mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-05-01 19:25:10 +02:00
feat: triple-voice multi-model review in /autoplan (v0.11.12.0) (#424)
* feat: triple-voice multi-model review in /autoplan Add dual voices (Codex + Claude subagent) to all 3 autoplan phases with phase-tailored prompts, consensus tables, and cross-phase synthesis. - Phase 1 (CEO): strategy-focused Codex + independent Claude subagent - Phase 2 (Design): UX-focused voices with CEO findings cascaded to Codex only - Phase 3 (Eng): architecture voices with CEO+Design findings cascaded to Codex - Sequential enforcement: STOP markers + pre-phase checklists - Phase-transition summaries between phases - Cross-phase themes in Phase 4 gate - Degradation matrix for voice failures Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> * chore: bump version and changelog (v0.11.12.0) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan
@@ -1,5 +1,19 @@
|
||||
# Changelog
|
||||
|
||||
## [0.11.12.0] - 2026-03-24 — Triple-Voice Autoplan
|
||||
|
||||
Every `/autoplan` phase now gets two independent second opinions — one from Codex (OpenAI's frontier model) and one from a fresh Claude subagent. Three AI reviewers looking at your plan from different angles, each phase building on the last.
|
||||
|
||||
### Added
|
||||
|
||||
- **Dual voices in every autoplan phase.** CEO review, Design review, and Eng review each run both a Codex challenge and an independent Claude subagent simultaneously. You get a consensus table showing where the models agree and disagree — disagreements surface as taste decisions at the final gate.
|
||||
- **Phase-cascading context.** Codex gets prior-phase findings as context (CEO concerns inform Design review, CEO+Design inform Eng). Claude subagent stays truly independent for genuine cross-model validation.
|
||||
- **Structured consensus tables.** CEO phase scores 6 strategic dimensions, Design uses the litmus scorecard, Eng scores 6 architecture dimensions. CONFIRMED/DISAGREE for each.
|
||||
- **Cross-phase synthesis.** Phase 4 gate highlights themes that appeared independently in multiple phases — high-confidence signals when different reviewers catch the same issue.
|
||||
- **Sequential enforcement.** STOP markers between phases + pre-phase checklists prevent autoplan from accidentally parallelizing CEO/Design/Eng (each phase depends on the previous).
|
||||
- **Phase-transition summaries.** Brief status at each phase boundary so you can track progress without waiting for the full pipeline.
|
||||
- **Degradation matrix.** When Codex or the Claude subagent fails, autoplan gracefully degrades with clear labels (`[codex-only]`, `[subagent-only]`, `[single-reviewer mode]`).
|
||||
|
||||
## [0.11.11.0] - 2026-03-23 — Community Wave 3
|
||||
|
||||
10 community PRs merged — bug fixes, platform support, and workflow improvements.
|
||||
|
||||
+220
-6
@@ -415,6 +415,17 @@ Examples: run codex (always yes), run evals (always yes), reduce scope on a comp
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Sequential Execution — MANDATORY
|
||||
|
||||
Phases MUST execute in strict order: CEO → Design → Eng.
|
||||
Each phase MUST complete fully before the next begins.
|
||||
NEVER run phases in parallel — each builds on the previous.
|
||||
|
||||
Between each phase, emit a phase-transition summary and verify that all required
|
||||
outputs from the prior phase are written before starting the next.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## What "Auto-Decide" Means
|
||||
|
||||
Auto-decide replaces the USER'S judgment with the 6 principles. It does NOT replace
|
||||
@@ -500,6 +511,8 @@ Read each file using the Read tool:
|
||||
- Review Readiness Dashboard
|
||||
- Plan File Review Report
|
||||
- Prerequisite Skill Offer (BENEFITS_FROM)
|
||||
- Outside Voice — Independent Plan Challenge
|
||||
- Design Outside Voices (parallel)
|
||||
|
||||
Follow ONLY the review-specific methodology, sections, and required outputs.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -523,6 +536,38 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
- Scope expansion: in blast radius + <1d CC → approve (P2). Outside → defer to TODOS.md (P3).
|
||||
Duplicates → reject (P4). Borderline (3-5 files) → mark TASTE DECISION.
|
||||
- All 10 review sections: run fully, auto-decide each issue, log every decision.
|
||||
- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
|
||||
Run them simultaneously (Agent tool for subagent, Bash for Codex).
|
||||
|
||||
**Codex CEO voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
Command: `codex exec "You are a CEO/founder advisor reviewing a development plan.
|
||||
Challenge the strategic foundations: Are the premises valid or assumed? Is this the
|
||||
right problem to solve, or is there a reframing that would be 10x more impactful?
|
||||
What alternatives were dismissed too quickly? What competitive or market risks are
|
||||
unaddressed? What scope decisions will look foolish in 6 months? Be adversarial.
|
||||
No compliments. Just the strategic blind spots.
|
||||
File: <plan_path>" -s read-only --enable web_search_cached`
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude CEO subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
"Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent CEO/strategist
|
||||
reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Is this the right problem to solve? Could a reframing yield 10x impact?
|
||||
2. Are the premises stated or just assumed? Which ones could be wrong?
|
||||
3. What's the 6-month regret scenario — what will look foolish?
|
||||
4. What alternatives were dismissed without sufficient analysis?
|
||||
5. What's the competitive risk — could someone else solve this first/better?
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix."
|
||||
|
||||
**Error handling:** All non-blocking. Codex auth/timeout/empty → proceed with
|
||||
Claude subagent only, tagged `[single-model]`. If Claude subagent also fails →
|
||||
"Outside voices unavailable — continuing with primary review."
|
||||
|
||||
**Degradation matrix:** Both fail → "single-reviewer mode". Codex only →
|
||||
tag `[codex-only]`. Subagent only → tag `[subagent-only]`.
|
||||
|
||||
- Strategy choices: if codex disagrees with a premise or scope decision with valid
|
||||
strategic reason → TASTE DECISION.
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (CEO):**
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -535,6 +580,27 @@ Step 0 (0A-0F) — run each sub-step and produce:
|
||||
- 0E: Temporal interrogation (HOUR 1 → HOUR 6+)
|
||||
- 0F: Mode selection confirmation
|
||||
|
||||
Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent AND Codex simultaneously. Present
|
||||
Codex output under CODEX SAYS (CEO — strategy challenge) header. Present subagent
|
||||
output under CLAUDE SUBAGENT (CEO — strategic independence) header. Produce CEO
|
||||
consensus table:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
CEO DUAL VOICES — CONSENSUS TABLE:
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
Dimension Claude Codex Consensus
|
||||
──────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
|
||||
1. Premises valid? — — —
|
||||
2. Right problem to solve? — — —
|
||||
3. Scope calibration correct? — — —
|
||||
4. Alternatives sufficiently explored?— — —
|
||||
5. Competitive/market risks covered? — — —
|
||||
6. 6-month trajectory sound? — — —
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ (→ taste decision).
|
||||
Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = flagged regardless.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
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
|
||||
@@ -549,8 +615,23 @@ Sections 1-10 — for EACH section, run the evaluation criteria from the loaded
|
||||
- Dream state delta (where this plan leaves us vs 12-month ideal)
|
||||
- Completion Summary (the full summary table from the CEO skill)
|
||||
|
||||
**PHASE 1 COMPLETE.** Emit phase-transition summary:
|
||||
> **Phase 1 complete.** Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
|
||||
> Consensus: [X/6 confirmed, Y disagreements → surfaced at gate].
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 2.
|
||||
|
||||
Do NOT begin Phase 2 until all Phase 1 outputs are written to the plan file
|
||||
and the premise gate has been passed.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Pre-Phase 2 checklist (verify before starting):**
|
||||
- [ ] CEO completion summary written to plan file
|
||||
- [ ] CEO dual voices ran (Codex + Claude subagent, or noted unavailable)
|
||||
- [ ] CEO consensus table produced
|
||||
- [ ] Premise gate passed (user confirmed)
|
||||
- [ ] Phase-transition summary emitted
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 2: Design Review (conditional — skip if no UI scope)
|
||||
|
||||
Follow plan-design-review/SKILL.md — all 7 dimensions, full depth.
|
||||
@@ -561,19 +642,102 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
- Structural issues (missing states, broken hierarchy): auto-fix (P5)
|
||||
- Aesthetic/taste issues: mark TASTE DECISION
|
||||
- Design system alignment: auto-fix if DESIGN.md exists and fix is obvious
|
||||
- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
|
||||
|
||||
**Codex design voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
Command: `codex exec "Read the plan file at <plan_path>. Evaluate this plan's
|
||||
UI/UX design decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
Also consider these findings from the CEO review phase:
|
||||
<insert CEO dual voice findings summary — key concerns, disagreements>
|
||||
|
||||
Does the information hierarchy serve the user or the developer? Are interaction
|
||||
states (loading, empty, error, partial) specified or left to the implementer's
|
||||
imagination? Is the responsive strategy intentional or afterthought? Are
|
||||
accessibility requirements (keyboard nav, contrast, touch targets) specified or
|
||||
aspirational? Does the plan describe specific UI decisions or generic patterns?
|
||||
What design decisions will haunt the implementer if left ambiguous?
|
||||
Be opinionated. No hedging." -s read-only --enable web_search_cached`
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude design subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
"Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent senior product designer
|
||||
reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Information hierarchy: what does the user see first, second, third? Is it right?
|
||||
2. Missing states: loading, empty, error, success, partial — which are unspecified?
|
||||
3. User journey: what's the emotional arc? Where does it break?
|
||||
4. Specificity: does the plan describe SPECIFIC UI or generic patterns?
|
||||
5. What design decisions will haunt the implementer if left ambiguous?
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix."
|
||||
NO prior-phase context — subagent must be truly independent.
|
||||
|
||||
Error handling: same as Phase 1 (non-blocking, degradation matrix applies).
|
||||
|
||||
- Design choices: if codex disagrees with a design decision with valid UX reasoning
|
||||
→ TASTE DECISION.
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (Design):**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Step 0 (Design Scope): Rate completeness 0-10. Check DESIGN.md. Map existing patterns.
|
||||
|
||||
2. Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent AND Codex simultaneously. Present under
|
||||
CODEX SAYS (design — UX challenge) and CLAUDE SUBAGENT (design — independent review)
|
||||
headers. Produce design litmus scorecard (consensus table). Use the litmus scorecard
|
||||
format from plan-design-review. Include CEO phase findings in Codex prompt ONLY
|
||||
(not Claude subagent — stays independent).
|
||||
|
||||
3. Passes 1-7: Run each from loaded skill. Rate 0-10. Auto-decide each issue.
|
||||
DISAGREE items from scorecard → raised in the relevant pass with both perspectives.
|
||||
|
||||
**PHASE 2 COMPLETE.** Emit phase-transition summary:
|
||||
> **Phase 2 complete.** Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
|
||||
> Consensus: [X/Y confirmed, Z disagreements → surfaced at gate].
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 3.
|
||||
|
||||
Do NOT begin Phase 3 until all Phase 2 outputs (if run) are written to the plan file.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 3: Eng Review + Codex
|
||||
**Pre-Phase 3 checklist (verify before starting):**
|
||||
- [ ] All Phase 1 items above confirmed
|
||||
- [ ] Design completion summary written (or "skipped, no UI scope")
|
||||
- [ ] Design dual voices ran (if Phase 2 ran)
|
||||
- [ ] Design consensus table produced (if Phase 2 ran)
|
||||
- [ ] Phase-transition summary emitted
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 3: Eng Review + Dual Voices
|
||||
|
||||
Follow plan-eng-review/SKILL.md — all sections, full depth.
|
||||
Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
|
||||
**Override rules:**
|
||||
- Scope challenge: never reduce (P2)
|
||||
- Codex review: always run if available (P6)
|
||||
Command: `codex exec "Review this plan for architectural issues, missing edge cases, and hidden complexity. Be adversarial. File: <plan_path>" -s read-only --enable web_search_cached`
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes, then proceed with "Codex timed out — single-reviewer mode"
|
||||
- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
|
||||
|
||||
**Codex eng voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
Command: `codex exec "Review this plan for architectural issues, missing edge cases,
|
||||
and hidden complexity. Be adversarial.
|
||||
|
||||
Also consider these findings from prior review phases:
|
||||
CEO: <insert CEO consensus table summary — key concerns, DISAGREEs>
|
||||
Design: <insert Design consensus table summary, or 'skipped, no UI scope'>
|
||||
|
||||
File: <plan_path>" -s read-only --enable web_search_cached`
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude eng subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
"Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent senior engineer
|
||||
reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Architecture: Is the component structure sound? Coupling concerns?
|
||||
2. Edge cases: What breaks under 10x load? What's the nil/empty/error path?
|
||||
3. Tests: What's missing from the test plan? What would break at 2am Friday?
|
||||
4. Security: New attack surface? Auth boundaries? Input validation?
|
||||
5. Hidden complexity: What looks simple but isn't?
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, severity, and the fix."
|
||||
NO prior-phase context — subagent must be truly independent.
|
||||
|
||||
Error handling: same as Phase 1 (non-blocking, degradation matrix applies).
|
||||
|
||||
- Architecture choices: explicit over clever (P5). If codex disagrees with valid reason → TASTE DECISION.
|
||||
- Evals: always include all relevant suites (P1)
|
||||
- Test plan: generate artifact at `~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/{user}-{branch}-test-plan-{datetime}.md`
|
||||
@@ -584,7 +748,26 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
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.
|
||||
2. Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent AND Codex simultaneously. Present
|
||||
Codex output under CODEX SAYS (eng — architecture challenge) header. Present subagent
|
||||
output under CLAUDE SUBAGENT (eng — independent review) header. Produce eng consensus
|
||||
table:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
ENG DUAL VOICES — CONSENSUS TABLE:
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
Dimension Claude Codex Consensus
|
||||
──────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
|
||||
1. Architecture sound? — — —
|
||||
2. Test coverage sufficient? — — —
|
||||
3. Performance risks addressed? — — —
|
||||
4. Security threats covered? — — —
|
||||
5. Error paths handled? — — —
|
||||
6. Deployment risk manageable? — — —
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ (→ taste decision).
|
||||
Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = flagged regardless.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
3. Section 1 (Architecture): Produce ASCII dependency graph showing new components
|
||||
and their relationships to existing ones. Evaluate coupling, scaling, security.
|
||||
@@ -648,10 +831,14 @@ produced. Check the plan file and conversation for each item.
|
||||
- [ ] "What already exists" section written
|
||||
- [ ] Dream state delta written
|
||||
- [ ] Completion Summary produced
|
||||
- [ ] Dual voices ran (Codex + Claude subagent, or noted unavailable)
|
||||
- [ ] CEO consensus table produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 2 (Design) outputs — only if UI scope detected:**
|
||||
- [ ] All 7 dimensions evaluated with scores
|
||||
- [ ] Issues identified and auto-decided
|
||||
- [ ] Dual voices ran (or noted unavailable/skipped with phase)
|
||||
- [ ] Design litmus scorecard produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 3 (Eng) outputs:**
|
||||
- [ ] Scope challenge with actual code analysis (not just "scope is fine")
|
||||
@@ -662,6 +849,11 @@ produced. Check the plan file and conversation for each item.
|
||||
- [ ] "What already exists" section written
|
||||
- [ ] Failure modes registry with critical gap assessment
|
||||
- [ ] Completion Summary produced
|
||||
- [ ] Dual voices ran (Codex + Claude subagent, or noted unavailable)
|
||||
- [ ] Eng consensus table produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Cross-phase:**
|
||||
- [ ] Cross-phase themes section written
|
||||
|
||||
**Audit trail:**
|
||||
- [ ] Decision Audit Trail has at least one row per auto-decision (not empty)
|
||||
@@ -696,9 +888,16 @@ I recommend [X] — [principle]. But [Y] is also viable:
|
||||
|
||||
### Review Scores
|
||||
- CEO: [summary]
|
||||
- CEO Voices: Codex [summary], Claude subagent [summary], Consensus [X/6 confirmed]
|
||||
- Design: [summary or "skipped, no UI scope"]
|
||||
- Design Voices: Codex [summary], Claude subagent [summary], Consensus [X/7 confirmed] (or "skipped")
|
||||
- Eng: [summary]
|
||||
- Codex: [summary or "unavailable"]
|
||||
- Eng Voices: Codex [summary], Claude subagent [summary], Consensus [X/6 confirmed]
|
||||
|
||||
### Cross-Phase Themes
|
||||
[For any concern that appeared in 2+ phases' dual voices independently:]
|
||||
**Theme: [topic]** — flagged in [Phase 1, Phase 3]. High-confidence signal.
|
||||
[If no themes span phases:] "No cross-phase themes — each phase's concerns were distinct."
|
||||
|
||||
### Deferred to TODOS.md
|
||||
[Items auto-deferred with reasons]
|
||||
@@ -745,6 +944,21 @@ If Phase 2 ran (UI scope):
|
||||
|
||||
Replace field values with actual counts from the review.
|
||||
|
||||
Dual voice logs (one per phase that ran):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"autoplan-voices","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","phase":"ceo","via":"autoplan","consensus_confirmed":N,"consensus_disagree":N,"commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
|
||||
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"autoplan-voices","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","phase":"eng","via":"autoplan","consensus_confirmed":N,"consensus_disagree":N,"commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If Phase 2 ran (UI scope), also log:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"autoplan-voices","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","phase":"design","via":"autoplan","consensus_confirmed":N,"consensus_disagree":N,"commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
SOURCE = "codex+subagent", "codex-only", "subagent-only", or "unavailable".
|
||||
Replace N values with actual consensus counts from the tables.
|
||||
|
||||
Suggest next step: `/ship` when ready to create the PR.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
+220
-6
@@ -72,6 +72,17 @@ Examples: run codex (always yes), run evals (always yes), reduce scope on a comp
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Sequential Execution — MANDATORY
|
||||
|
||||
Phases MUST execute in strict order: CEO → Design → Eng.
|
||||
Each phase MUST complete fully before the next begins.
|
||||
NEVER run phases in parallel — each builds on the previous.
|
||||
|
||||
Between each phase, emit a phase-transition summary and verify that all required
|
||||
outputs from the prior phase are written before starting the next.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## What "Auto-Decide" Means
|
||||
|
||||
Auto-decide replaces the USER'S judgment with the 6 principles. It does NOT replace
|
||||
@@ -157,6 +168,8 @@ Read each file using the Read tool:
|
||||
- Review Readiness Dashboard
|
||||
- Plan File Review Report
|
||||
- Prerequisite Skill Offer (BENEFITS_FROM)
|
||||
- Outside Voice — Independent Plan Challenge
|
||||
- Design Outside Voices (parallel)
|
||||
|
||||
Follow ONLY the review-specific methodology, sections, and required outputs.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -180,6 +193,38 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
- Scope expansion: in blast radius + <1d CC → approve (P2). Outside → defer to TODOS.md (P3).
|
||||
Duplicates → reject (P4). Borderline (3-5 files) → mark TASTE DECISION.
|
||||
- All 10 review sections: run fully, auto-decide each issue, log every decision.
|
||||
- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
|
||||
Run them simultaneously (Agent tool for subagent, Bash for Codex).
|
||||
|
||||
**Codex CEO voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
Command: `codex exec "You are a CEO/founder advisor reviewing a development plan.
|
||||
Challenge the strategic foundations: Are the premises valid or assumed? Is this the
|
||||
right problem to solve, or is there a reframing that would be 10x more impactful?
|
||||
What alternatives were dismissed too quickly? What competitive or market risks are
|
||||
unaddressed? What scope decisions will look foolish in 6 months? Be adversarial.
|
||||
No compliments. Just the strategic blind spots.
|
||||
File: <plan_path>" -s read-only --enable web_search_cached`
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude CEO subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
"Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent CEO/strategist
|
||||
reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Is this the right problem to solve? Could a reframing yield 10x impact?
|
||||
2. Are the premises stated or just assumed? Which ones could be wrong?
|
||||
3. What's the 6-month regret scenario — what will look foolish?
|
||||
4. What alternatives were dismissed without sufficient analysis?
|
||||
5. What's the competitive risk — could someone else solve this first/better?
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix."
|
||||
|
||||
**Error handling:** All non-blocking. Codex auth/timeout/empty → proceed with
|
||||
Claude subagent only, tagged `[single-model]`. If Claude subagent also fails →
|
||||
"Outside voices unavailable — continuing with primary review."
|
||||
|
||||
**Degradation matrix:** Both fail → "single-reviewer mode". Codex only →
|
||||
tag `[codex-only]`. Subagent only → tag `[subagent-only]`.
|
||||
|
||||
- Strategy choices: if codex disagrees with a premise or scope decision with valid
|
||||
strategic reason → TASTE DECISION.
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (CEO):**
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -192,6 +237,27 @@ Step 0 (0A-0F) — run each sub-step and produce:
|
||||
- 0E: Temporal interrogation (HOUR 1 → HOUR 6+)
|
||||
- 0F: Mode selection confirmation
|
||||
|
||||
Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent AND Codex simultaneously. Present
|
||||
Codex output under CODEX SAYS (CEO — strategy challenge) header. Present subagent
|
||||
output under CLAUDE SUBAGENT (CEO — strategic independence) header. Produce CEO
|
||||
consensus table:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
CEO DUAL VOICES — CONSENSUS TABLE:
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
Dimension Claude Codex Consensus
|
||||
──────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
|
||||
1. Premises valid? — — —
|
||||
2. Right problem to solve? — — —
|
||||
3. Scope calibration correct? — — —
|
||||
4. Alternatives sufficiently explored?— — —
|
||||
5. Competitive/market risks covered? — — —
|
||||
6. 6-month trajectory sound? — — —
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ (→ taste decision).
|
||||
Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = flagged regardless.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
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
|
||||
@@ -206,8 +272,23 @@ Sections 1-10 — for EACH section, run the evaluation criteria from the loaded
|
||||
- Dream state delta (where this plan leaves us vs 12-month ideal)
|
||||
- Completion Summary (the full summary table from the CEO skill)
|
||||
|
||||
**PHASE 1 COMPLETE.** Emit phase-transition summary:
|
||||
> **Phase 1 complete.** Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
|
||||
> Consensus: [X/6 confirmed, Y disagreements → surfaced at gate].
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 2.
|
||||
|
||||
Do NOT begin Phase 2 until all Phase 1 outputs are written to the plan file
|
||||
and the premise gate has been passed.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Pre-Phase 2 checklist (verify before starting):**
|
||||
- [ ] CEO completion summary written to plan file
|
||||
- [ ] CEO dual voices ran (Codex + Claude subagent, or noted unavailable)
|
||||
- [ ] CEO consensus table produced
|
||||
- [ ] Premise gate passed (user confirmed)
|
||||
- [ ] Phase-transition summary emitted
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 2: Design Review (conditional — skip if no UI scope)
|
||||
|
||||
Follow plan-design-review/SKILL.md — all 7 dimensions, full depth.
|
||||
@@ -218,19 +299,102 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
- Structural issues (missing states, broken hierarchy): auto-fix (P5)
|
||||
- Aesthetic/taste issues: mark TASTE DECISION
|
||||
- Design system alignment: auto-fix if DESIGN.md exists and fix is obvious
|
||||
- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
|
||||
|
||||
**Codex design voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
Command: `codex exec "Read the plan file at <plan_path>. Evaluate this plan's
|
||||
UI/UX design decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
Also consider these findings from the CEO review phase:
|
||||
<insert CEO dual voice findings summary — key concerns, disagreements>
|
||||
|
||||
Does the information hierarchy serve the user or the developer? Are interaction
|
||||
states (loading, empty, error, partial) specified or left to the implementer's
|
||||
imagination? Is the responsive strategy intentional or afterthought? Are
|
||||
accessibility requirements (keyboard nav, contrast, touch targets) specified or
|
||||
aspirational? Does the plan describe specific UI decisions or generic patterns?
|
||||
What design decisions will haunt the implementer if left ambiguous?
|
||||
Be opinionated. No hedging." -s read-only --enable web_search_cached`
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude design subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
"Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent senior product designer
|
||||
reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Information hierarchy: what does the user see first, second, third? Is it right?
|
||||
2. Missing states: loading, empty, error, success, partial — which are unspecified?
|
||||
3. User journey: what's the emotional arc? Where does it break?
|
||||
4. Specificity: does the plan describe SPECIFIC UI or generic patterns?
|
||||
5. What design decisions will haunt the implementer if left ambiguous?
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix."
|
||||
NO prior-phase context — subagent must be truly independent.
|
||||
|
||||
Error handling: same as Phase 1 (non-blocking, degradation matrix applies).
|
||||
|
||||
- Design choices: if codex disagrees with a design decision with valid UX reasoning
|
||||
→ TASTE DECISION.
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (Design):**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Step 0 (Design Scope): Rate completeness 0-10. Check DESIGN.md. Map existing patterns.
|
||||
|
||||
2. Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent AND Codex simultaneously. Present under
|
||||
CODEX SAYS (design — UX challenge) and CLAUDE SUBAGENT (design — independent review)
|
||||
headers. Produce design litmus scorecard (consensus table). Use the litmus scorecard
|
||||
format from plan-design-review. Include CEO phase findings in Codex prompt ONLY
|
||||
(not Claude subagent — stays independent).
|
||||
|
||||
3. Passes 1-7: Run each from loaded skill. Rate 0-10. Auto-decide each issue.
|
||||
DISAGREE items from scorecard → raised in the relevant pass with both perspectives.
|
||||
|
||||
**PHASE 2 COMPLETE.** Emit phase-transition summary:
|
||||
> **Phase 2 complete.** Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
|
||||
> Consensus: [X/Y confirmed, Z disagreements → surfaced at gate].
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 3.
|
||||
|
||||
Do NOT begin Phase 3 until all Phase 2 outputs (if run) are written to the plan file.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 3: Eng Review + Codex
|
||||
**Pre-Phase 3 checklist (verify before starting):**
|
||||
- [ ] All Phase 1 items above confirmed
|
||||
- [ ] Design completion summary written (or "skipped, no UI scope")
|
||||
- [ ] Design dual voices ran (if Phase 2 ran)
|
||||
- [ ] Design consensus table produced (if Phase 2 ran)
|
||||
- [ ] Phase-transition summary emitted
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 3: Eng Review + Dual Voices
|
||||
|
||||
Follow plan-eng-review/SKILL.md — all sections, full depth.
|
||||
Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
|
||||
**Override rules:**
|
||||
- Scope challenge: never reduce (P2)
|
||||
- Codex review: always run if available (P6)
|
||||
Command: `codex exec "Review this plan for architectural issues, missing edge cases, and hidden complexity. Be adversarial. File: <plan_path>" -s read-only --enable web_search_cached`
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes, then proceed with "Codex timed out — single-reviewer mode"
|
||||
- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
|
||||
|
||||
**Codex eng voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
Command: `codex exec "Review this plan for architectural issues, missing edge cases,
|
||||
and hidden complexity. Be adversarial.
|
||||
|
||||
Also consider these findings from prior review phases:
|
||||
CEO: <insert CEO consensus table summary — key concerns, DISAGREEs>
|
||||
Design: <insert Design consensus table summary, or 'skipped, no UI scope'>
|
||||
|
||||
File: <plan_path>" -s read-only --enable web_search_cached`
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude eng subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
"Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent senior engineer
|
||||
reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Architecture: Is the component structure sound? Coupling concerns?
|
||||
2. Edge cases: What breaks under 10x load? What's the nil/empty/error path?
|
||||
3. Tests: What's missing from the test plan? What would break at 2am Friday?
|
||||
4. Security: New attack surface? Auth boundaries? Input validation?
|
||||
5. Hidden complexity: What looks simple but isn't?
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, severity, and the fix."
|
||||
NO prior-phase context — subagent must be truly independent.
|
||||
|
||||
Error handling: same as Phase 1 (non-blocking, degradation matrix applies).
|
||||
|
||||
- Architecture choices: explicit over clever (P5). If codex disagrees with valid reason → TASTE DECISION.
|
||||
- Evals: always include all relevant suites (P1)
|
||||
- Test plan: generate artifact at `~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/{user}-{branch}-test-plan-{datetime}.md`
|
||||
@@ -241,7 +405,26 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
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.
|
||||
2. Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent AND Codex simultaneously. Present
|
||||
Codex output under CODEX SAYS (eng — architecture challenge) header. Present subagent
|
||||
output under CLAUDE SUBAGENT (eng — independent review) header. Produce eng consensus
|
||||
table:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
ENG DUAL VOICES — CONSENSUS TABLE:
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
Dimension Claude Codex Consensus
|
||||
──────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
|
||||
1. Architecture sound? — — —
|
||||
2. Test coverage sufficient? — — —
|
||||
3. Performance risks addressed? — — —
|
||||
4. Security threats covered? — — —
|
||||
5. Error paths handled? — — —
|
||||
6. Deployment risk manageable? — — —
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ (→ taste decision).
|
||||
Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = flagged regardless.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
3. Section 1 (Architecture): Produce ASCII dependency graph showing new components
|
||||
and their relationships to existing ones. Evaluate coupling, scaling, security.
|
||||
@@ -305,10 +488,14 @@ produced. Check the plan file and conversation for each item.
|
||||
- [ ] "What already exists" section written
|
||||
- [ ] Dream state delta written
|
||||
- [ ] Completion Summary produced
|
||||
- [ ] Dual voices ran (Codex + Claude subagent, or noted unavailable)
|
||||
- [ ] CEO consensus table produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 2 (Design) outputs — only if UI scope detected:**
|
||||
- [ ] All 7 dimensions evaluated with scores
|
||||
- [ ] Issues identified and auto-decided
|
||||
- [ ] Dual voices ran (or noted unavailable/skipped with phase)
|
||||
- [ ] Design litmus scorecard produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 3 (Eng) outputs:**
|
||||
- [ ] Scope challenge with actual code analysis (not just "scope is fine")
|
||||
@@ -319,6 +506,11 @@ produced. Check the plan file and conversation for each item.
|
||||
- [ ] "What already exists" section written
|
||||
- [ ] Failure modes registry with critical gap assessment
|
||||
- [ ] Completion Summary produced
|
||||
- [ ] Dual voices ran (Codex + Claude subagent, or noted unavailable)
|
||||
- [ ] Eng consensus table produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Cross-phase:**
|
||||
- [ ] Cross-phase themes section written
|
||||
|
||||
**Audit trail:**
|
||||
- [ ] Decision Audit Trail has at least one row per auto-decision (not empty)
|
||||
@@ -353,9 +545,16 @@ I recommend [X] — [principle]. But [Y] is also viable:
|
||||
|
||||
### Review Scores
|
||||
- CEO: [summary]
|
||||
- CEO Voices: Codex [summary], Claude subagent [summary], Consensus [X/6 confirmed]
|
||||
- Design: [summary or "skipped, no UI scope"]
|
||||
- Design Voices: Codex [summary], Claude subagent [summary], Consensus [X/7 confirmed] (or "skipped")
|
||||
- Eng: [summary]
|
||||
- Codex: [summary or "unavailable"]
|
||||
- Eng Voices: Codex [summary], Claude subagent [summary], Consensus [X/6 confirmed]
|
||||
|
||||
### Cross-Phase Themes
|
||||
[For any concern that appeared in 2+ phases' dual voices independently:]
|
||||
**Theme: [topic]** — flagged in [Phase 1, Phase 3]. High-confidence signal.
|
||||
[If no themes span phases:] "No cross-phase themes — each phase's concerns were distinct."
|
||||
|
||||
### Deferred to TODOS.md
|
||||
[Items auto-deferred with reasons]
|
||||
@@ -402,6 +601,21 @@ If Phase 2 ran (UI scope):
|
||||
|
||||
Replace field values with actual counts from the review.
|
||||
|
||||
Dual voice logs (one per phase that ran):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"autoplan-voices","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","phase":"ceo","via":"autoplan","consensus_confirmed":N,"consensus_disagree":N,"commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
|
||||
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"autoplan-voices","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","phase":"eng","via":"autoplan","consensus_confirmed":N,"consensus_disagree":N,"commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If Phase 2 ran (UI scope), also log:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"autoplan-voices","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","phase":"design","via":"autoplan","consensus_confirmed":N,"consensus_disagree":N,"commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
SOURCE = "codex+subagent", "codex-only", "subagent-only", or "unavailable".
|
||||
Replace N values with actual consensus counts from the tables.
|
||||
|
||||
Suggest next step: `/ship` when ready to create the PR.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user