From 709bed9f4d7d419ef4f806f8b3e91fa53f6c0945 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Garry Tan Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2026 09:54:27 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] feat: CEO review handoff context for /office-hours chaining (v0.9.5.0) (#288) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit * feat: CEO review saves handoff context for /office-hours chaining When /plan-ceo-review suggests running /office-hours, it now saves a handoff note with system audit findings and discussion context. On re-invocation, the note is auto-discovered and used to avoid redundant questions. Addresses Codex review feedback: no step tracking or resume logic — just context as additional input (same pattern as design docs). * fix: remove PR size nagging from /retro codex variant Sync the Codex SKILL.md variant with the retro template changes from v0.9.4.1 — removes "flag these with file counts" for XL PRs and reframes PR size discussion as neutral data. * chore: bump version and changelog (v0.9.5.0) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 --- .../skills/gstack-plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md | 67 +++++++++++++++++++ .agents/skills/gstack-retro/SKILL.md | 7 +- CHANGELOG.md | 6 ++ VERSION | 2 +- plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md | 67 +++++++++++++++++++ plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl | 67 +++++++++++++++++++ 6 files changed, 211 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/.agents/skills/gstack-plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/gstack-plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md index 9e450566..b43b8e0a 100644 --- a/.agents/skills/gstack-plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md +++ b/.agents/skills/gstack-plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md @@ -324,6 +324,21 @@ DESIGN=$(ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head ``` If a design doc exists (from `/office-hours`), read it. Use it as the source of truth for the problem statement, constraints, and chosen approach. If it has a `Supersedes:` field, note that this is a revised design. +**Handoff note check** (reuses $SLUG and $BRANCH from the design doc check above): +```bash +HANDOFF=$(ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-ceo-handoff-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1) +[ -n "$HANDOFF" ] && echo "HANDOFF_FOUND: $HANDOFF" || echo "NO_HANDOFF" +``` +If this block runs in a separate shell from the design doc check, recompute $SLUG and $BRANCH first using the same commands from that block. +If a handoff note is found: read it. This contains system audit findings and discussion +from a prior CEO review session that paused so the user could run `/office-hours`. Use it +as additional context alongside the design doc. The handoff note helps you avoid re-asking +questions the user already answered. Do NOT skip any steps — run the full review, but use +the handoff note to inform your analysis and avoid redundant questions. + +Tell the user: "Found a handoff note from your prior CEO review session. I'll use that +context to pick up where we left off." + ## Prerequisite Skill Offer When the design doc check above prints "No design doc found," offer the prerequisite @@ -343,6 +358,39 @@ Options: If they skip: "No worries — standard review. If you ever want sharper input, try /office-hours first next time." Then proceed normally. Do not re-offer later in the session. +**Handoff note save (BENEFITS_FROM):** If the user chose A (run /office-hours first), +save a handoff context note before they leave. Reuse $SLUG and $BRANCH from the +design doc check block above (they use the same `remote-slug || basename` fallback +that handles repos without an origin remote). Then run: +```bash +mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG +USER=$(whoami) +DATETIME=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S) +``` +Write to `~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/$USER-$BRANCH-ceo-handoff-$DATETIME.md`: +```markdown +# CEO Review Handoff Note + +Generated by /plan-ceo-review on {date} +Branch: {branch} +Repo: {owner/repo} + +## Why I paused +User chose to run /office-hours first (no design doc found). + +## System Audit Summary +{Summarize what the system audit found — recent git history, diff scope, +CLAUDE.md key points, TODOS.md relevant items, known pain points} + +## Discussion So Far +{Empty — handoff happened before Step 0. Frontend/UI scope detection has not +run yet — it will be assessed when the review resumes.} +``` + +Tell the user: "Context saved. Run /office-hours in another window. When you come back +and invoke /plan-ceo-review, I'll pick up the context automatically — including the +design doc /office-hours produces." + **Mid-session detection:** During Step 0A (Premise Challenge), if the user can't articulate the problem, keeps changing the problem statement, answers with "I'm not sure," or is clearly exploring rather than reviewing — offer `/office-hours`: @@ -355,6 +403,15 @@ sure," or is clearly exploring rather than reviewing — offer `/office-hours`: Options: A) Yes, run /office-hours first. B) No, keep going. If they keep going, proceed normally — no guilt, no re-asking. +**Handoff note save (mid-session):** If the user chose A (run /office-hours first from +mid-session detection), save a handoff context note with the same format above, but +include any Step 0A progress in the "Discussion So Far" section — premises discussed, +problem framing attempts, user answers so far. Use the same bash block to generate the +file path. + +Tell the user: "Context saved with your discussion so far. Run /office-hours, then +come back to /plan-ceo-review." + When reading TODOS.md, specifically: * Note any TODOs this plan touches, blocks, or unlocks * Check if deferred work from prior reviews relates to this plan @@ -942,6 +999,16 @@ List every ASCII diagram in files this plan touches. Still accurate? ### Unresolved Decisions If any AskUserQuestion goes unanswered, note it here. Never silently default. +## Handoff Note Cleanup + +After producing the Completion Summary, clean up any handoff notes for this branch — +the review is complete and the context is no longer needed. + +```bash +source <(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null) +rm -f ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-ceo-handoff-*.md 2>/dev/null || true +``` + ## Review Log After producing the Completion Summary above, persist the review result. diff --git a/.agents/skills/gstack-retro/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/gstack-retro/SKILL.md index 2a30b527..5d17bf2b 100644 --- a/.agents/skills/gstack-retro/SKILL.md +++ b/.agents/skills/gstack-retro/SKILL.md @@ -428,7 +428,7 @@ From commit diffs, estimate PR sizes and bucket them: - **Small** (<100 LOC) - **Medium** (100-500 LOC) - **Large** (500-1500 LOC) -- **XL** (1500+ LOC) — flag these with file counts +- **XL** (1500+ LOC) ### Step 8: Focus Score + Ship of the Week @@ -620,14 +620,13 @@ Narrative interpreting what the team-wide patterns mean: Narrative covering: - Commit type mix and what it reveals -- PR size discipline (are PRs staying small?) +- PR size distribution and what it reveals about shipping cadence - Fix-chain detection (sequences of fix commits on the same subsystem) - Version bump discipline ### Code Quality Signals - Test LOC ratio trend - Hotspot analysis (are the same files churning?) -- Any XL PRs that should have been split - Greptile signal ratio and trend (if history exists): "Greptile: X% signal (Y valid catches, Z false positives)" ### Test Health @@ -666,7 +665,7 @@ For each teammate (sorted by commits descending), write a section: - "Fixed the N+1 query that was causing 2s load times on the dashboard" - **Opportunity for growth**: 1 specific, constructive suggestion. Frame as investment, not criticism. Examples: - "Test coverage on the payment module is at 8% — worth investing in before the next feature lands on top of it" - - "3 of the 5 PRs were 800+ LOC — breaking these up would catch issues earlier and make review easier" + - "Most commits land in a single burst — spacing work across the day could reduce context-switching fatigue" - "All commits land between 1-4am — sustainable pace matters for code quality long-term" **AI collaboration note:** If many commits have `Co-Authored-By` AI trailers (e.g., Claude, Copilot), note the AI-assisted commit percentage as a team metric. Frame it neutrally — "N% of commits were AI-assisted" — without judgment. diff --git a/CHANGELOG.md b/CHANGELOG.md index 69070ecd..7a5aec9a 100644 --- a/CHANGELOG.md +++ b/CHANGELOG.md @@ -1,5 +1,11 @@ # Changelog +## [0.9.5.0] - 2026-03-21 — CEO Review ↔ Office Hours Chaining + +### Added + +- **CEO review saves context when handing off to `/office-hours`.** When `/plan-ceo-review` suggests running `/office-hours` first, it now saves a handoff note with your system audit findings and any discussion so far. When you come back and re-invoke `/plan-ceo-review`, it picks up that context automatically — no more starting from scratch. + ## [0.9.4.1] - 2026-03-20 ### Changed diff --git a/VERSION b/VERSION index 199bf2ae..719a2339 100644 --- a/VERSION +++ b/VERSION @@ -1 +1 @@ -0.9.4.1 +0.9.5.0 diff --git a/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md b/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md index fdf95164..be25485a 100644 --- a/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md +++ b/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md @@ -332,6 +332,21 @@ DESIGN=$(ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head ``` If a design doc exists (from `/office-hours`), read it. Use it as the source of truth for the problem statement, constraints, and chosen approach. If it has a `Supersedes:` field, note that this is a revised design. +**Handoff note check** (reuses $SLUG and $BRANCH from the design doc check above): +```bash +HANDOFF=$(ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-ceo-handoff-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1) +[ -n "$HANDOFF" ] && echo "HANDOFF_FOUND: $HANDOFF" || echo "NO_HANDOFF" +``` +If this block runs in a separate shell from the design doc check, recompute $SLUG and $BRANCH first using the same commands from that block. +If a handoff note is found: read it. This contains system audit findings and discussion +from a prior CEO review session that paused so the user could run `/office-hours`. Use it +as additional context alongside the design doc. The handoff note helps you avoid re-asking +questions the user already answered. Do NOT skip any steps — run the full review, but use +the handoff note to inform your analysis and avoid redundant questions. + +Tell the user: "Found a handoff note from your prior CEO review session. I'll use that +context to pick up where we left off." + ## Prerequisite Skill Offer When the design doc check above prints "No design doc found," offer the prerequisite @@ -351,6 +366,39 @@ Options: If they skip: "No worries — standard review. If you ever want sharper input, try /office-hours first next time." Then proceed normally. Do not re-offer later in the session. +**Handoff note save (BENEFITS_FROM):** If the user chose A (run /office-hours first), +save a handoff context note before they leave. Reuse $SLUG and $BRANCH from the +design doc check block above (they use the same `remote-slug || basename` fallback +that handles repos without an origin remote). Then run: +```bash +mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG +USER=$(whoami) +DATETIME=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S) +``` +Write to `~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/$USER-$BRANCH-ceo-handoff-$DATETIME.md`: +```markdown +# CEO Review Handoff Note + +Generated by /plan-ceo-review on {date} +Branch: {branch} +Repo: {owner/repo} + +## Why I paused +User chose to run /office-hours first (no design doc found). + +## System Audit Summary +{Summarize what the system audit found — recent git history, diff scope, +CLAUDE.md key points, TODOS.md relevant items, known pain points} + +## Discussion So Far +{Empty — handoff happened before Step 0. Frontend/UI scope detection has not +run yet — it will be assessed when the review resumes.} +``` + +Tell the user: "Context saved. Run /office-hours in another window. When you come back +and invoke /plan-ceo-review, I'll pick up the context automatically — including the +design doc /office-hours produces." + **Mid-session detection:** During Step 0A (Premise Challenge), if the user can't articulate the problem, keeps changing the problem statement, answers with "I'm not sure," or is clearly exploring rather than reviewing — offer `/office-hours`: @@ -363,6 +411,15 @@ sure," or is clearly exploring rather than reviewing — offer `/office-hours`: Options: A) Yes, run /office-hours first. B) No, keep going. If they keep going, proceed normally — no guilt, no re-asking. +**Handoff note save (mid-session):** If the user chose A (run /office-hours first from +mid-session detection), save a handoff context note with the same format above, but +include any Step 0A progress in the "Discussion So Far" section — premises discussed, +problem framing attempts, user answers so far. Use the same bash block to generate the +file path. + +Tell the user: "Context saved with your discussion so far. Run /office-hours, then +come back to /plan-ceo-review." + When reading TODOS.md, specifically: * Note any TODOs this plan touches, blocks, or unlocks * Check if deferred work from prior reviews relates to this plan @@ -950,6 +1007,16 @@ List every ASCII diagram in files this plan touches. Still accurate? ### Unresolved Decisions If any AskUserQuestion goes unanswered, note it here. Never silently default. +## Handoff Note Cleanup + +After producing the Completion Summary, clean up any handoff notes for this branch — +the review is complete and the context is no longer needed. + +```bash +source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null) +rm -f ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-ceo-handoff-*.md 2>/dev/null || true +``` + ## Review Log After producing the Completion Summary above, persist the review result. diff --git a/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl b/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl index 8dce40eb..fea6879c 100644 --- a/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl +++ b/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl @@ -111,8 +111,56 @@ DESIGN=$(ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head ``` If a design doc exists (from `/office-hours`), read it. Use it as the source of truth for the problem statement, constraints, and chosen approach. If it has a `Supersedes:` field, note that this is a revised design. +**Handoff note check** (reuses $SLUG and $BRANCH from the design doc check above): +```bash +HANDOFF=$(ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-ceo-handoff-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1) +[ -n "$HANDOFF" ] && echo "HANDOFF_FOUND: $HANDOFF" || echo "NO_HANDOFF" +``` +If this block runs in a separate shell from the design doc check, recompute $SLUG and $BRANCH first using the same commands from that block. +If a handoff note is found: read it. This contains system audit findings and discussion +from a prior CEO review session that paused so the user could run `/office-hours`. Use it +as additional context alongside the design doc. The handoff note helps you avoid re-asking +questions the user already answered. Do NOT skip any steps — run the full review, but use +the handoff note to inform your analysis and avoid redundant questions. + +Tell the user: "Found a handoff note from your prior CEO review session. I'll use that +context to pick up where we left off." + {{BENEFITS_FROM}} +**Handoff note save (BENEFITS_FROM):** If the user chose A (run /office-hours first), +save a handoff context note before they leave. Reuse $SLUG and $BRANCH from the +design doc check block above (they use the same `remote-slug || basename` fallback +that handles repos without an origin remote). Then run: +```bash +mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG +USER=$(whoami) +DATETIME=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S) +``` +Write to `~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/$USER-$BRANCH-ceo-handoff-$DATETIME.md`: +```markdown +# CEO Review Handoff Note + +Generated by /plan-ceo-review on {date} +Branch: {branch} +Repo: {owner/repo} + +## Why I paused +User chose to run /office-hours first (no design doc found). + +## System Audit Summary +{Summarize what the system audit found — recent git history, diff scope, +CLAUDE.md key points, TODOS.md relevant items, known pain points} + +## Discussion So Far +{Empty — handoff happened before Step 0. Frontend/UI scope detection has not +run yet — it will be assessed when the review resumes.} +``` + +Tell the user: "Context saved. Run /office-hours in another window. When you come back +and invoke /plan-ceo-review, I'll pick up the context automatically — including the +design doc /office-hours produces." + **Mid-session detection:** During Step 0A (Premise Challenge), if the user can't articulate the problem, keeps changing the problem statement, answers with "I'm not sure," or is clearly exploring rather than reviewing — offer `/office-hours`: @@ -125,6 +173,15 @@ sure," or is clearly exploring rather than reviewing — offer `/office-hours`: Options: A) Yes, run /office-hours first. B) No, keep going. If they keep going, proceed normally — no guilt, no re-asking. +**Handoff note save (mid-session):** If the user chose A (run /office-hours first from +mid-session detection), save a handoff context note with the same format above, but +include any Step 0A progress in the "Discussion So Far" section — premises discussed, +problem framing attempts, user answers so far. Use the same bash block to generate the +file path. + +Tell the user: "Context saved with your discussion so far. Run /office-hours, then +come back to /plan-ceo-review." + When reading TODOS.md, specifically: * Note any TODOs this plan touches, blocks, or unlocks * Check if deferred work from prior reviews relates to this plan @@ -652,6 +709,16 @@ List every ASCII diagram in files this plan touches. Still accurate? ### Unresolved Decisions If any AskUserQuestion goes unanswered, note it here. Never silently default. +## Handoff Note Cleanup + +After producing the Completion Summary, clean up any handoff notes for this branch — +the review is complete and the context is no longer needed. + +```bash +source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null) +rm -f ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-ceo-handoff-*.md 2>/dev/null || true +``` + ## Review Log After producing the Completion Summary above, persist the review result. From f075cb757f67cacd0062f975064978019080214a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Garry Tan Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2026 11:46:06 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] =?UTF-8?q?feat:=20Search=20Before=20Building=20?= =?UTF-8?q?=E2=80=94=20builder=20ethos=20+=20skill=20integrations=20(v0.9.?= =?UTF-8?q?5.0)=20(#298)?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit * feat: ETHOS.md — gstack builder philosophy Standalone document capturing the four principles: The Golden Age, Boil the Lake, Search Before Building, and Build for Yourself. Introduces the three-layer knowledge framework (tried-and-true, new-and-popular, first-principles) and the Eureka Moment concept — when first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) * feat: Search Before Building preamble section + CLAUDE.md Add generateSearchBeforeBuildingSection(ctx) to gen-skill-docs.ts. Every workflow skill now gets a compact router section covering: - Three layers of knowledge (tried-and-true, new-and-popular, first-principles) - Eureka moment format and jq-based JSONL logging - WebSearch fallback clause - ETHOS.md reference via ctx.paths.skillRoot resolver Also adds compact "Search before building" section to CLAUDE.md. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) * feat: skill-specific Search Before Building integrations 8 template changes: - /office-hours: Phase 2.75 Landscape Awareness (WebSearch + three-layer synthesis) - /plan-eng-review: Step 0 search check with layer provenance annotations - /investigate: external pattern search + search escalation on hypothesis failure - /plan-ceo-review: Landscape Check before scope challenge - /review: search-before-recommending for fix patterns - /qa-only: WebSearch in allowed-tools - /design-consultation: three-layer synthesis backport in Phase 2 Step 3 - /retro: eureka moment tracking from ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl All search steps include WebSearch fallback clause. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) * feat: v0.9.5.0 — Builder Ethos (CHANGELOG + VERSION + TODOS) ETHOS.md + Search Before Building across all workflow skills. Deferred: first-time intro flow (blocked on blog post). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) * fix: address Codex review — sanitize search, privacy gate, ETHOS.md sidecar Three fixes from adversarial Codex review: - /investigate: sanitize error messages before searching (strip hostnames, IPs, file paths, SQL, customer data). Skip search if unsanitizable. - /office-hours: add privacy gate before landscape search. Use generalized category terms, never the user's specific product name or stealth idea. - setup: link ETHOS.md into .agents/skills/gstack/ sidecar so workspace- local Codex sessions can find the builder philosophy. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) * fix: sanitize Phase 2 external pattern search in /investigate The Phase 2 external search also sent raw error messages to WebSearch. Apply same sanitization rule as Phase 3 search escalation. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) * docs: sync documentation with shipped changes - ARCHITECTURE.md: preamble now handles 5 things (add Search Before Building) - CLAUDE.md: add ETHOS.md to project structure tree - README.md: add ETHOS.md to docs table Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) --- .agents/skills/gstack-browse/SKILL.md | 20 +++ .../gstack-design-consultation/SKILL.md | 27 +++- .agents/skills/gstack-design-review/SKILL.md | 20 +++ .../skills/gstack-document-release/SKILL.md | 20 +++ .agents/skills/gstack-investigate/SKILL.md | 28 +++- .agents/skills/gstack-office-hours/SKILL.md | 57 ++++++++ .../skills/gstack-plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md | 36 +++++ .../skills/gstack-plan-design-review/SKILL.md | 20 +++ .../skills/gstack-plan-eng-review/SKILL.md | 30 +++- .agents/skills/gstack-qa-only/SKILL.md | 20 +++ .agents/skills/gstack-qa/SKILL.md | 20 +++ .agents/skills/gstack-retro/SKILL.md | 34 +++++ .agents/skills/gstack-review/SKILL.md | 27 ++++ .../gstack-setup-browser-cookies/SKILL.md | 20 +++ .agents/skills/gstack-ship/SKILL.md | 20 +++ .agents/skills/gstack/SKILL.md | 20 +++ ARCHITECTURE.md | 3 +- CHANGELOG.md | 9 +- CLAUDE.md | 14 ++ ETHOS.md | 129 ++++++++++++++++++ README.md | 1 + SKILL.md | 20 +++ TODOS.md | 14 ++ browse/SKILL.md | 20 +++ codex/SKILL.md | 20 +++ design-consultation/SKILL.md | 27 +++- design-consultation/SKILL.md.tmpl | 7 +- design-review/SKILL.md | 20 +++ document-release/SKILL.md | 20 +++ investigate/SKILL.md | 29 +++- investigate/SKILL.md.tmpl | 9 +- office-hours/SKILL.md | 58 ++++++++ office-hours/SKILL.md.tmpl | 38 ++++++ plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md | 37 +++++ plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl | 17 +++ plan-design-review/SKILL.md | 20 +++ plan-eng-review/SKILL.md | 31 ++++- plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl | 11 +- qa-only/SKILL.md | 21 +++ qa-only/SKILL.md.tmpl | 1 + qa/SKILL.md | 20 +++ retro/SKILL.md | 34 +++++ retro/SKILL.md.tmpl | 14 ++ review/SKILL.md | 28 ++++ review/SKILL.md.tmpl | 8 ++ scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts | 23 ++++ setup | 11 ++ setup-browser-cookies/SKILL.md | 20 +++ ship/SKILL.md | 20 +++ 49 files changed, 1162 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) create mode 100644 ETHOS.md diff --git a/.agents/skills/gstack-browse/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/gstack-browse/SKILL.md index db405e47..45a59485 100644 --- a/.agents/skills/gstack-browse/SKILL.md +++ b/.agents/skills/gstack-browse/SKILL.md @@ -125,6 +125,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. diff --git a/.agents/skills/gstack-design-consultation/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/gstack-design-consultation/SKILL.md index 8d018781..29e1a222 100644 --- a/.agents/skills/gstack-design-consultation/SKILL.md +++ b/.agents/skills/gstack-design-consultation/SKILL.md @@ -126,6 +126,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. @@ -323,7 +343,12 @@ If browse is not available, rely on WebSearch results and your built-in design k **Step 3: Synthesize findings** -The goal of research is NOT to copy. It is to get in the ballpark — to understand the visual language users in this category already expect. This gives you the baseline. The interesting design work starts after you have the baseline: deciding where to follow conventions (so the product feels literate) and where to break from them (so the product is memorable). +**Three-layer synthesis:** +- **Layer 1 (tried and true):** What design patterns does every product in this category share? These are table stakes — users expect them. +- **Layer 2 (new and popular):** What are the search results and current design discourse saying? What's trending? What new patterns are emerging? +- **Layer 3 (first principles):** Given what we know about THIS product's users and positioning — is there a reason the conventional design approach is wrong? Where should we deliberately break from the category norms? + +**Eureka check:** If Layer 3 reasoning reveals a genuine design insight — a reason the category's visual language fails THIS product — name it: "EUREKA: Every [category] product does X because they assume [assumption]. But this product's users [evidence] — so we should do Y instead." Log the eureka moment (see preamble). Summarize conversationally: > "I looked at what's out there. Here's the landscape: they converge on [patterns]. Most of them feel [observation — e.g., interchangeable, polished but generic, etc.]. The opportunity to stand out is [gap]. Here's where I'd play it safe and where I'd take a risk..." diff --git a/.agents/skills/gstack-design-review/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/gstack-design-review/SKILL.md index 2a7d26b2..700bd33e 100644 --- a/.agents/skills/gstack-design-review/SKILL.md +++ b/.agents/skills/gstack-design-review/SKILL.md @@ -126,6 +126,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. diff --git a/.agents/skills/gstack-document-release/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/gstack-document-release/SKILL.md index 9249b0be..ccf34824 100644 --- a/.agents/skills/gstack-document-release/SKILL.md +++ b/.agents/skills/gstack-document-release/SKILL.md @@ -124,6 +124,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. diff --git a/.agents/skills/gstack-investigate/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/gstack-investigate/SKILL.md index 39f5910e..0f53afef 100644 --- a/.agents/skills/gstack-investigate/SKILL.md +++ b/.agents/skills/gstack-investigate/SKILL.md @@ -127,6 +127,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. @@ -289,6 +309,12 @@ Also check: - `TODOS.md` for related known issues - `git log` for prior fixes in the same area — **recurring bugs in the same files are an architectural smell**, not a coincidence +**External pattern search:** If the bug doesn't match a known pattern above, WebSearch for: +- "{framework} {generic error type}" — **sanitize first:** strip hostnames, IPs, file paths, SQL, customer data. Search the error category, not the raw message. +- "{library} {component} known issues" + +If WebSearch is unavailable, skip this search and proceed with hypothesis testing. If a documented solution or known dependency bug surfaces, present it as a candidate hypothesis in Phase 3. + --- ## Phase 3: Hypothesis Testing @@ -297,7 +323,7 @@ Before writing ANY fix, verify your hypothesis. 1. **Confirm the hypothesis:** Add a temporary log statement, assertion, or debug output at the suspected root cause. Run the reproduction. Does the evidence match? -2. **If the hypothesis is wrong:** Return to Phase 1. Gather more evidence. Do not guess. +2. **If the hypothesis is wrong:** Before forming the next hypothesis, consider searching for the error. **Sanitize first** — strip hostnames, IPs, file paths, SQL fragments, customer identifiers, and any internal/proprietary data from the error message. Search only the generic error type and framework context: "{component} {sanitized error type} {framework version}". If the error message is too specific to sanitize safely, skip the search. If WebSearch is unavailable, skip and proceed. Then return to Phase 1. Gather more evidence. Do not guess. 3. **3-strike rule:** If 3 hypotheses fail, **STOP**. Use AskUserQuestion: ``` diff --git a/.agents/skills/gstack-office-hours/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/gstack-office-hours/SKILL.md index eb1b7084..c464c88c 100644 --- a/.agents/skills/gstack-office-hours/SKILL.md +++ b/.agents/skills/gstack-office-hours/SKILL.md @@ -128,6 +128,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. @@ -447,6 +467,43 @@ If no matches found, proceed silently. --- +## Phase 2.75: Landscape Awareness + +Read ETHOS.md for the full Search Before Building framework (three layers, eureka moments). The preamble's Search Before Building section has the ETHOS.md path. + +After understanding the problem through questioning, search for what the world thinks. This is NOT competitive research (that's /design-consultation's job). This is understanding conventional wisdom so you can evaluate where it's wrong. + +**Privacy gate:** Before searching, use AskUserQuestion: "I'd like to search for what the world thinks about this space to inform our discussion. This sends generalized category terms (not your specific idea) to a search provider. OK to proceed?" +Options: A) Yes, search away B) Skip — keep this session private +If B: skip this phase entirely and proceed to Phase 3. Use only in-distribution knowledge. + +When searching, use **generalized category terms** — never the user's specific product name, proprietary concept, or stealth idea. For example, search "task management app landscape" not "SuperTodo AI-powered task killer." + +If WebSearch is unavailable, skip this phase and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + +**Startup mode:** WebSearch for: +- "[problem space] startup approach {current year}" +- "[problem space] common mistakes" +- "why [incumbent solution] fails" OR "why [incumbent solution] works" + +**Builder mode:** WebSearch for: +- "[thing being built] existing solutions" +- "[thing being built] open source alternatives" +- "best [thing category] {current year}" + +Read the top 2-3 results. Run the three-layer synthesis: +- **[Layer 1]** What does everyone already know about this space? +- **[Layer 2]** What are the search results and current discourse saying? +- **[Layer 3]** Given what WE learned in Phase 2A/2B — is there a reason the conventional approach is wrong? + +**Eureka check:** If Layer 3 reasoning reveals a genuine insight, name it: "EUREKA: Everyone does X because they assume [assumption]. But [evidence from our conversation] suggests that's wrong here. This means [implication]." Log the eureka moment (see preamble). + +If no eureka moment exists, say: "The conventional wisdom seems sound here. Let's build on it." Proceed to Phase 3. + +**Important:** This search feeds Phase 3 (Premise Challenge). If you found reasons the conventional approach fails, those become premises to challenge. If conventional wisdom is solid, that raises the bar for any premise that contradicts it. + +--- + ## Phase 3: Premise Challenge Before proposing solutions, challenge the premises: diff --git a/.agents/skills/gstack-plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/gstack-plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md index b43b8e0a..290ddbb2 100644 --- a/.agents/skills/gstack-plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md +++ b/.agents/skills/gstack-plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md @@ -127,6 +127,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. @@ -434,6 +454,22 @@ Analyze the plan. If it involves ANY of: new UI screens/pages, changes to existi Identify 2-3 files or patterns in the existing codebase that are particularly well-designed. Note them as style references for the review. Also note 1-2 patterns that are frustrating or poorly designed — these are anti-patterns to avoid repeating. Report findings before proceeding to Step 0. +### Landscape Check + +Read ETHOS.md for the Search Before Building framework (the preamble's Search Before Building section has the path). Before challenging scope, understand the landscape. WebSearch for: +- "[product category] landscape {current year}" +- "[key feature] alternatives" +- "why [incumbent/conventional approach] [succeeds/fails]" + +If WebSearch is unavailable, skip this check and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + +Run the three-layer synthesis: +- **[Layer 1]** What's the tried-and-true approach in this space? +- **[Layer 2]** What are the search results saying? +- **[Layer 3]** First-principles reasoning — where might the conventional wisdom be wrong? + +Feed into the Premise Challenge (0A) and Dream State Mapping (0C). If you find a eureka moment, surface it during the Expansion opt-in ceremony as a differentiation opportunity. Log it (see preamble). + ## Step 0: Nuclear Scope Challenge + Mode Selection ### 0A. Premise Challenge diff --git a/.agents/skills/gstack-plan-design-review/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/gstack-plan-design-review/SKILL.md index e431d72c..8ee46259 100644 --- a/.agents/skills/gstack-plan-design-review/SKILL.md +++ b/.agents/skills/gstack-plan-design-review/SKILL.md @@ -126,6 +126,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. diff --git a/.agents/skills/gstack-plan-eng-review/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/gstack-plan-eng-review/SKILL.md index 01233079..942d5822 100644 --- a/.agents/skills/gstack-plan-eng-review/SKILL.md +++ b/.agents/skills/gstack-plan-eng-review/SKILL.md @@ -125,6 +125,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. @@ -293,7 +313,15 @@ Before reviewing anything, answer these questions: 1. **What existing code already partially or fully solves each sub-problem?** Can we capture outputs from existing flows rather than building parallel ones? 2. **What is the minimum set of changes that achieves the stated goal?** Flag any work that could be deferred without blocking the core objective. Be ruthless about scope creep. 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? +4. **Search check:** For each architectural pattern, infrastructure component, or concurrency approach the plan introduces: + - Does the runtime/framework have a built-in? Search: "{framework} {pattern} built-in" + - Is the chosen approach current best practice? Search: "{pattern} best practice {current year}" + - Are there known footguns? Search: "{framework} {pattern} pitfalls" + + If WebSearch is unavailable, skip this check and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + + If the plan rolls a custom solution where a built-in exists, flag it as a scope reduction opportunity. Annotate recommendations with **[Layer 1]**, **[Layer 2]**, **[Layer 3]**, or **[EUREKA]** (see preamble's Search Before Building section). If you find a eureka moment — a reason the standard approach is wrong for this case — present it as an architectural insight. +5. **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. diff --git a/.agents/skills/gstack-qa-only/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/gstack-qa-only/SKILL.md index 6a6f8a7d..f310fb25 100644 --- a/.agents/skills/gstack-qa-only/SKILL.md +++ b/.agents/skills/gstack-qa-only/SKILL.md @@ -124,6 +124,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. diff --git a/.agents/skills/gstack-qa/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/gstack-qa/SKILL.md index 0617c447..92e61a9a 100644 --- a/.agents/skills/gstack-qa/SKILL.md +++ b/.agents/skills/gstack-qa/SKILL.md @@ -127,6 +127,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. diff --git a/.agents/skills/gstack-retro/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/gstack-retro/SKILL.md index 5d17bf2b..a0b796ba 100644 --- a/.agents/skills/gstack-retro/SKILL.md +++ b/.agents/skills/gstack-retro/SKILL.md @@ -124,6 +124,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. @@ -369,6 +389,20 @@ If TODOS.md doesn't exist, skip the Backlog Health row. If the JSONL file doesn't exist or has no entries in the window, skip the Skill Usage row. +**Eureka Moments (if logged):** Read `~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl` if it exists. Filter entries within the retro time window by `ts` field. For each eureka moment, show the skill that flagged it, the branch, and a one-line summary of the insight. Present as: + +``` +| Eureka Moments | 2 this period | +``` + +If moments exist, list them: +``` + EUREKA /office-hours (branch: garrytan/auth-rethink): "Session tokens don't need server storage — browser crypto API makes client-side JWT validation viable" + EUREKA /plan-eng-review (branch: garrytan/cache-layer): "Redis isn't needed here — Bun's built-in LRU cache handles this workload" +``` + +If the JSONL file doesn't exist or has no entries in the window, skip the Eureka Moments row. + ### Step 3: Commit Time Distribution Show hourly histogram in local time using bar chart: diff --git a/.agents/skills/gstack-review/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/gstack-review/SKILL.md index ab00c53e..de1a0674 100644 --- a/.agents/skills/gstack-review/SKILL.md +++ b/.agents/skills/gstack-review/SKILL.md @@ -123,6 +123,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. @@ -319,6 +339,13 @@ Apply the checklist against the diff in two passes: **Enum & Value Completeness requires reading code OUTSIDE the diff.** When the diff introduces a new enum value, status, tier, or type constant, use Grep to find all files that reference sibling values, then Read those files to check if the new value is handled. This is the one category where within-diff review is insufficient. +**Search-before-recommending:** When recommending a fix pattern (especially for concurrency, caching, auth, or framework-specific behavior): +- Verify the pattern is current best practice for the framework version in use +- Check if a built-in solution exists in newer versions before recommending a workaround +- Verify API signatures against current docs (APIs change between versions) + +Takes seconds, prevents recommending outdated patterns. If WebSearch is unavailable, note it and proceed with in-distribution knowledge. + Follow the output format specified in the checklist. Respect the suppressions — do NOT flag items listed in the "DO NOT flag" section. --- diff --git a/.agents/skills/gstack-setup-browser-cookies/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/gstack-setup-browser-cookies/SKILL.md index 34f95391..49e2e900 100644 --- a/.agents/skills/gstack-setup-browser-cookies/SKILL.md +++ b/.agents/skills/gstack-setup-browser-cookies/SKILL.md @@ -123,6 +123,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. diff --git a/.agents/skills/gstack-ship/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/gstack-ship/SKILL.md index 24a770be..0809141b 100644 --- a/.agents/skills/gstack-ship/SKILL.md +++ b/.agents/skills/gstack-ship/SKILL.md @@ -121,6 +121,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. diff --git a/.agents/skills/gstack/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/gstack/SKILL.md index 4bb9ba17..93128866 100644 --- a/.agents/skills/gstack/SKILL.md +++ b/.agents/skills/gstack/SKILL.md @@ -156,6 +156,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. diff --git a/ARCHITECTURE.md b/ARCHITECTURE.md index db55ee36..0a2b9313 100644 --- a/ARCHITECTURE.md +++ b/ARCHITECTURE.md @@ -210,12 +210,13 @@ This is structurally sound — if a command exists in code, it appears in docs. ### The preamble -Every skill starts with a `{{PREAMBLE}}` block that runs before the skill's own logic. It handles four things in a single bash command: +Every skill starts with a `{{PREAMBLE}}` block that runs before the skill's own logic. It handles five things in a single bash command: 1. **Update check** — calls `gstack-update-check`, reports if an upgrade is available. 2. **Session tracking** — touches `~/.gstack/sessions/$PPID` and counts active sessions (files modified in the last 2 hours). When 3+ sessions are running, all skills enter "ELI16 mode" — every question re-grounds the user on context because they're juggling windows. 3. **Contributor mode** — reads `gstack_contributor` from config. When true, the agent files casual field reports to `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/` when gstack itself misbehaves. 4. **AskUserQuestion format** — universal format: context, question, `RECOMMENDATION: Choose X because ___`, lettered options. Consistent across all skills. +5. **Search Before Building** — before building infrastructure or unfamiliar patterns, search first. Three layers of knowledge: tried-and-true (Layer 1), new-and-popular (Layer 2), first-principles (Layer 3). When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, the agent names the "eureka moment" and logs it. See `ETHOS.md` for the full builder philosophy. ### Why committed, not generated at runtime? diff --git a/CHANGELOG.md b/CHANGELOG.md index 7a5aec9a..ee1d230d 100644 --- a/CHANGELOG.md +++ b/CHANGELOG.md @@ -1,9 +1,16 @@ # Changelog -## [0.9.5.0] - 2026-03-21 — CEO Review ↔ Office Hours Chaining +## [0.9.5.0] - 2026-03-21 — Builder Ethos ### Added +- **ETHOS.md — gstack's builder philosophy in one document.** Four principles: The Golden Age (AI compression ratios), Boil the Lake (completeness is cheap), Search Before Building (three layers of knowledge), and Build for Yourself. This is the philosophical source of truth that every workflow skill references. +- **Every workflow skill now searches before recommending.** Before suggesting infrastructure patterns, concurrency approaches, or framework-specific solutions, gstack checks if the runtime has a built-in and whether the pattern is current best practice. Three layers of knowledge — tried-and-true (Layer 1), new-and-popular (Layer 2), and first-principles (Layer 3) — with the most valuable insights prized above all. +- **Eureka moments.** When first-principles reasoning reveals that conventional wisdom is wrong, gstack names it, celebrates it, and logs it. Your weekly `/retro` now surfaces these insights so you can see where your projects zigged while others zagged. +- **`/office-hours` adds Landscape Awareness phase.** After understanding your problem through questioning but before challenging premises, gstack searches for what the world thinks — then runs a three-layer synthesis to find where conventional wisdom might be wrong for your specific case. +- **`/plan-eng-review` adds search check.** Step 0 now verifies architectural patterns against current best practices and flags custom solutions where built-ins exist. +- **`/investigate` searches on hypothesis failure.** When your first debugging hypothesis is wrong, gstack searches for the exact error message and known framework issues before guessing again. +- **`/design-consultation` three-layer synthesis.** Competitive research now uses the structured Layer 1/2/3 framework to find where your product should deliberately break from category norms. - **CEO review saves context when handing off to `/office-hours`.** When `/plan-ceo-review` suggests running `/office-hours` first, it now saves a handoff note with your system audit findings and any discussion so far. When you come back and re-invoke `/plan-ceo-review`, it picks up that context automatically — no more starting from scratch. ## [0.9.4.1] - 2026-03-20 diff --git a/CLAUDE.md b/CLAUDE.md index 9a7edc28..bd513552 100644 --- a/CLAUDE.md +++ b/CLAUDE.md @@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ gstack/ ├── setup # One-time setup: build binary + symlink skills ├── SKILL.md # Generated from SKILL.md.tmpl (don't edit directly) ├── SKILL.md.tmpl # Template: edit this, run gen:skill-docs +├── ETHOS.md # Builder philosophy (Boil the Lake, Search Before Building) └── package.json # Build scripts for browse ``` @@ -192,6 +193,19 @@ Completeness is cheap. Don't recommend shortcuts when the complete implementatio is a "lake" (achievable) not an "ocean" (multi-quarter migration). See the Completeness Principle in the skill preamble for the full philosophy. +## Search before building + +Before designing any solution that involves concurrency, unfamiliar patterns, +infrastructure, or anything where the runtime/framework might have a built-in: + +1. Search for "{runtime} {thing} built-in" +2. Search for "{thing} best practice {current year}" +3. Check official runtime/framework docs + +Three layers of knowledge: tried-and-true (Layer 1), new-and-popular (Layer 2), +first-principles (Layer 3). Prize Layer 3 above all. See ETHOS.md for the full +builder philosophy. + ## Local plans Contributors can store long-range vision docs and design documents in `~/.gstack-dev/plans/`. diff --git a/ETHOS.md b/ETHOS.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..b056fcf1 --- /dev/null +++ b/ETHOS.md @@ -0,0 +1,129 @@ +# gstack Builder Ethos + +These are the principles that shape how gstack thinks, recommends, and builds. +They are injected into every workflow skill's preamble automatically. They +reflect what we believe about building software in 2026. + +--- + +## The Golden Age + +A single person with AI can now build what used to take a team of twenty. +The engineering barrier is gone. What remains is taste, judgment, and the +willingness to do the complete thing. + +This is not a prediction — it's happening right now. 10,000+ usable lines of +code per day. 100+ commits per week. Not by a team. By one person, part-time, +using the right tools. The compression ratio between human-team time and +AI-assisted time ranges from 3x (research) to 100x (boilerplate): + +| Task type | Human team | AI-assisted | 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 table changes everything about how you make build-vs-skip decisions. +The last 10% of completeness that teams used to skip? It costs seconds now. + +--- + +## 1. Boil the Lake + +AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When +the complete implementation costs minutes more than the shortcut — do the +complete thing. Every time. + +**Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, +full feature implementation, all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" +is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, multi-quarter platform +migrations. Boil lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope. + +**Completeness is cheap.** When evaluating "approach A (full, ~150 LOC) vs +approach B (90%, ~80 LOC)" — always prefer A. The 70-line delta costs +seconds with AI coding. "Ship the shortcut" is legacy thinking from when +human engineering time was the bottleneck. + +**Anti-patterns:** +- "Choose B — it covers 90% with less code." (If A is 70 lines more, choose A.) +- "Let's defer tests to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.) +- "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour AI-assisted.") + +Read more: https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean + +--- + +## 2. Search Before Building + +The 1000x engineer's first instinct is "has someone already solved this?" not +"let me design it from scratch." Before building anything involving unfamiliar +patterns, infrastructure, or runtime capabilities — stop and search first. +The cost of checking is near-zero. The cost of not checking is reinventing +something worse. + +### Three Layers of Knowledge + +There are three distinct sources of truth when building anything. Understand +which layer you're operating in: + +**Layer 1: Tried and true.** Standard patterns, battle-tested approaches, +things deeply in distribution. You probably already know these. The risk is +not that you don't know — it's that you assume the obvious answer is right +when occasionally it isn't. The cost of checking is near-zero. And once in a +while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. + +**Layer 2: New and popular.** Current best practices, blog posts, ecosystem +trends. Search for these. But scrutinize what you find — humans are subject +to mania. Mr. Market is either too fearful or too greedy. The crowd can be +wrong about new things just as easily as old things. Search results are inputs +to your thinking, not answers. + +**Layer 3: First principles.** Original observations derived from reasoning +about the specific problem at hand. These are the most valuable of all. Prize +them above everything else. The best projects both avoid mistakes (don't +reinvent the wheel — Layer 1) while also making brilliant observations that +are out of distribution (Layer 3). + +### The Eureka Moment + +The most valuable outcome of searching is not finding a solution to copy. +It is: + +1. Understanding what everyone is doing and WHY (Layers 1 + 2) +2. Applying first-principles reasoning to their assumptions (Layer 3) +3. Discovering a clear reason why the conventional approach is wrong + +This is the 11 out of 10. The truly superlative projects are full of these +moments — zig while others zag. When you find one, name it. Celebrate it. +Build on it. + +**Anti-patterns:** +- Rolling a custom solution when the runtime has a built-in. (Layer 1 miss) +- Accepting blog posts uncritically in novel territory. (Layer 2 mania) +- Assuming tried-and-true is right without questioning premises. (Layer 3 blindness) + +--- + +## How They Work Together + +Boil the Lake says: **do the complete thing.** +Search Before Building says: **know what exists before you decide what to build.** + +Together: search first, then build the complete version of the right thing. +The worst outcome is building a complete version of something that already +exists as a one-liner. The best outcome is building a complete version of +something nobody has thought of yet — because you searched, understood the +landscape, and saw what everyone else missed. + +--- + +## Build for Yourself + +The best tools solve your own problem. gstack exists because its creator +wanted it. Every feature was built because it was needed, not because it +was requested. If you're building something for yourself, trust that instinct. +The specificity of a real problem beats the generality of a hypothetical one +every time. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 07047797..dcb76dd8 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -211,6 +211,7 @@ Fifteen specialists and six power tools. All slash commands. All Markdown. All f | Doc | What it covers | |-----|---------------| | [Skill Deep Dives](docs/skills.md) | Philosophy, examples, and workflow for every skill (includes Greptile integration) | +| [Builder Ethos](ETHOS.md) | Builder philosophy: Boil the Lake, Search Before Building, three layers of knowledge | | [Architecture](ARCHITECTURE.md) | Design decisions and system internals | | [Browser Reference](BROWSER.md) | Full command reference for `/browse` | | [Contributing](CONTRIBUTING.md) | Dev setup, testing, contributor mode, and dev mode | diff --git a/SKILL.md b/SKILL.md index 46b7a558..d8e51bd1 100644 --- a/SKILL.md +++ b/SKILL.md @@ -162,6 +162,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. diff --git a/TODOS.md b/TODOS.md index 766c3a78..445d1603 100644 --- a/TODOS.md +++ b/TODOS.md @@ -1,5 +1,19 @@ # TODOS +## Builder Ethos + +### First-time Search Before Building intro + +**What:** Add a `generateSearchIntro()` function (like `generateLakeIntro()`) that introduces the Search Before Building principle on first use, with a link to the blog essay. + +**Why:** Boil the Lake has an intro flow that links to the essay and marks `.completeness-intro-seen`. Search Before Building should have the same pattern for discoverability. + +**Context:** Blocked on a blog post to link to. When the essay exists, add the intro flow with a `.search-intro-seen` marker file. Pattern: `generateLakeIntro()` at gen-skill-docs.ts:176. + +**Effort:** S +**Priority:** P2 +**Depends on:** Blog post about Search Before Building + ## Browse ### Bundle server.ts into compiled binary diff --git a/browse/SKILL.md b/browse/SKILL.md index 2acf60b0..e7ab6205 100644 --- a/browse/SKILL.md +++ b/browse/SKILL.md @@ -131,6 +131,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. diff --git a/codex/SKILL.md b/codex/SKILL.md index 77705f7e..8af53954 100644 --- a/codex/SKILL.md +++ b/codex/SKILL.md @@ -132,6 +132,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.) - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. diff --git a/design-consultation/SKILL.md b/design-consultation/SKILL.md index cc21fa7e..f707f5b3 100644 --- a/design-consultation/SKILL.md +++ b/design-consultation/SKILL.md @@ -136,6 +136,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.) - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. @@ -333,7 +353,12 @@ If browse is not available, rely on WebSearch results and your built-in design k **Step 3: Synthesize findings** -The goal of research is NOT to copy. It is to get in the ballpark — to understand the visual language users in this category already expect. This gives you the baseline. The interesting design work starts after you have the baseline: deciding where to follow conventions (so the product feels literate) and where to break from them (so the product is memorable). +**Three-layer synthesis:** +- **Layer 1 (tried and true):** What design patterns does every product in this category share? These are table stakes — users expect them. +- **Layer 2 (new and popular):** What are the search results and current design discourse saying? What's trending? What new patterns are emerging? +- **Layer 3 (first principles):** Given what we know about THIS product's users and positioning — is there a reason the conventional design approach is wrong? Where should we deliberately break from the category norms? + +**Eureka check:** If Layer 3 reasoning reveals a genuine design insight — a reason the category's visual language fails THIS product — name it: "EUREKA: Every [category] product does X because they assume [assumption]. But this product's users [evidence] — so we should do Y instead." Log the eureka moment (see preamble). Summarize conversationally: > "I looked at what's out there. Here's the landscape: they converge on [patterns]. Most of them feel [observation — e.g., interchangeable, polished but generic, etc.]. The opportunity to stand out is [gap]. Here's where I'd play it safe and where I'd take a risk..." diff --git a/design-consultation/SKILL.md.tmpl b/design-consultation/SKILL.md.tmpl index 1e8b0bff..ed9a4efa 100644 --- a/design-consultation/SKILL.md.tmpl +++ b/design-consultation/SKILL.md.tmpl @@ -112,7 +112,12 @@ If browse is not available, rely on WebSearch results and your built-in design k **Step 3: Synthesize findings** -The goal of research is NOT to copy. It is to get in the ballpark — to understand the visual language users in this category already expect. This gives you the baseline. The interesting design work starts after you have the baseline: deciding where to follow conventions (so the product feels literate) and where to break from them (so the product is memorable). +**Three-layer synthesis:** +- **Layer 1 (tried and true):** What design patterns does every product in this category share? These are table stakes — users expect them. +- **Layer 2 (new and popular):** What are the search results and current design discourse saying? What's trending? What new patterns are emerging? +- **Layer 3 (first principles):** Given what we know about THIS product's users and positioning — is there a reason the conventional design approach is wrong? Where should we deliberately break from the category norms? + +**Eureka check:** If Layer 3 reasoning reveals a genuine design insight — a reason the category's visual language fails THIS product — name it: "EUREKA: Every [category] product does X because they assume [assumption]. But this product's users [evidence] — so we should do Y instead." Log the eureka moment (see preamble). Summarize conversationally: > "I looked at what's out there. Here's the landscape: they converge on [patterns]. Most of them feel [observation — e.g., interchangeable, polished but generic, etc.]. The opportunity to stand out is [gap]. Here's where I'd play it safe and where I'd take a risk..." diff --git a/design-review/SKILL.md b/design-review/SKILL.md index cbc0d5e8..606ed2cd 100644 --- a/design-review/SKILL.md +++ b/design-review/SKILL.md @@ -136,6 +136,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. diff --git a/document-release/SKILL.md b/document-release/SKILL.md index d71d5d3b..7beb7a9e 100644 --- a/document-release/SKILL.md +++ b/document-release/SKILL.md @@ -133,6 +133,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.) - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. diff --git a/investigate/SKILL.md b/investigate/SKILL.md index eccce870..9a61f540 100644 --- a/investigate/SKILL.md +++ b/investigate/SKILL.md @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ allowed-tools: - Grep - Glob - AskUserQuestion + - WebSearch hooks: PreToolUse: - matcher: "Edit" @@ -146,6 +147,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. @@ -308,6 +329,12 @@ Also check: - `TODOS.md` for related known issues - `git log` for prior fixes in the same area — **recurring bugs in the same files are an architectural smell**, not a coincidence +**External pattern search:** If the bug doesn't match a known pattern above, WebSearch for: +- "{framework} {generic error type}" — **sanitize first:** strip hostnames, IPs, file paths, SQL, customer data. Search the error category, not the raw message. +- "{library} {component} known issues" + +If WebSearch is unavailable, skip this search and proceed with hypothesis testing. If a documented solution or known dependency bug surfaces, present it as a candidate hypothesis in Phase 3. + --- ## Phase 3: Hypothesis Testing @@ -316,7 +343,7 @@ Before writing ANY fix, verify your hypothesis. 1. **Confirm the hypothesis:** Add a temporary log statement, assertion, or debug output at the suspected root cause. Run the reproduction. Does the evidence match? -2. **If the hypothesis is wrong:** Return to Phase 1. Gather more evidence. Do not guess. +2. **If the hypothesis is wrong:** Before forming the next hypothesis, consider searching for the error. **Sanitize first** — strip hostnames, IPs, file paths, SQL fragments, customer identifiers, and any internal/proprietary data from the error message. Search only the generic error type and framework context: "{component} {sanitized error type} {framework version}". If the error message is too specific to sanitize safely, skip the search. If WebSearch is unavailable, skip and proceed. Then return to Phase 1. Gather more evidence. Do not guess. 3. **3-strike rule:** If 3 hypotheses fail, **STOP**. Use AskUserQuestion: ``` diff --git a/investigate/SKILL.md.tmpl b/investigate/SKILL.md.tmpl index 4db09f30..8e37becd 100644 --- a/investigate/SKILL.md.tmpl +++ b/investigate/SKILL.md.tmpl @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ allowed-tools: - Grep - Glob - AskUserQuestion + - WebSearch hooks: PreToolUse: - matcher: "Edit" @@ -104,6 +105,12 @@ Also check: - `TODOS.md` for related known issues - `git log` for prior fixes in the same area — **recurring bugs in the same files are an architectural smell**, not a coincidence +**External pattern search:** If the bug doesn't match a known pattern above, WebSearch for: +- "{framework} {generic error type}" — **sanitize first:** strip hostnames, IPs, file paths, SQL, customer data. Search the error category, not the raw message. +- "{library} {component} known issues" + +If WebSearch is unavailable, skip this search and proceed with hypothesis testing. If a documented solution or known dependency bug surfaces, present it as a candidate hypothesis in Phase 3. + --- ## Phase 3: Hypothesis Testing @@ -112,7 +119,7 @@ Before writing ANY fix, verify your hypothesis. 1. **Confirm the hypothesis:** Add a temporary log statement, assertion, or debug output at the suspected root cause. Run the reproduction. Does the evidence match? -2. **If the hypothesis is wrong:** Return to Phase 1. Gather more evidence. Do not guess. +2. **If the hypothesis is wrong:** Before forming the next hypothesis, consider searching for the error. **Sanitize first** — strip hostnames, IPs, file paths, SQL fragments, customer identifiers, and any internal/proprietary data from the error message. Search only the generic error type and framework context: "{component} {sanitized error type} {framework version}". If the error message is too specific to sanitize safely, skip the search. If WebSearch is unavailable, skip and proceed. Then return to Phase 1. Gather more evidence. Do not guess. 3. **3-strike rule:** If 3 hypotheses fail, **STOP**. Use AskUserQuestion: ``` diff --git a/office-hours/SKILL.md b/office-hours/SKILL.md index 2a2e7583..218fe133 100644 --- a/office-hours/SKILL.md +++ b/office-hours/SKILL.md @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ allowed-tools: - Write - Edit - AskUserQuestion + - WebSearch --- @@ -137,6 +138,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. @@ -456,6 +477,43 @@ If no matches found, proceed silently. --- +## Phase 2.75: Landscape Awareness + +Read ETHOS.md for the full Search Before Building framework (three layers, eureka moments). The preamble's Search Before Building section has the ETHOS.md path. + +After understanding the problem through questioning, search for what the world thinks. This is NOT competitive research (that's /design-consultation's job). This is understanding conventional wisdom so you can evaluate where it's wrong. + +**Privacy gate:** Before searching, use AskUserQuestion: "I'd like to search for what the world thinks about this space to inform our discussion. This sends generalized category terms (not your specific idea) to a search provider. OK to proceed?" +Options: A) Yes, search away B) Skip — keep this session private +If B: skip this phase entirely and proceed to Phase 3. Use only in-distribution knowledge. + +When searching, use **generalized category terms** — never the user's specific product name, proprietary concept, or stealth idea. For example, search "task management app landscape" not "SuperTodo AI-powered task killer." + +If WebSearch is unavailable, skip this phase and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + +**Startup mode:** WebSearch for: +- "[problem space] startup approach {current year}" +- "[problem space] common mistakes" +- "why [incumbent solution] fails" OR "why [incumbent solution] works" + +**Builder mode:** WebSearch for: +- "[thing being built] existing solutions" +- "[thing being built] open source alternatives" +- "best [thing category] {current year}" + +Read the top 2-3 results. Run the three-layer synthesis: +- **[Layer 1]** What does everyone already know about this space? +- **[Layer 2]** What are the search results and current discourse saying? +- **[Layer 3]** Given what WE learned in Phase 2A/2B — is there a reason the conventional approach is wrong? + +**Eureka check:** If Layer 3 reasoning reveals a genuine insight, name it: "EUREKA: Everyone does X because they assume [assumption]. But [evidence from our conversation] suggests that's wrong here. This means [implication]." Log the eureka moment (see preamble). + +If no eureka moment exists, say: "The conventional wisdom seems sound here. Let's build on it." Proceed to Phase 3. + +**Important:** This search feeds Phase 3 (Premise Challenge). If you found reasons the conventional approach fails, those become premises to challenge. If conventional wisdom is solid, that raises the bar for any premise that contradicts it. + +--- + ## Phase 3: Premise Challenge Before proposing solutions, challenge the premises: diff --git a/office-hours/SKILL.md.tmpl b/office-hours/SKILL.md.tmpl index e0ff98a7..7dbc6d32 100644 --- a/office-hours/SKILL.md.tmpl +++ b/office-hours/SKILL.md.tmpl @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ allowed-tools: - Write - Edit - AskUserQuestion + - WebSearch --- {{PREAMBLE}} @@ -235,6 +236,43 @@ If no matches found, proceed silently. --- +## Phase 2.75: Landscape Awareness + +Read ETHOS.md for the full Search Before Building framework (three layers, eureka moments). The preamble's Search Before Building section has the ETHOS.md path. + +After understanding the problem through questioning, search for what the world thinks. This is NOT competitive research (that's /design-consultation's job). This is understanding conventional wisdom so you can evaluate where it's wrong. + +**Privacy gate:** Before searching, use AskUserQuestion: "I'd like to search for what the world thinks about this space to inform our discussion. This sends generalized category terms (not your specific idea) to a search provider. OK to proceed?" +Options: A) Yes, search away B) Skip — keep this session private +If B: skip this phase entirely and proceed to Phase 3. Use only in-distribution knowledge. + +When searching, use **generalized category terms** — never the user's specific product name, proprietary concept, or stealth idea. For example, search "task management app landscape" not "SuperTodo AI-powered task killer." + +If WebSearch is unavailable, skip this phase and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + +**Startup mode:** WebSearch for: +- "[problem space] startup approach {current year}" +- "[problem space] common mistakes" +- "why [incumbent solution] fails" OR "why [incumbent solution] works" + +**Builder mode:** WebSearch for: +- "[thing being built] existing solutions" +- "[thing being built] open source alternatives" +- "best [thing category] {current year}" + +Read the top 2-3 results. Run the three-layer synthesis: +- **[Layer 1]** What does everyone already know about this space? +- **[Layer 2]** What are the search results and current discourse saying? +- **[Layer 3]** Given what WE learned in Phase 2A/2B — is there a reason the conventional approach is wrong? + +**Eureka check:** If Layer 3 reasoning reveals a genuine insight, name it: "EUREKA: Everyone does X because they assume [assumption]. But [evidence from our conversation] suggests that's wrong here. This means [implication]." Log the eureka moment (see preamble). + +If no eureka moment exists, say: "The conventional wisdom seems sound here. Let's build on it." Proceed to Phase 3. + +**Important:** This search feeds Phase 3 (Premise Challenge). If you found reasons the conventional approach fails, those become premises to challenge. If conventional wisdom is solid, that raises the bar for any premise that contradicts it. + +--- + ## Phase 3: Premise Challenge Before proposing solutions, challenge the premises: diff --git a/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md b/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md index be25485a..33903b13 100644 --- a/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md +++ b/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ allowed-tools: - Glob - Bash - AskUserQuestion + - WebSearch --- @@ -135,6 +136,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. @@ -442,6 +463,22 @@ Analyze the plan. If it involves ANY of: new UI screens/pages, changes to existi Identify 2-3 files or patterns in the existing codebase that are particularly well-designed. Note them as style references for the review. Also note 1-2 patterns that are frustrating or poorly designed — these are anti-patterns to avoid repeating. Report findings before proceeding to Step 0. +### Landscape Check + +Read ETHOS.md for the Search Before Building framework (the preamble's Search Before Building section has the path). Before challenging scope, understand the landscape. WebSearch for: +- "[product category] landscape {current year}" +- "[key feature] alternatives" +- "why [incumbent/conventional approach] [succeeds/fails]" + +If WebSearch is unavailable, skip this check and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + +Run the three-layer synthesis: +- **[Layer 1]** What's the tried-and-true approach in this space? +- **[Layer 2]** What are the search results saying? +- **[Layer 3]** First-principles reasoning — where might the conventional wisdom be wrong? + +Feed into the Premise Challenge (0A) and Dream State Mapping (0C). If you find a eureka moment, surface it during the Expansion opt-in ceremony as a differentiation opportunity. Log it (see preamble). + ## Step 0: Nuclear Scope Challenge + Mode Selection ### 0A. Premise Challenge diff --git a/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl b/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl index fea6879c..7342e790 100644 --- a/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl +++ b/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ allowed-tools: - Glob - Bash - AskUserQuestion + - WebSearch --- {{PREAMBLE}} @@ -204,6 +205,22 @@ Analyze the plan. If it involves ANY of: new UI screens/pages, changes to existi Identify 2-3 files or patterns in the existing codebase that are particularly well-designed. Note them as style references for the review. Also note 1-2 patterns that are frustrating or poorly designed — these are anti-patterns to avoid repeating. Report findings before proceeding to Step 0. +### Landscape Check + +Read ETHOS.md for the Search Before Building framework (the preamble's Search Before Building section has the path). Before challenging scope, understand the landscape. WebSearch for: +- "[product category] landscape {current year}" +- "[key feature] alternatives" +- "why [incumbent/conventional approach] [succeeds/fails]" + +If WebSearch is unavailable, skip this check and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + +Run the three-layer synthesis: +- **[Layer 1]** What's the tried-and-true approach in this space? +- **[Layer 2]** What are the search results saying? +- **[Layer 3]** First-principles reasoning — where might the conventional wisdom be wrong? + +Feed into the Premise Challenge (0A) and Dream State Mapping (0C). If you find a eureka moment, surface it during the Expansion opt-in ceremony as a differentiation opportunity. Log it (see preamble). + ## Step 0: Nuclear Scope Challenge + Mode Selection ### 0A. Premise Challenge diff --git a/plan-design-review/SKILL.md b/plan-design-review/SKILL.md index 1483e6e8..644191bf 100644 --- a/plan-design-review/SKILL.md +++ b/plan-design-review/SKILL.md @@ -134,6 +134,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. diff --git a/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md b/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md index 63fda40b..74bc8464 100644 --- a/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md +++ b/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ allowed-tools: - Glob - AskUserQuestion - Bash + - WebSearch --- @@ -134,6 +135,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. @@ -302,7 +323,15 @@ Before reviewing anything, answer these questions: 1. **What existing code already partially or fully solves each sub-problem?** Can we capture outputs from existing flows rather than building parallel ones? 2. **What is the minimum set of changes that achieves the stated goal?** Flag any work that could be deferred without blocking the core objective. Be ruthless about scope creep. 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? +4. **Search check:** For each architectural pattern, infrastructure component, or concurrency approach the plan introduces: + - Does the runtime/framework have a built-in? Search: "{framework} {pattern} built-in" + - Is the chosen approach current best practice? Search: "{pattern} best practice {current year}" + - Are there known footguns? Search: "{framework} {pattern} pitfalls" + + If WebSearch is unavailable, skip this check and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + + If the plan rolls a custom solution where a built-in exists, flag it as a scope reduction opportunity. Annotate recommendations with **[Layer 1]**, **[Layer 2]**, **[Layer 3]**, or **[EUREKA]** (see preamble's Search Before Building section). If you find a eureka moment — a reason the standard approach is wrong for this case — present it as an architectural insight. +5. **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. diff --git a/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl b/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl index 09782a9d..bc254d4f 100644 --- a/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl +++ b/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ allowed-tools: - Glob - AskUserQuestion - Bash + - WebSearch --- {{PREAMBLE}} @@ -81,7 +82,15 @@ Before reviewing anything, answer these questions: 1. **What existing code already partially or fully solves each sub-problem?** Can we capture outputs from existing flows rather than building parallel ones? 2. **What is the minimum set of changes that achieves the stated goal?** Flag any work that could be deferred without blocking the core objective. Be ruthless about scope creep. 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? +4. **Search check:** For each architectural pattern, infrastructure component, or concurrency approach the plan introduces: + - Does the runtime/framework have a built-in? Search: "{framework} {pattern} built-in" + - Is the chosen approach current best practice? Search: "{pattern} best practice {current year}" + - Are there known footguns? Search: "{framework} {pattern} pitfalls" + + If WebSearch is unavailable, skip this check and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + + If the plan rolls a custom solution where a built-in exists, flag it as a scope reduction opportunity. Annotate recommendations with **[Layer 1]**, **[Layer 2]**, **[Layer 3]**, or **[EUREKA]** (see preamble's Search Before Building section). If you find a eureka moment — a reason the standard approach is wrong for this case — present it as an architectural insight. +5. **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. diff --git a/qa-only/SKILL.md b/qa-only/SKILL.md index 1d2479d1..a46233a3 100644 --- a/qa-only/SKILL.md +++ b/qa-only/SKILL.md @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ allowed-tools: - Read - Write - AskUserQuestion + - WebSearch --- @@ -130,6 +131,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. diff --git a/qa-only/SKILL.md.tmpl b/qa-only/SKILL.md.tmpl index e85d643a..293a7b36 100644 --- a/qa-only/SKILL.md.tmpl +++ b/qa-only/SKILL.md.tmpl @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ allowed-tools: - Read - Write - AskUserQuestion + - WebSearch --- {{PREAMBLE}} diff --git a/qa/SKILL.md b/qa/SKILL.md index 92799a0d..6e7d49a0 100644 --- a/qa/SKILL.md +++ b/qa/SKILL.md @@ -137,6 +137,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. diff --git a/retro/SKILL.md b/retro/SKILL.md index ff4f7283..635b5747 100644 --- a/retro/SKILL.md +++ b/retro/SKILL.md @@ -131,6 +131,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.) - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. @@ -376,6 +396,20 @@ If TODOS.md doesn't exist, skip the Backlog Health row. If the JSONL file doesn't exist or has no entries in the window, skip the Skill Usage row. +**Eureka Moments (if logged):** Read `~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl` if it exists. Filter entries within the retro time window by `ts` field. For each eureka moment, show the skill that flagged it, the branch, and a one-line summary of the insight. Present as: + +``` +| Eureka Moments | 2 this period | +``` + +If moments exist, list them: +``` + EUREKA /office-hours (branch: garrytan/auth-rethink): "Session tokens don't need server storage — browser crypto API makes client-side JWT validation viable" + EUREKA /plan-eng-review (branch: garrytan/cache-layer): "Redis isn't needed here — Bun's built-in LRU cache handles this workload" +``` + +If the JSONL file doesn't exist or has no entries in the window, skip the Eureka Moments row. + ### Step 3: Commit Time Distribution Show hourly histogram in local time using bar chart: diff --git a/retro/SKILL.md.tmpl b/retro/SKILL.md.tmpl index a81b12c9..b3fe8046 100644 --- a/retro/SKILL.md.tmpl +++ b/retro/SKILL.md.tmpl @@ -172,6 +172,20 @@ If TODOS.md doesn't exist, skip the Backlog Health row. If the JSONL file doesn't exist or has no entries in the window, skip the Skill Usage row. +**Eureka Moments (if logged):** Read `~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl` if it exists. Filter entries within the retro time window by `ts` field. For each eureka moment, show the skill that flagged it, the branch, and a one-line summary of the insight. Present as: + +``` +| Eureka Moments | 2 this period | +``` + +If moments exist, list them: +``` + EUREKA /office-hours (branch: garrytan/auth-rethink): "Session tokens don't need server storage — browser crypto API makes client-side JWT validation viable" + EUREKA /plan-eng-review (branch: garrytan/cache-layer): "Redis isn't needed here — Bun's built-in LRU cache handles this workload" +``` + +If the JSONL file doesn't exist or has no entries in the window, skip the Eureka Moments row. + ### Step 3: Commit Time Distribution Show hourly histogram in local time using bar chart: diff --git a/review/SKILL.md b/review/SKILL.md index 4a646f6e..83a145f5 100644 --- a/review/SKILL.md +++ b/review/SKILL.md @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ allowed-tools: - Grep - Glob - AskUserQuestion + - WebSearch --- @@ -132,6 +133,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - 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.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. @@ -328,6 +349,13 @@ Apply the checklist against the diff in two passes: **Enum & Value Completeness requires reading code OUTSIDE the diff.** When the diff introduces a new enum value, status, tier, or type constant, use Grep to find all files that reference sibling values, then Read those files to check if the new value is handled. This is the one category where within-diff review is insufficient. +**Search-before-recommending:** When recommending a fix pattern (especially for concurrency, caching, auth, or framework-specific behavior): +- Verify the pattern is current best practice for the framework version in use +- Check if a built-in solution exists in newer versions before recommending a workaround +- Verify API signatures against current docs (APIs change between versions) + +Takes seconds, prevents recommending outdated patterns. If WebSearch is unavailable, note it and proceed with in-distribution knowledge. + Follow the output format specified in the checklist. Respect the suppressions — do NOT flag items listed in the "DO NOT flag" section. --- diff --git a/review/SKILL.md.tmpl b/review/SKILL.md.tmpl index 34a25018..3e65ce27 100644 --- a/review/SKILL.md.tmpl +++ b/review/SKILL.md.tmpl @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ allowed-tools: - Grep - Glob - AskUserQuestion + - WebSearch --- {{PREAMBLE}} @@ -107,6 +108,13 @@ Apply the checklist against the diff in two passes: **Enum & Value Completeness requires reading code OUTSIDE the diff.** When the diff introduces a new enum value, status, tier, or type constant, use Grep to find all files that reference sibling values, then Read those files to check if the new value is handled. This is the one category where within-diff review is insufficient. +**Search-before-recommending:** When recommending a fix pattern (especially for concurrency, caching, auth, or framework-specific behavior): +- Verify the pattern is current best practice for the framework version in use +- Check if a built-in solution exists in newer versions before recommending a workaround +- Verify API signatures against current docs (APIs change between versions) + +Takes seconds, prevents recommending outdated patterns. If WebSearch is unavailable, note it and proceed with in-distribution knowledge. + Follow the output format specified in the checklist. Respect the suppressions — do NOT flag items listed in the "DO NOT flag" section. --- diff --git a/scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts b/scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts index 8bb16bf9..3a5de960 100644 --- a/scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts +++ b/scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts @@ -263,6 +263,28 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")`; } +function generateSearchBeforeBuildingSection(ctx: TemplateContext): string { + return `## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read \`${ctx.paths.skillRoot}/ETHOS.md\` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +\`\`\`bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +\`\`\` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."`; +} + function generateContributorMode(): string { return `## Contributor Mode @@ -365,6 +387,7 @@ function generatePreamble(ctx: TemplateContext): string { generateTelemetryPrompt(ctx), generateAskUserFormat(ctx), generateCompletenessSection(), + generateSearchBeforeBuildingSection(ctx), generateContributorMode(), generateCompletionStatus(), ].join('\n\n'); diff --git a/setup b/setup index 09d2282f..d67bdec1 100755 --- a/setup +++ b/setup @@ -205,6 +205,17 @@ create_agents_sidecar() { fi fi done + + # Sidecar files that skills reference at runtime + for file in ETHOS.md; do + local src="$GSTACK_DIR/$file" + local dst="$agents_gstack/$file" + if [ -f "$src" ]; then + if [ -L "$dst" ] || [ ! -e "$dst" ]; then + ln -snf "$src" "$dst" + fi + fi + done } # 4. Install for Claude (default) diff --git a/setup-browser-cookies/SKILL.md b/setup-browser-cookies/SKILL.md index ac2d873c..a98ebec1 100644 --- a/setup-browser-cookies/SKILL.md +++ b/setup-browser-cookies/SKILL.md @@ -128,6 +128,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.) - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better. diff --git a/ship/SKILL.md b/ship/SKILL.md index 232a23e0..5ca6785f 100644 --- a/ship/SKILL.md +++ b/ship/SKILL.md @@ -131,6 +131,26 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.) - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.") +## Search Before Building + +Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy. + +**Three layers of knowledge:** +- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs. +- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers. +- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all. + +**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it: +"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]." + +Log eureka moments: +```bash +jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true +``` +Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow. + +**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only." + ## Contributor Mode If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.