
## 0.5.2 — 2026-03-17
|
||||
|
||||
- **Your design consultant now takes creative risks.** `/design-consultation` doesn't just propose a safe, coherent system — it explicitly breaks down SAFE CHOICES (category baseline) vs. RISKS (where your product stands out). You pick which rules to break. Every risk comes with a rationale for why it works and what it costs.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -121,6 +121,23 @@ CHANGELOG.md is **for users**, not contributors. Write it like product release n
|
||||
- No jargon: say "every question now tells you which project and branch you're in" not
|
||||
"AskUserQuestion format standardized across skill templates via preamble resolver."
|
||||
|
||||
## AI effort compression
|
||||
|
||||
When estimating or discussing effort, always show both human-team and CC+gstack time:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
Completeness is cheap. Don't recommend shortcuts when the complete implementation
|
||||
is a "lake" (achievable) not an "ocean" (multi-quarter migration). See the
|
||||
Completeness Principle in the skill preamble for the full philosophy.
|
||||
|
||||
## Local plans
|
||||
|
||||
Contributors can store long-range vision docs and design documents in `~/.gstack-dev/plans/`.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -28,22 +28,61 @@ find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin +120 -type f -delete 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
_CONTRIB=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get gstack_contributor 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
|
||||
echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
|
||||
_LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
|
||||
echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If output shows `UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>`: read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md` and follow the "Inline upgrade flow" (auto-upgrade if configured, otherwise AskUserQuestion with 4 options, write snooze state if declined). If `JUST_UPGRADED <from> <to>`: tell user "Running gstack v{to} (just updated!)" and continue.
|
||||
|
||||
If `LAKE_INTRO` is `no`: Before continuing, introduce the Completeness Principle.
|
||||
Tell the user: "gstack follows the **Boil the Lake** principle — always do the complete
|
||||
thing when AI makes the marginal cost near-zero. Read more: https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean"
|
||||
Then offer to open the essay in their default browser:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
open https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean
|
||||
touch ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Only run `open` if the user says yes. Always run `touch` to mark as seen. This only happens once.
|
||||
|
||||
## AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
|
||||
**ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:**
|
||||
1. **Re-ground:** State the project, the current branch (use the `_BRANCH` value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]`
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...`
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -362,6 +362,16 @@
|
||||
**Priority:** P2
|
||||
**Depends on:** None
|
||||
|
||||
### Cross-platform URL open helper
|
||||
|
||||
**What:** `gstack-open-url` helper script — detect platform, use `open` (macOS) or `xdg-open` (Linux).
|
||||
|
||||
**Why:** The first-time Completeness Principle intro uses macOS `open` to launch the essay. If gstack ever supports Linux, this silently fails.
|
||||
|
||||
**Effort:** S (human: ~30 min / CC: ~2 min)
|
||||
**Priority:** P4
|
||||
**Depends on:** Nothing
|
||||
|
||||
### CDP-based DOM mutation detection for ref staleness
|
||||
|
||||
**What:** Use Chrome DevTools Protocol `DOM.documentUpdated` / MutationObserver events to proactively invalidate stale refs when the DOM changes, without requiring an explicit `snapshot` call.
|
||||
@@ -434,6 +444,20 @@ Shipped as `/design-consultation` on garrytan/design branch. Renamed from `/setu
|
||||
**Priority:** P2
|
||||
**Depends on:** Ship Confidence Dashboard (shipped)
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness
|
||||
|
||||
### Completeness metrics dashboard
|
||||
|
||||
**What:** Track how often Claude chooses the complete option vs shortcut across gstack sessions. Aggregate into a dashboard showing completeness trend over time.
|
||||
|
||||
**Why:** Without measurement, we can't know if the Completeness Principle is working. Could surface patterns (e.g., certain skills still bias toward shortcuts).
|
||||
|
||||
**Context:** Would require logging choices (e.g., append to a JSONL file when AskUserQuestion resolves), parsing them, and displaying trends. Similar pattern to eval persistence.
|
||||
|
||||
**Effort:** M (human) / S (CC)
|
||||
**Priority:** P3
|
||||
**Depends on:** Boil the Lake shipped (v0.5.3)
|
||||
|
||||
## Completed
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 1: Foundations (v0.2.0)
|
||||
|
||||
+41
-2
@@ -28,22 +28,61 @@ find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin +120 -type f -delete 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
_CONTRIB=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get gstack_contributor 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
|
||||
echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
|
||||
_LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
|
||||
echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If output shows `UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>`: read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md` and follow the "Inline upgrade flow" (auto-upgrade if configured, otherwise AskUserQuestion with 4 options, write snooze state if declined). If `JUST_UPGRADED <from> <to>`: tell user "Running gstack v{to} (just updated!)" and continue.
|
||||
|
||||
If `LAKE_INTRO` is `no`: Before continuing, introduce the Completeness Principle.
|
||||
Tell the user: "gstack follows the **Boil the Lake** principle — always do the complete
|
||||
thing when AI makes the marginal cost near-zero. Read more: https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean"
|
||||
Then offer to open the essay in their default browser:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
open https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean
|
||||
touch ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Only run `open` if the user says yes. Always run `touch` to mark as seen. This only happens once.
|
||||
|
||||
## AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
|
||||
**ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:**
|
||||
1. **Re-ground:** State the project, the current branch (use the `_BRANCH` value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]`
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...`
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -31,22 +31,61 @@ find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin +120 -type f -delete 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
_CONTRIB=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get gstack_contributor 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
|
||||
echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
|
||||
_LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
|
||||
echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If output shows `UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>`: read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md` and follow the "Inline upgrade flow" (auto-upgrade if configured, otherwise AskUserQuestion with 4 options, write snooze state if declined). If `JUST_UPGRADED <from> <to>`: tell user "Running gstack v{to} (just updated!)" and continue.
|
||||
|
||||
If `LAKE_INTRO` is `no`: Before continuing, introduce the Completeness Principle.
|
||||
Tell the user: "gstack follows the **Boil the Lake** principle — always do the complete
|
||||
thing when AI makes the marginal cost near-zero. Read more: https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean"
|
||||
Then offer to open the essay in their default browser:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
open https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean
|
||||
touch ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Only run `open` if the user says yes. Always run `touch` to mark as seen. This only happens once.
|
||||
|
||||
## AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
|
||||
**ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:**
|
||||
1. **Re-ground:** State the project, the current branch (use the `_BRANCH` value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]`
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...`
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -29,22 +29,61 @@ find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin +120 -type f -delete 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
_CONTRIB=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get gstack_contributor 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
|
||||
echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
|
||||
_LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
|
||||
echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If output shows `UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>`: read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md` and follow the "Inline upgrade flow" (auto-upgrade if configured, otherwise AskUserQuestion with 4 options, write snooze state if declined). If `JUST_UPGRADED <from> <to>`: tell user "Running gstack v{to} (just updated!)" and continue.
|
||||
|
||||
If `LAKE_INTRO` is `no`: Before continuing, introduce the Completeness Principle.
|
||||
Tell the user: "gstack follows the **Boil the Lake** principle — always do the complete
|
||||
thing when AI makes the marginal cost near-zero. Read more: https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean"
|
||||
Then offer to open the essay in their default browser:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
open https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean
|
||||
touch ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Only run `open` if the user says yes. Always run `touch` to mark as seen. This only happens once.
|
||||
|
||||
## AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
|
||||
**ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:**
|
||||
1. **Re-ground:** State the project, the current branch (use the `_BRANCH` value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]`
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...`
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -28,22 +28,61 @@ find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin +120 -type f -delete 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
_CONTRIB=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get gstack_contributor 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
|
||||
echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
|
||||
_LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
|
||||
echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If output shows `UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>`: read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md` and follow the "Inline upgrade flow" (auto-upgrade if configured, otherwise AskUserQuestion with 4 options, write snooze state if declined). If `JUST_UPGRADED <from> <to>`: tell user "Running gstack v{to} (just updated!)" and continue.
|
||||
|
||||
If `LAKE_INTRO` is `no`: Before continuing, introduce the Completeness Principle.
|
||||
Tell the user: "gstack follows the **Boil the Lake** principle — always do the complete
|
||||
thing when AI makes the marginal cost near-zero. Read more: https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean"
|
||||
Then offer to open the essay in their default browser:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
open https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean
|
||||
touch ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Only run `open` if the user says yes. Always run `touch` to mark as seen. This only happens once.
|
||||
|
||||
## AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
|
||||
**ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:**
|
||||
1. **Re-ground:** State the project, the current branch (use the `_BRANCH` value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]`
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...`
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
@@ -108,6 +147,7 @@ But your posture depends on what the user needs:
|
||||
* SCOPE EXPANSION: You are building a cathedral. Envision the platonic ideal. Push scope UP. Ask "what would make this 10x better for 2x the effort?" The answer to "should we also build X?" is "yes, if it serves the vision." You have permission to dream.
|
||||
* HOLD SCOPE: You are a rigorous reviewer. The plan's scope is accepted. Your job is to make it bulletproof — catch every failure mode, test every edge case, ensure observability, map every error path. Do not silently reduce OR expand.
|
||||
* SCOPE REDUCTION: You are a surgeon. Find the minimum viable version that achieves the core outcome. Cut everything else. Be ruthless.
|
||||
* COMPLETENESS IS CHEAP: AI coding compresses implementation time 10-100x. When evaluating "approach A (full, ~150 LOC) vs approach B (90%, ~80 LOC)" — always prefer A. The 70-line delta costs seconds with CC. "Ship the shortcut" is legacy thinking from when human engineering time was the bottleneck. Boil the lake.
|
||||
Critical rule: Once the user selects a mode, COMMIT to it. Do not silently drift toward a different mode. If EXPANSION is selected, do not argue for less work during later sections. If REDUCTION is selected, do not sneak scope back in. Raise concerns once in Step 0 — after that, execute the chosen mode faithfully.
|
||||
Do NOT make any code changes. Do NOT start implementation. Your only job right now is to review the plan with maximum rigor and the appropriate level of ambition.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -208,6 +248,11 @@ Think ahead to implementation: What decisions will need to be made during implem
|
||||
HOUR 4-5 (integration): What will surprise them?
|
||||
HOUR 6+ (polish/tests): What will they wish they'd planned for?
|
||||
```
|
||||
NOTE: These represent human-team implementation hours. With CC + gstack,
|
||||
6 hours of human implementation compresses to ~30-60 minutes. The decisions
|
||||
are identical — the implementation speed is 10-20x faster. Always present
|
||||
both scales when discussing effort.
|
||||
|
||||
Surface these as questions for the user NOW, not as "figure it out later."
|
||||
|
||||
### 0F. Mode Selection
|
||||
@@ -479,14 +524,14 @@ For each TODO, describe:
|
||||
* **Pros:** What you gain by doing this work.
|
||||
* **Cons:** Cost, complexity, or risks of doing it.
|
||||
* **Context:** Enough detail that someone picking this up in 3 months understands the motivation, the current state, and where to start.
|
||||
* **Effort estimate:** S/M/L/XL
|
||||
* **Effort estimate:** S/M/L/XL (human team) → with CC+gstack: S→S, M→S, L→M, XL→L
|
||||
* **Priority:** P1/P2/P3
|
||||
* **Depends on / blocked by:** Any prerequisites or ordering constraints.
|
||||
|
||||
Then present options: **A)** Add to TODOS.md **B)** Skip — not valuable enough **C)** Build it now in this PR instead of deferring.
|
||||
|
||||
### Delight Opportunities (EXPANSION mode only)
|
||||
Identify at least 5 "bonus chunk" opportunities (<30 min each) that would make users think "oh nice, they thought of that." Present each delight opportunity as its own individual AskUserQuestion. Never batch them. For each one, describe what it is, why it would delight users, and effort estimate. Then present options: **A)** Add to TODOS.md as a vision item **B)** Skip **C)** Build it now in this PR.
|
||||
Identify at least 5 "bonus chunk" opportunities (<30 min human / <5 min CC each) that would make users think "oh nice, they thought of that." Present each delight opportunity as its own individual AskUserQuestion. Never batch them. For each one, describe what it is, why it would delight users, and effort estimate. Then present options: **A)** Add to TODOS.md as a vision item **B)** Skip **C)** Build it now in this PR.
|
||||
|
||||
### Diagrams (mandatory, produce all that apply)
|
||||
1. System architecture
|
||||
@@ -525,6 +570,7 @@ List every ASCII diagram in files this plan touches. Still accurate?
|
||||
| Failure modes | ___ total, ___ CRITICAL GAPS |
|
||||
| TODOS.md updates | ___ items proposed |
|
||||
| Delight opportunities| ___ identified (EXPANSION only) |
|
||||
| Lake Score | X/Y recommendations chose complete option |
|
||||
| Diagrams produced | ___ (list types) |
|
||||
| Stale diagrams found | ___ |
|
||||
| Unresolved decisions | ___ (listed below) |
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ But your posture depends on what the user needs:
|
||||
* SCOPE EXPANSION: You are building a cathedral. Envision the platonic ideal. Push scope UP. Ask "what would make this 10x better for 2x the effort?" The answer to "should we also build X?" is "yes, if it serves the vision." You have permission to dream.
|
||||
* HOLD SCOPE: You are a rigorous reviewer. The plan's scope is accepted. Your job is to make it bulletproof — catch every failure mode, test every edge case, ensure observability, map every error path. Do not silently reduce OR expand.
|
||||
* SCOPE REDUCTION: You are a surgeon. Find the minimum viable version that achieves the core outcome. Cut everything else. Be ruthless.
|
||||
* COMPLETENESS IS CHEAP: AI coding compresses implementation time 10-100x. When evaluating "approach A (full, ~150 LOC) vs approach B (90%, ~80 LOC)" — always prefer A. The 70-line delta costs seconds with CC. "Ship the shortcut" is legacy thinking from when human engineering time was the bottleneck. Boil the lake.
|
||||
Critical rule: Once the user selects a mode, COMMIT to it. Do not silently drift toward a different mode. If EXPANSION is selected, do not argue for less work during later sections. If REDUCTION is selected, do not sneak scope back in. Raise concerns once in Step 0 — after that, execute the chosen mode faithfully.
|
||||
Do NOT make any code changes. Do NOT start implementation. Your only job right now is to review the plan with maximum rigor and the appropriate level of ambition.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -126,6 +127,11 @@ Think ahead to implementation: What decisions will need to be made during implem
|
||||
HOUR 4-5 (integration): What will surprise them?
|
||||
HOUR 6+ (polish/tests): What will they wish they'd planned for?
|
||||
```
|
||||
NOTE: These represent human-team implementation hours. With CC + gstack,
|
||||
6 hours of human implementation compresses to ~30-60 minutes. The decisions
|
||||
are identical — the implementation speed is 10-20x faster. Always present
|
||||
both scales when discussing effort.
|
||||
|
||||
Surface these as questions for the user NOW, not as "figure it out later."
|
||||
|
||||
### 0F. Mode Selection
|
||||
@@ -397,14 +403,14 @@ For each TODO, describe:
|
||||
* **Pros:** What you gain by doing this work.
|
||||
* **Cons:** Cost, complexity, or risks of doing it.
|
||||
* **Context:** Enough detail that someone picking this up in 3 months understands the motivation, the current state, and where to start.
|
||||
* **Effort estimate:** S/M/L/XL
|
||||
* **Effort estimate:** S/M/L/XL (human team) → with CC+gstack: S→S, M→S, L→M, XL→L
|
||||
* **Priority:** P1/P2/P3
|
||||
* **Depends on / blocked by:** Any prerequisites or ordering constraints.
|
||||
|
||||
Then present options: **A)** Add to TODOS.md **B)** Skip — not valuable enough **C)** Build it now in this PR instead of deferring.
|
||||
|
||||
### Delight Opportunities (EXPANSION mode only)
|
||||
Identify at least 5 "bonus chunk" opportunities (<30 min each) that would make users think "oh nice, they thought of that." Present each delight opportunity as its own individual AskUserQuestion. Never batch them. For each one, describe what it is, why it would delight users, and effort estimate. Then present options: **A)** Add to TODOS.md as a vision item **B)** Skip **C)** Build it now in this PR.
|
||||
Identify at least 5 "bonus chunk" opportunities (<30 min human / <5 min CC each) that would make users think "oh nice, they thought of that." Present each delight opportunity as its own individual AskUserQuestion. Never batch them. For each one, describe what it is, why it would delight users, and effort estimate. Then present options: **A)** Add to TODOS.md as a vision item **B)** Skip **C)** Build it now in this PR.
|
||||
|
||||
### Diagrams (mandatory, produce all that apply)
|
||||
1. System architecture
|
||||
@@ -443,6 +449,7 @@ List every ASCII diagram in files this plan touches. Still accurate?
|
||||
| Failure modes | ___ total, ___ CRITICAL GAPS |
|
||||
| TODOS.md updates | ___ items proposed |
|
||||
| Delight opportunities| ___ identified (EXPANSION only) |
|
||||
| Lake Score | X/Y recommendations chose complete option |
|
||||
| Diagrams produced | ___ (list types) |
|
||||
| Stale diagrams found | ___ |
|
||||
| Unresolved decisions | ___ (listed below) |
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -29,22 +29,61 @@ find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin +120 -type f -delete 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
_CONTRIB=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get gstack_contributor 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
|
||||
echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
|
||||
_LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
|
||||
echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If output shows `UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>`: read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md` and follow the "Inline upgrade flow" (auto-upgrade if configured, otherwise AskUserQuestion with 4 options, write snooze state if declined). If `JUST_UPGRADED <from> <to>`: tell user "Running gstack v{to} (just updated!)" and continue.
|
||||
|
||||
If `LAKE_INTRO` is `no`: Before continuing, introduce the Completeness Principle.
|
||||
Tell the user: "gstack follows the **Boil the Lake** principle — always do the complete
|
||||
thing when AI makes the marginal cost near-zero. Read more: https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean"
|
||||
Then offer to open the essay in their default browser:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
open https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean
|
||||
touch ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Only run `open` if the user says yes. Always run `touch` to mark as seen. This only happens once.
|
||||
|
||||
## AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
|
||||
**ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:**
|
||||
1. **Re-ground:** State the project, the current branch (use the `_BRANCH` value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]`
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...`
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -28,22 +28,61 @@ find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin +120 -type f -delete 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
_CONTRIB=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get gstack_contributor 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
|
||||
echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
|
||||
_LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
|
||||
echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If output shows `UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>`: read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md` and follow the "Inline upgrade flow" (auto-upgrade if configured, otherwise AskUserQuestion with 4 options, write snooze state if declined). If `JUST_UPGRADED <from> <to>`: tell user "Running gstack v{to} (just updated!)" and continue.
|
||||
|
||||
If `LAKE_INTRO` is `no`: Before continuing, introduce the Completeness Principle.
|
||||
Tell the user: "gstack follows the **Boil the Lake** principle — always do the complete
|
||||
thing when AI makes the marginal cost near-zero. Read more: https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean"
|
||||
Then offer to open the essay in their default browser:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
open https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean
|
||||
touch ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Only run `open` if the user says yes. Always run `touch` to mark as seen. This only happens once.
|
||||
|
||||
## AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
|
||||
**ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:**
|
||||
1. **Re-ground:** State the project, the current branch (use the `_BRANCH` value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]`
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...`
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
@@ -110,6 +149,8 @@ Before reviewing anything, answer these questions:
|
||||
3. **Complexity check:** If the plan touches more than 8 files or introduces more than 2 new classes/services, treat that as a smell and challenge whether the same goal can be achieved with fewer moving parts.
|
||||
4. **TODOS cross-reference:** Read `TODOS.md` if it exists. Are any deferred items blocking this plan? Can any deferred items be bundled into this PR without expanding scope? Does this plan create new work that should be captured as a TODO?
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Completeness check:** Is the plan doing the complete version or a shortcut? With AI-assisted coding, the cost of completeness (100% test coverage, full edge case handling, complete error paths) is 10-100x cheaper than with a human team. If the plan proposes a shortcut that saves human-hours but only saves minutes with CC+gstack, recommend the complete version. Boil the lake.
|
||||
|
||||
Then ask if I want one of three options:
|
||||
1. **SCOPE REDUCTION:** The plan is overbuilt. Propose a minimal version that achieves the core goal, then review that.
|
||||
2. **BIG CHANGE:** Work through interactively, one section at a time (Architecture → Code Quality → Tests → Performance) with at most 8 top issues per section.
|
||||
@@ -197,7 +238,7 @@ Follow the AskUserQuestion format from the Preamble above. Additional rules for
|
||||
* **One issue = one AskUserQuestion call.** Never combine multiple issues into one question.
|
||||
* Describe the problem concretely, with file and line references.
|
||||
* Present 2-3 options, including "do nothing" where that's reasonable.
|
||||
* For each option, specify in one line: effort, risk, and maintenance burden.
|
||||
* For each option, specify in one line: effort (human: ~X / CC: ~Y), risk, and maintenance burden. If the complete option is only marginally more effort than the shortcut with CC, recommend the complete option.
|
||||
* **Map the reasoning to my engineering preferences above.** One sentence connecting your recommendation to a specific preference (DRY, explicit > clever, minimal diff, etc.).
|
||||
* Label with issue NUMBER + option LETTER (e.g., "3A", "3B").
|
||||
* **Escape hatch:** If a section has no issues, say so and move on. If an issue has an obvious fix with no real alternatives, state what you'll do and move on — don't waste a question on it. Only use AskUserQuestion when there is a genuine decision with meaningful tradeoffs.
|
||||
@@ -248,6 +289,7 @@ At the end of the review, fill in and display this summary so the user can see a
|
||||
- What already exists: written
|
||||
- TODOS.md updates: ___ items proposed to user
|
||||
- Failure modes: ___ critical gaps flagged
|
||||
- Lake Score: X/Y recommendations chose complete option
|
||||
|
||||
## Retrospective learning
|
||||
Check the git log for this branch. If there are prior commits suggesting a previous review cycle (e.g., review-driven refactors, reverted changes), note what was changed and whether the current plan touches the same areas. Be more aggressive reviewing areas that were previously problematic.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -45,6 +45,8 @@ Before reviewing anything, answer these questions:
|
||||
3. **Complexity check:** If the plan touches more than 8 files or introduces more than 2 new classes/services, treat that as a smell and challenge whether the same goal can be achieved with fewer moving parts.
|
||||
4. **TODOS cross-reference:** Read `TODOS.md` if it exists. Are any deferred items blocking this plan? Can any deferred items be bundled into this PR without expanding scope? Does this plan create new work that should be captured as a TODO?
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Completeness check:** Is the plan doing the complete version or a shortcut? With AI-assisted coding, the cost of completeness (100% test coverage, full edge case handling, complete error paths) is 10-100x cheaper than with a human team. If the plan proposes a shortcut that saves human-hours but only saves minutes with CC+gstack, recommend the complete version. Boil the lake.
|
||||
|
||||
Then ask if I want one of three options:
|
||||
1. **SCOPE REDUCTION:** The plan is overbuilt. Propose a minimal version that achieves the core goal, then review that.
|
||||
2. **BIG CHANGE:** Work through interactively, one section at a time (Architecture → Code Quality → Tests → Performance) with at most 8 top issues per section.
|
||||
@@ -132,7 +134,7 @@ Follow the AskUserQuestion format from the Preamble above. Additional rules for
|
||||
* **One issue = one AskUserQuestion call.** Never combine multiple issues into one question.
|
||||
* Describe the problem concretely, with file and line references.
|
||||
* Present 2-3 options, including "do nothing" where that's reasonable.
|
||||
* For each option, specify in one line: effort, risk, and maintenance burden.
|
||||
* For each option, specify in one line: effort (human: ~X / CC: ~Y), risk, and maintenance burden. If the complete option is only marginally more effort than the shortcut with CC, recommend the complete option.
|
||||
* **Map the reasoning to my engineering preferences above.** One sentence connecting your recommendation to a specific preference (DRY, explicit > clever, minimal diff, etc.).
|
||||
* Label with issue NUMBER + option LETTER (e.g., "3A", "3B").
|
||||
* **Escape hatch:** If a section has no issues, say so and move on. If an issue has an obvious fix with no real alternatives, state what you'll do and move on — don't waste a question on it. Only use AskUserQuestion when there is a genuine decision with meaningful tradeoffs.
|
||||
@@ -183,6 +185,7 @@ At the end of the review, fill in and display this summary so the user can see a
|
||||
- What already exists: written
|
||||
- TODOS.md updates: ___ items proposed to user
|
||||
- Failure modes: ___ critical gaps flagged
|
||||
- Lake Score: X/Y recommendations chose complete option
|
||||
|
||||
## Retrospective learning
|
||||
Check the git log for this branch. If there are prior commits suggesting a previous review cycle (e.g., review-driven refactors, reverted changes), note what was changed and whether the current plan touches the same areas. Be more aggressive reviewing areas that were previously problematic.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -30,22 +30,61 @@ find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin +120 -type f -delete 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
_CONTRIB=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get gstack_contributor 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
|
||||
echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
|
||||
_LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
|
||||
echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If output shows `UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>`: read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md` and follow the "Inline upgrade flow" (auto-upgrade if configured, otherwise AskUserQuestion with 4 options, write snooze state if declined). If `JUST_UPGRADED <from> <to>`: tell user "Running gstack v{to} (just updated!)" and continue.
|
||||
|
||||
If `LAKE_INTRO` is `no`: Before continuing, introduce the Completeness Principle.
|
||||
Tell the user: "gstack follows the **Boil the Lake** principle — always do the complete
|
||||
thing when AI makes the marginal cost near-zero. Read more: https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean"
|
||||
Then offer to open the essay in their default browser:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
open https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean
|
||||
touch ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Only run `open` if the user says yes. Always run `touch` to mark as seen. This only happens once.
|
||||
|
||||
## AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
|
||||
**ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:**
|
||||
1. **Re-ground:** State the project, the current branch (use the `_BRANCH` value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]`
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...`
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
|
||||
+41
-2
@@ -27,22 +27,61 @@ find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin +120 -type f -delete 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
_CONTRIB=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get gstack_contributor 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
|
||||
echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
|
||||
_LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
|
||||
echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If output shows `UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>`: read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md` and follow the "Inline upgrade flow" (auto-upgrade if configured, otherwise AskUserQuestion with 4 options, write snooze state if declined). If `JUST_UPGRADED <from> <to>`: tell user "Running gstack v{to} (just updated!)" and continue.
|
||||
|
||||
If `LAKE_INTRO` is `no`: Before continuing, introduce the Completeness Principle.
|
||||
Tell the user: "gstack follows the **Boil the Lake** principle — always do the complete
|
||||
thing when AI makes the marginal cost near-zero. Read more: https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean"
|
||||
Then offer to open the essay in their default browser:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
open https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean
|
||||
touch ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Only run `open` if the user says yes. Always run `touch` to mark as seen. This only happens once.
|
||||
|
||||
## AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
|
||||
**ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:**
|
||||
1. **Re-ground:** State the project, the current branch (use the `_BRANCH` value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]`
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...`
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
|
||||
+41
-2
@@ -32,22 +32,61 @@ find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin +120 -type f -delete 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
_CONTRIB=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get gstack_contributor 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
|
||||
echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
|
||||
_LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
|
||||
echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If output shows `UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>`: read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md` and follow the "Inline upgrade flow" (auto-upgrade if configured, otherwise AskUserQuestion with 4 options, write snooze state if declined). If `JUST_UPGRADED <from> <to>`: tell user "Running gstack v{to} (just updated!)" and continue.
|
||||
|
||||
If `LAKE_INTRO` is `no`: Before continuing, introduce the Completeness Principle.
|
||||
Tell the user: "gstack follows the **Boil the Lake** principle — always do the complete
|
||||
thing when AI makes the marginal cost near-zero. Read more: https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean"
|
||||
Then offer to open the essay in their default browser:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
open https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean
|
||||
touch ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Only run `open` if the user says yes. Always run `touch` to mark as seen. This only happens once.
|
||||
|
||||
## AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
|
||||
**ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:**
|
||||
1. **Re-ground:** State the project, the current branch (use the `_BRANCH` value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]`
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...`
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
|
||||
+41
-2
@@ -27,22 +27,61 @@ find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin +120 -type f -delete 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
_CONTRIB=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get gstack_contributor 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
|
||||
echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
|
||||
_LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
|
||||
echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If output shows `UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>`: read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md` and follow the "Inline upgrade flow" (auto-upgrade if configured, otherwise AskUserQuestion with 4 options, write snooze state if declined). If `JUST_UPGRADED <from> <to>`: tell user "Running gstack v{to} (just updated!)" and continue.
|
||||
|
||||
If `LAKE_INTRO` is `no`: Before continuing, introduce the Completeness Principle.
|
||||
Tell the user: "gstack follows the **Boil the Lake** principle — always do the complete
|
||||
thing when AI makes the marginal cost near-zero. Read more: https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean"
|
||||
Then offer to open the essay in their default browser:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
open https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean
|
||||
touch ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Only run `open` if the user says yes. Always run `touch` to mark as seen. This only happens once.
|
||||
|
||||
## AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
|
||||
**ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:**
|
||||
1. **Re-ground:** State the project, the current branch (use the `_BRANCH` value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]`
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...`
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
|
||||
+41
-2
@@ -28,22 +28,61 @@ find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin +120 -type f -delete 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
_CONTRIB=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get gstack_contributor 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
|
||||
echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
|
||||
_LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
|
||||
echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If output shows `UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>`: read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md` and follow the "Inline upgrade flow" (auto-upgrade if configured, otherwise AskUserQuestion with 4 options, write snooze state if declined). If `JUST_UPGRADED <from> <to>`: tell user "Running gstack v{to} (just updated!)" and continue.
|
||||
|
||||
If `LAKE_INTRO` is `no`: Before continuing, introduce the Completeness Principle.
|
||||
Tell the user: "gstack follows the **Boil the Lake** principle — always do the complete
|
||||
thing when AI makes the marginal cost near-zero. Read more: https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean"
|
||||
Then offer to open the essay in their default browser:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
open https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean
|
||||
touch ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Only run `open` if the user says yes. Always run `touch` to mark as seen. This only happens once.
|
||||
|
||||
## AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
|
||||
**ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:**
|
||||
1. **Re-ground:** State the project, the current branch (use the `_BRANCH` value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]`
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...`
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -84,6 +84,12 @@ To do this: use Grep to find all references to the sibling values (e.g., grep fo
|
||||
- `.expects(:something).never` missing when a code path should explicitly NOT call an external service
|
||||
- Security enforcement features (blocking, rate limiting, auth) without integration tests verifying the enforcement path works end-to-end
|
||||
|
||||
#### Completeness Gaps
|
||||
- Shortcut implementations where the complete version would cost <30 minutes CC time (e.g., partial enum handling, incomplete error paths, missing edge cases that are straightforward to add)
|
||||
- Options presented with only human-team effort estimates — should show both human and CC+gstack time
|
||||
- Test coverage gaps where adding the missing tests is a "lake" not an "ocean" (e.g., missing negative-path tests, missing edge case tests that mirror happy-path structure)
|
||||
- Features implemented at 80-90% when 100% is achievable with modest additional code
|
||||
|
||||
#### Crypto & Entropy
|
||||
- Truncation of data instead of hashing (last N chars instead of SHA-256) — less entropy, easier collisions
|
||||
- `rand()` / `Random.rand` for security-sensitive values — use `SecureRandom` instead
|
||||
@@ -113,6 +119,7 @@ CRITICAL (highest severity): INFORMATIONAL (lower severity):
|
||||
├─ LLM Output Trust Boundary ├─ Dead Code & Consistency
|
||||
└─ Enum & Value Completeness ├─ LLM Prompt Issues
|
||||
├─ Test Gaps
|
||||
├─ Completeness Gaps
|
||||
├─ Crypto & Entropy
|
||||
├─ Time Window Safety
|
||||
├─ Type Coercion at Boundaries
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -107,22 +107,61 @@ find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin +120 -type f -delete 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
_CONTRIB=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get gstack_contributor 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
|
||||
echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
|
||||
_LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
|
||||
echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
If output shows \`UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>\`: read \`~/.claude/skills/gstack/gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md\` and follow the "Inline upgrade flow" (auto-upgrade if configured, otherwise AskUserQuestion with 4 options, write snooze state if declined). If \`JUST_UPGRADED <from> <to>\`: tell user "Running gstack v{to} (just updated!)" and continue.
|
||||
|
||||
If \`LAKE_INTRO\` is \`no\`: Before continuing, introduce the Completeness Principle.
|
||||
Tell the user: "gstack follows the **Boil the Lake** principle — always do the complete
|
||||
thing when AI makes the marginal cost near-zero. Read more: https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean"
|
||||
Then offer to open the essay in their default browser:
|
||||
|
||||
\`\`\`bash
|
||||
open https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean
|
||||
touch ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
Only run \`open\` if the user says yes. Always run \`touch\` to mark as seen. This only happens once.
|
||||
|
||||
## AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
|
||||
**ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:**
|
||||
1. **Re-ground:** State the project, the current branch (use the \`_BRANCH\` value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** \`RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]\`
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: \`A) ... B) ... C) ...\`
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** \`RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]\` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include \`Completeness: X/10\` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: \`A) ... B) ... C) ...\` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: \`(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)\`
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If \`_CONTRIB\` is \`true\`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -25,22 +25,61 @@ find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin +120 -type f -delete 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
_CONTRIB=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get gstack_contributor 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
|
||||
echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
|
||||
_LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
|
||||
echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If output shows `UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>`: read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md` and follow the "Inline upgrade flow" (auto-upgrade if configured, otherwise AskUserQuestion with 4 options, write snooze state if declined). If `JUST_UPGRADED <from> <to>`: tell user "Running gstack v{to} (just updated!)" and continue.
|
||||
|
||||
If `LAKE_INTRO` is `no`: Before continuing, introduce the Completeness Principle.
|
||||
Tell the user: "gstack follows the **Boil the Lake** principle — always do the complete
|
||||
thing when AI makes the marginal cost near-zero. Read more: https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean"
|
||||
Then offer to open the essay in their default browser:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
open https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean
|
||||
touch ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Only run `open` if the user says yes. Always run `touch` to mark as seen. This only happens once.
|
||||
|
||||
## AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
|
||||
**ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:**
|
||||
1. **Re-ground:** State the project, the current branch (use the `_BRANCH` value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]`
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...`
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
|
||||
+41
-2
@@ -27,22 +27,61 @@ find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin +120 -type f -delete 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
_CONTRIB=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get gstack_contributor 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
|
||||
echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
|
||||
_LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
|
||||
echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If output shows `UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>`: read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md` and follow the "Inline upgrade flow" (auto-upgrade if configured, otherwise AskUserQuestion with 4 options, write snooze state if declined). If `JUST_UPGRADED <from> <to>`: tell user "Running gstack v{to} (just updated!)" and continue.
|
||||
|
||||
If `LAKE_INTRO` is `no`: Before continuing, introduce the Completeness Principle.
|
||||
Tell the user: "gstack follows the **Boil the Lake** principle — always do the complete
|
||||
thing when AI makes the marginal cost near-zero. Read more: https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean"
|
||||
Then offer to open the essay in their default browser:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
open https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean
|
||||
touch ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Only run `open` if the user says yes. Always run `touch` to mark as seen. This only happens once.
|
||||
|
||||
## AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
|
||||
**ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:**
|
||||
1. **Re-ground:** State the project, the current branch (use the `_BRANCH` value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]`
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...`
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -617,6 +617,43 @@ describe('Enum & Value Completeness in review checklist', () => {
|
||||
});
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
// --- Completeness Principle spot-check ---
|
||||
|
||||
describe('Completeness Principle in generated SKILL.md files', () => {
|
||||
const skillsWithPreamble = [
|
||||
'SKILL.md', 'browse/SKILL.md', 'qa/SKILL.md',
|
||||
'qa-only/SKILL.md',
|
||||
'setup-browser-cookies/SKILL.md',
|
||||
'ship/SKILL.md', 'review/SKILL.md',
|
||||
'plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md', 'plan-eng-review/SKILL.md',
|
||||
'retro/SKILL.md',
|
||||
'plan-design-review/SKILL.md',
|
||||
'qa-design-review/SKILL.md',
|
||||
'design-consultation/SKILL.md',
|
||||
'document-release/SKILL.md',
|
||||
];
|
||||
|
||||
for (const skill of skillsWithPreamble) {
|
||||
test(`${skill} contains Completeness Principle section`, () => {
|
||||
const content = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, skill), 'utf-8');
|
||||
expect(content).toContain('Completeness Principle');
|
||||
expect(content).toContain('Boil the Lake');
|
||||
});
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
test('Completeness Principle includes compression table', () => {
|
||||
const content = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
|
||||
expect(content).toContain('CC+gstack');
|
||||
expect(content).toContain('Compression');
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('Completeness Principle includes anti-patterns', () => {
|
||||
const content = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
|
||||
expect(content).toContain('BAD:');
|
||||
expect(content).toContain('Anti-patterns');
|
||||
});
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
// --- Part 7: Planted-bug fixture validation (A4) ---
|
||||
|
||||
describe('Planted-bug fixture validation', () => {
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user