mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-05-02 11:45:20 +02:00
fix: prevent /autoplan from compressing review sections to one-liners
Adds explicit auto-decide contract, per-phase execution checklists, pre-gate verification, and test review emphasis.
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan
@@ -27,6 +27,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
|
||||
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
|
||||
echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
|
||||
echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
|
||||
source <(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
|
||||
REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
|
||||
echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
|
||||
_LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
|
||||
echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
|
||||
_TEL=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
@@ -127,6 +130,18 @@ 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.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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.
|
||||
@@ -319,6 +334,34 @@ Examples: run codex (always yes), run evals (always yes), reduce scope on a comp
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## What "Auto-Decide" Means
|
||||
|
||||
Auto-decide replaces the USER'S judgment with the 6 principles. It does NOT replace
|
||||
the ANALYSIS. Every section in the loaded skill files must still be executed at the
|
||||
same depth as the interactive version. The only thing that changes is who answers the
|
||||
AskUserQuestion: you do, using the 6 principles, instead of the user.
|
||||
|
||||
**You MUST still:**
|
||||
- READ the actual code, diffs, and files each section references
|
||||
- PRODUCE every output the section requires (diagrams, tables, registries, artifacts)
|
||||
- IDENTIFY every issue the section is designed to catch
|
||||
- DECIDE each issue using the 6 principles (instead of asking the user)
|
||||
- LOG each decision in the audit trail
|
||||
- WRITE all required artifacts to disk
|
||||
|
||||
**You MUST NOT:**
|
||||
- Compress a review section into a one-liner table row
|
||||
- Write "no issues found" without showing what you examined
|
||||
- Skip a section because "it doesn't apply" without stating what you checked and why
|
||||
- Produce a summary instead of the required output (e.g., "architecture looks good"
|
||||
instead of the ASCII dependency graph the section requires)
|
||||
|
||||
"No issues found" is a valid output for a section — but only after doing the analysis.
|
||||
State what you examined and why nothing was flagged (1-2 sentences minimum).
|
||||
"Skipped" is never valid for a non-skip-listed section.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 0: Intake + Restore Point
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 1: Capture restore point
|
||||
@@ -400,6 +443,31 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
Duplicates → reject (P4). Borderline (3-5 files) → mark TASTE DECISION.
|
||||
- All 10 review sections: run fully, auto-decide each issue, log every decision.
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (CEO):**
|
||||
|
||||
Step 0 (0A-0F) — run each sub-step and produce:
|
||||
- 0A: Premise challenge with specific premises named and evaluated
|
||||
- 0B: Existing code leverage map (sub-problems → existing code)
|
||||
- 0C: Dream state diagram (CURRENT → THIS PLAN → 12-MONTH IDEAL)
|
||||
- 0C-bis: Implementation alternatives table (2-3 approaches with effort/risk/pros/cons)
|
||||
- 0D: Mode-specific analysis with scope decisions logged
|
||||
- 0E: Temporal interrogation (HOUR 1 → HOUR 6+)
|
||||
- 0F: Mode selection confirmation
|
||||
|
||||
Sections 1-10 — for EACH section, run the evaluation criteria from the loaded skill file:
|
||||
- Sections WITH findings: full analysis, auto-decide each issue, log to audit trail
|
||||
- Sections with NO findings: 1-2 sentences stating what was examined and why nothing
|
||||
was flagged. NEVER compress a section to just its name in a table row.
|
||||
- Section 11 (Design): run only if UI scope was detected in Phase 0
|
||||
|
||||
**Mandatory outputs from Phase 1:**
|
||||
- "NOT in scope" section with deferred items and rationale
|
||||
- "What already exists" section mapping sub-problems to existing code
|
||||
- Error & Rescue Registry table (from Section 2)
|
||||
- Failure Modes Registry table (from review sections)
|
||||
- Dream state delta (where this plan leaves us vs 12-month ideal)
|
||||
- Completion Summary (the full summary table from the CEO skill)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 2: Design Review (conditional — skip if no UI scope)
|
||||
@@ -430,6 +498,42 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
- Test plan: generate artifact at `~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/{user}-{branch}-test-plan-{datetime}.md`
|
||||
- TODOS.md: collect all deferred scope expansions from Phase 1, auto-write
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (Eng):**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Step 0 (Scope Challenge): Read actual code referenced by the plan. Map each
|
||||
sub-problem to existing code. Run the complexity check. Produce concrete findings.
|
||||
|
||||
2. Step 0.5 (Codex): Run if available. Present full output under CODEX SAYS header.
|
||||
|
||||
3. Section 1 (Architecture): Produce ASCII dependency graph showing new components
|
||||
and their relationships to existing ones. Evaluate coupling, scaling, security.
|
||||
|
||||
4. Section 2 (Code Quality): Identify DRY violations, naming issues, complexity.
|
||||
Reference specific files and patterns. Auto-decide each finding.
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Section 3 (Test Review) — NEVER SKIP OR COMPRESS.**
|
||||
This section requires reading actual code, not summarizing from memory.
|
||||
- Read the diff or the plan's affected files
|
||||
- Build the test diagram: list every NEW UX flow, data flow, codepath, and branch
|
||||
- For EACH item in the diagram: what type of test covers it? Does one exist? Gaps?
|
||||
- For LLM/prompt changes: which eval suites must run?
|
||||
- Auto-deciding test gaps means: identify the gap → decide whether to add a test
|
||||
or defer (with rationale and principle) → log the decision. It does NOT mean
|
||||
skipping the analysis.
|
||||
- Write the test plan artifact to disk
|
||||
|
||||
6. Section 4 (Performance): Evaluate N+1 queries, memory, caching, slow paths.
|
||||
|
||||
**Mandatory outputs from Phase 3:**
|
||||
- "NOT in scope" section
|
||||
- "What already exists" section
|
||||
- Architecture ASCII diagram (Section 1)
|
||||
- Test diagram mapping codepaths to coverage (Section 3)
|
||||
- Test plan artifact written to disk (Section 3)
|
||||
- Failure modes registry with critical gap flags
|
||||
- Completion Summary (the full summary from the Eng skill)
|
||||
- TODOS.md updates (collected from all phases)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Decision Audit Trail
|
||||
@@ -449,6 +553,44 @@ not accumulated in conversation context.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Pre-Gate Verification
|
||||
|
||||
Before presenting the Final Approval Gate, verify that required outputs were actually
|
||||
produced. Check the plan file and conversation for each item.
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 1 (CEO) outputs:**
|
||||
- [ ] Premise challenge with specific premises named (not just "premises accepted")
|
||||
- [ ] All applicable review sections have findings OR explicit "examined X, nothing flagged"
|
||||
- [ ] Error & Rescue Registry table produced (or noted N/A with reason)
|
||||
- [ ] Failure Modes Registry table produced (or noted N/A with reason)
|
||||
- [ ] "NOT in scope" section written
|
||||
- [ ] "What already exists" section written
|
||||
- [ ] Dream state delta written
|
||||
- [ ] Completion Summary produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 2 (Design) outputs — only if UI scope detected:**
|
||||
- [ ] All 7 dimensions evaluated with scores
|
||||
- [ ] Issues identified and auto-decided
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 3 (Eng) outputs:**
|
||||
- [ ] Scope challenge with actual code analysis (not just "scope is fine")
|
||||
- [ ] Architecture ASCII diagram produced
|
||||
- [ ] Test diagram mapping codepaths to test coverage
|
||||
- [ ] Test plan artifact written to disk at ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/
|
||||
- [ ] "NOT in scope" section written
|
||||
- [ ] "What already exists" section written
|
||||
- [ ] Failure modes registry with critical gap assessment
|
||||
- [ ] Completion Summary produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Audit trail:**
|
||||
- [ ] Decision Audit Trail has at least one row per auto-decision (not empty)
|
||||
|
||||
If ANY checkbox above is missing, go back and produce the missing output. Max 2
|
||||
attempts — if still missing after retrying twice, proceed to the gate with a warning
|
||||
noting which items are incomplete. Do not loop indefinitely.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 4: Final Approval Gate
|
||||
|
||||
**STOP here and present the final state to the user.**
|
||||
@@ -531,5 +673,6 @@ Suggest next step: `/ship` when ready to create the PR.
|
||||
- **Never abort.** The user chose /autoplan. Respect that choice. Surface all taste decisions, never redirect to interactive review.
|
||||
- **Premises are the one gate.** The only non-auto-decided AskUserQuestion is the premise confirmation in Phase 1.
|
||||
- **Log every decision.** No silent auto-decisions. Every choice gets a row in the audit trail.
|
||||
- **Full depth.** Do not compress or skip sections from the loaded skill files (except the skip list in Phase 0).
|
||||
- **Full depth means full depth.** Do not compress or skip sections from the loaded skill files (except the skip list in Phase 0). "Full depth" means: read the code the section asks you to read, produce the outputs the section requires, identify every issue, and decide each one. A one-sentence summary of a section is not "full depth" — it is a skip. If you catch yourself writing fewer than 3 sentences for any review section, you are likely compressing.
|
||||
- **Artifacts are deliverables.** Test plan artifact, failure modes registry, error/rescue table, ASCII diagrams — these must exist on disk or in the plan file when the review completes. If they don't exist, the review is incomplete.
|
||||
- **Sequential order.** CEO → Design → Eng. Each phase builds on the last.
|
||||
|
||||
+144
-1
@@ -38,6 +38,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
|
||||
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
|
||||
echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
|
||||
echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
|
||||
source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
|
||||
REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
|
||||
echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
|
||||
_LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
|
||||
echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
|
||||
_TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
@@ -138,6 +141,18 @@ 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.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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.
|
||||
@@ -330,6 +345,34 @@ Examples: run codex (always yes), run evals (always yes), reduce scope on a comp
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## What "Auto-Decide" Means
|
||||
|
||||
Auto-decide replaces the USER'S judgment with the 6 principles. It does NOT replace
|
||||
the ANALYSIS. Every section in the loaded skill files must still be executed at the
|
||||
same depth as the interactive version. The only thing that changes is who answers the
|
||||
AskUserQuestion: you do, using the 6 principles, instead of the user.
|
||||
|
||||
**You MUST still:**
|
||||
- READ the actual code, diffs, and files each section references
|
||||
- PRODUCE every output the section requires (diagrams, tables, registries, artifacts)
|
||||
- IDENTIFY every issue the section is designed to catch
|
||||
- DECIDE each issue using the 6 principles (instead of asking the user)
|
||||
- LOG each decision in the audit trail
|
||||
- WRITE all required artifacts to disk
|
||||
|
||||
**You MUST NOT:**
|
||||
- Compress a review section into a one-liner table row
|
||||
- Write "no issues found" without showing what you examined
|
||||
- Skip a section because "it doesn't apply" without stating what you checked and why
|
||||
- Produce a summary instead of the required output (e.g., "architecture looks good"
|
||||
instead of the ASCII dependency graph the section requires)
|
||||
|
||||
"No issues found" is a valid output for a section — but only after doing the analysis.
|
||||
State what you examined and why nothing was flagged (1-2 sentences minimum).
|
||||
"Skipped" is never valid for a non-skip-listed section.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 0: Intake + Restore Point
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 1: Capture restore point
|
||||
@@ -411,6 +454,31 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
Duplicates → reject (P4). Borderline (3-5 files) → mark TASTE DECISION.
|
||||
- All 10 review sections: run fully, auto-decide each issue, log every decision.
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (CEO):**
|
||||
|
||||
Step 0 (0A-0F) — run each sub-step and produce:
|
||||
- 0A: Premise challenge with specific premises named and evaluated
|
||||
- 0B: Existing code leverage map (sub-problems → existing code)
|
||||
- 0C: Dream state diagram (CURRENT → THIS PLAN → 12-MONTH IDEAL)
|
||||
- 0C-bis: Implementation alternatives table (2-3 approaches with effort/risk/pros/cons)
|
||||
- 0D: Mode-specific analysis with scope decisions logged
|
||||
- 0E: Temporal interrogation (HOUR 1 → HOUR 6+)
|
||||
- 0F: Mode selection confirmation
|
||||
|
||||
Sections 1-10 — for EACH section, run the evaluation criteria from the loaded skill file:
|
||||
- Sections WITH findings: full analysis, auto-decide each issue, log to audit trail
|
||||
- Sections with NO findings: 1-2 sentences stating what was examined and why nothing
|
||||
was flagged. NEVER compress a section to just its name in a table row.
|
||||
- Section 11 (Design): run only if UI scope was detected in Phase 0
|
||||
|
||||
**Mandatory outputs from Phase 1:**
|
||||
- "NOT in scope" section with deferred items and rationale
|
||||
- "What already exists" section mapping sub-problems to existing code
|
||||
- Error & Rescue Registry table (from Section 2)
|
||||
- Failure Modes Registry table (from review sections)
|
||||
- Dream state delta (where this plan leaves us vs 12-month ideal)
|
||||
- Completion Summary (the full summary table from the CEO skill)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 2: Design Review (conditional — skip if no UI scope)
|
||||
@@ -441,6 +509,42 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
- Test plan: generate artifact at `~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/{user}-{branch}-test-plan-{datetime}.md`
|
||||
- TODOS.md: collect all deferred scope expansions from Phase 1, auto-write
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (Eng):**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Step 0 (Scope Challenge): Read actual code referenced by the plan. Map each
|
||||
sub-problem to existing code. Run the complexity check. Produce concrete findings.
|
||||
|
||||
2. Step 0.5 (Codex): Run if available. Present full output under CODEX SAYS header.
|
||||
|
||||
3. Section 1 (Architecture): Produce ASCII dependency graph showing new components
|
||||
and their relationships to existing ones. Evaluate coupling, scaling, security.
|
||||
|
||||
4. Section 2 (Code Quality): Identify DRY violations, naming issues, complexity.
|
||||
Reference specific files and patterns. Auto-decide each finding.
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Section 3 (Test Review) — NEVER SKIP OR COMPRESS.**
|
||||
This section requires reading actual code, not summarizing from memory.
|
||||
- Read the diff or the plan's affected files
|
||||
- Build the test diagram: list every NEW UX flow, data flow, codepath, and branch
|
||||
- For EACH item in the diagram: what type of test covers it? Does one exist? Gaps?
|
||||
- For LLM/prompt changes: which eval suites must run?
|
||||
- Auto-deciding test gaps means: identify the gap → decide whether to add a test
|
||||
or defer (with rationale and principle) → log the decision. It does NOT mean
|
||||
skipping the analysis.
|
||||
- Write the test plan artifact to disk
|
||||
|
||||
6. Section 4 (Performance): Evaluate N+1 queries, memory, caching, slow paths.
|
||||
|
||||
**Mandatory outputs from Phase 3:**
|
||||
- "NOT in scope" section
|
||||
- "What already exists" section
|
||||
- Architecture ASCII diagram (Section 1)
|
||||
- Test diagram mapping codepaths to coverage (Section 3)
|
||||
- Test plan artifact written to disk (Section 3)
|
||||
- Failure modes registry with critical gap flags
|
||||
- Completion Summary (the full summary from the Eng skill)
|
||||
- TODOS.md updates (collected from all phases)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Decision Audit Trail
|
||||
@@ -460,6 +564,44 @@ not accumulated in conversation context.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Pre-Gate Verification
|
||||
|
||||
Before presenting the Final Approval Gate, verify that required outputs were actually
|
||||
produced. Check the plan file and conversation for each item.
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 1 (CEO) outputs:**
|
||||
- [ ] Premise challenge with specific premises named (not just "premises accepted")
|
||||
- [ ] All applicable review sections have findings OR explicit "examined X, nothing flagged"
|
||||
- [ ] Error & Rescue Registry table produced (or noted N/A with reason)
|
||||
- [ ] Failure Modes Registry table produced (or noted N/A with reason)
|
||||
- [ ] "NOT in scope" section written
|
||||
- [ ] "What already exists" section written
|
||||
- [ ] Dream state delta written
|
||||
- [ ] Completion Summary produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 2 (Design) outputs — only if UI scope detected:**
|
||||
- [ ] All 7 dimensions evaluated with scores
|
||||
- [ ] Issues identified and auto-decided
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 3 (Eng) outputs:**
|
||||
- [ ] Scope challenge with actual code analysis (not just "scope is fine")
|
||||
- [ ] Architecture ASCII diagram produced
|
||||
- [ ] Test diagram mapping codepaths to test coverage
|
||||
- [ ] Test plan artifact written to disk at ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/
|
||||
- [ ] "NOT in scope" section written
|
||||
- [ ] "What already exists" section written
|
||||
- [ ] Failure modes registry with critical gap assessment
|
||||
- [ ] Completion Summary produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Audit trail:**
|
||||
- [ ] Decision Audit Trail has at least one row per auto-decision (not empty)
|
||||
|
||||
If ANY checkbox above is missing, go back and produce the missing output. Max 2
|
||||
attempts — if still missing after retrying twice, proceed to the gate with a warning
|
||||
noting which items are incomplete. Do not loop indefinitely.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 4: Final Approval Gate
|
||||
|
||||
**STOP here and present the final state to the user.**
|
||||
@@ -542,5 +684,6 @@ Suggest next step: `/ship` when ready to create the PR.
|
||||
- **Never abort.** The user chose /autoplan. Respect that choice. Surface all taste decisions, never redirect to interactive review.
|
||||
- **Premises are the one gate.** The only non-auto-decided AskUserQuestion is the premise confirmation in Phase 1.
|
||||
- **Log every decision.** No silent auto-decisions. Every choice gets a row in the audit trail.
|
||||
- **Full depth.** Do not compress or skip sections from the loaded skill files (except the skip list in Phase 0).
|
||||
- **Full depth means full depth.** Do not compress or skip sections from the loaded skill files (except the skip list in Phase 0). "Full depth" means: read the code the section asks you to read, produce the outputs the section requires, identify every issue, and decide each one. A one-sentence summary of a section is not "full depth" — it is a skip. If you catch yourself writing fewer than 3 sentences for any review section, you are likely compressing.
|
||||
- **Artifacts are deliverables.** Test plan artifact, failure modes registry, error/rescue table, ASCII diagrams — these must exist on disk or in the plan file when the review completes. If they don't exist, the review is incomplete.
|
||||
- **Sequential order.** CEO → Design → Eng. Each phase builds on the last.
|
||||
|
||||
+129
-1
@@ -72,6 +72,34 @@ Examples: run codex (always yes), run evals (always yes), reduce scope on a comp
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## What "Auto-Decide" Means
|
||||
|
||||
Auto-decide replaces the USER'S judgment with the 6 principles. It does NOT replace
|
||||
the ANALYSIS. Every section in the loaded skill files must still be executed at the
|
||||
same depth as the interactive version. The only thing that changes is who answers the
|
||||
AskUserQuestion: you do, using the 6 principles, instead of the user.
|
||||
|
||||
**You MUST still:**
|
||||
- READ the actual code, diffs, and files each section references
|
||||
- PRODUCE every output the section requires (diagrams, tables, registries, artifacts)
|
||||
- IDENTIFY every issue the section is designed to catch
|
||||
- DECIDE each issue using the 6 principles (instead of asking the user)
|
||||
- LOG each decision in the audit trail
|
||||
- WRITE all required artifacts to disk
|
||||
|
||||
**You MUST NOT:**
|
||||
- Compress a review section into a one-liner table row
|
||||
- Write "no issues found" without showing what you examined
|
||||
- Skip a section because "it doesn't apply" without stating what you checked and why
|
||||
- Produce a summary instead of the required output (e.g., "architecture looks good"
|
||||
instead of the ASCII dependency graph the section requires)
|
||||
|
||||
"No issues found" is a valid output for a section — but only after doing the analysis.
|
||||
State what you examined and why nothing was flagged (1-2 sentences minimum).
|
||||
"Skipped" is never valid for a non-skip-listed section.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 0: Intake + Restore Point
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 1: Capture restore point
|
||||
@@ -153,6 +181,31 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
Duplicates → reject (P4). Borderline (3-5 files) → mark TASTE DECISION.
|
||||
- All 10 review sections: run fully, auto-decide each issue, log every decision.
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (CEO):**
|
||||
|
||||
Step 0 (0A-0F) — run each sub-step and produce:
|
||||
- 0A: Premise challenge with specific premises named and evaluated
|
||||
- 0B: Existing code leverage map (sub-problems → existing code)
|
||||
- 0C: Dream state diagram (CURRENT → THIS PLAN → 12-MONTH IDEAL)
|
||||
- 0C-bis: Implementation alternatives table (2-3 approaches with effort/risk/pros/cons)
|
||||
- 0D: Mode-specific analysis with scope decisions logged
|
||||
- 0E: Temporal interrogation (HOUR 1 → HOUR 6+)
|
||||
- 0F: Mode selection confirmation
|
||||
|
||||
Sections 1-10 — for EACH section, run the evaluation criteria from the loaded skill file:
|
||||
- Sections WITH findings: full analysis, auto-decide each issue, log to audit trail
|
||||
- Sections with NO findings: 1-2 sentences stating what was examined and why nothing
|
||||
was flagged. NEVER compress a section to just its name in a table row.
|
||||
- Section 11 (Design): run only if UI scope was detected in Phase 0
|
||||
|
||||
**Mandatory outputs from Phase 1:**
|
||||
- "NOT in scope" section with deferred items and rationale
|
||||
- "What already exists" section mapping sub-problems to existing code
|
||||
- Error & Rescue Registry table (from Section 2)
|
||||
- Failure Modes Registry table (from review sections)
|
||||
- Dream state delta (where this plan leaves us vs 12-month ideal)
|
||||
- Completion Summary (the full summary table from the CEO skill)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 2: Design Review (conditional — skip if no UI scope)
|
||||
@@ -183,6 +236,42 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
- Test plan: generate artifact at `~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/{user}-{branch}-test-plan-{datetime}.md`
|
||||
- TODOS.md: collect all deferred scope expansions from Phase 1, auto-write
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (Eng):**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Step 0 (Scope Challenge): Read actual code referenced by the plan. Map each
|
||||
sub-problem to existing code. Run the complexity check. Produce concrete findings.
|
||||
|
||||
2. Step 0.5 (Codex): Run if available. Present full output under CODEX SAYS header.
|
||||
|
||||
3. Section 1 (Architecture): Produce ASCII dependency graph showing new components
|
||||
and their relationships to existing ones. Evaluate coupling, scaling, security.
|
||||
|
||||
4. Section 2 (Code Quality): Identify DRY violations, naming issues, complexity.
|
||||
Reference specific files and patterns. Auto-decide each finding.
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Section 3 (Test Review) — NEVER SKIP OR COMPRESS.**
|
||||
This section requires reading actual code, not summarizing from memory.
|
||||
- Read the diff or the plan's affected files
|
||||
- Build the test diagram: list every NEW UX flow, data flow, codepath, and branch
|
||||
- For EACH item in the diagram: what type of test covers it? Does one exist? Gaps?
|
||||
- For LLM/prompt changes: which eval suites must run?
|
||||
- Auto-deciding test gaps means: identify the gap → decide whether to add a test
|
||||
or defer (with rationale and principle) → log the decision. It does NOT mean
|
||||
skipping the analysis.
|
||||
- Write the test plan artifact to disk
|
||||
|
||||
6. Section 4 (Performance): Evaluate N+1 queries, memory, caching, slow paths.
|
||||
|
||||
**Mandatory outputs from Phase 3:**
|
||||
- "NOT in scope" section
|
||||
- "What already exists" section
|
||||
- Architecture ASCII diagram (Section 1)
|
||||
- Test diagram mapping codepaths to coverage (Section 3)
|
||||
- Test plan artifact written to disk (Section 3)
|
||||
- Failure modes registry with critical gap flags
|
||||
- Completion Summary (the full summary from the Eng skill)
|
||||
- TODOS.md updates (collected from all phases)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Decision Audit Trail
|
||||
@@ -202,6 +291,44 @@ not accumulated in conversation context.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Pre-Gate Verification
|
||||
|
||||
Before presenting the Final Approval Gate, verify that required outputs were actually
|
||||
produced. Check the plan file and conversation for each item.
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 1 (CEO) outputs:**
|
||||
- [ ] Premise challenge with specific premises named (not just "premises accepted")
|
||||
- [ ] All applicable review sections have findings OR explicit "examined X, nothing flagged"
|
||||
- [ ] Error & Rescue Registry table produced (or noted N/A with reason)
|
||||
- [ ] Failure Modes Registry table produced (or noted N/A with reason)
|
||||
- [ ] "NOT in scope" section written
|
||||
- [ ] "What already exists" section written
|
||||
- [ ] Dream state delta written
|
||||
- [ ] Completion Summary produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 2 (Design) outputs — only if UI scope detected:**
|
||||
- [ ] All 7 dimensions evaluated with scores
|
||||
- [ ] Issues identified and auto-decided
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 3 (Eng) outputs:**
|
||||
- [ ] Scope challenge with actual code analysis (not just "scope is fine")
|
||||
- [ ] Architecture ASCII diagram produced
|
||||
- [ ] Test diagram mapping codepaths to test coverage
|
||||
- [ ] Test plan artifact written to disk at ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/
|
||||
- [ ] "NOT in scope" section written
|
||||
- [ ] "What already exists" section written
|
||||
- [ ] Failure modes registry with critical gap assessment
|
||||
- [ ] Completion Summary produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Audit trail:**
|
||||
- [ ] Decision Audit Trail has at least one row per auto-decision (not empty)
|
||||
|
||||
If ANY checkbox above is missing, go back and produce the missing output. Max 2
|
||||
attempts — if still missing after retrying twice, proceed to the gate with a warning
|
||||
noting which items are incomplete. Do not loop indefinitely.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 4: Final Approval Gate
|
||||
|
||||
**STOP here and present the final state to the user.**
|
||||
@@ -284,5 +411,6 @@ Suggest next step: `/ship` when ready to create the PR.
|
||||
- **Never abort.** The user chose /autoplan. Respect that choice. Surface all taste decisions, never redirect to interactive review.
|
||||
- **Premises are the one gate.** The only non-auto-decided AskUserQuestion is the premise confirmation in Phase 1.
|
||||
- **Log every decision.** No silent auto-decisions. Every choice gets a row in the audit trail.
|
||||
- **Full depth.** Do not compress or skip sections from the loaded skill files (except the skip list in Phase 0).
|
||||
- **Full depth means full depth.** Do not compress or skip sections from the loaded skill files (except the skip list in Phase 0). "Full depth" means: read the code the section asks you to read, produce the outputs the section requires, identify every issue, and decide each one. A one-sentence summary of a section is not "full depth" — it is a skip. If you catch yourself writing fewer than 3 sentences for any review section, you are likely compressing.
|
||||
- **Artifacts are deliverables.** Test plan artifact, failure modes registry, error/rescue table, ASCII diagrams — these must exist on disk or in the plan file when the review completes. If they don't exist, the review is incomplete.
|
||||
- **Sequential order.** CEO → Design → Eng. Each phase builds on the last.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user