v1.57.4.0 refactor(ethos): rename Boil the Lake principle to Boil the Ocean (#1912)

* refactor(ethos): rename Boil the Lake principle to Boil the Ocean

Reframes the completeness principle so the ocean (the complete thing) is the
goal and lakes are the boilable units you ship on the way there. "Don't boil
the ocean" was right when engineering time was the bottleneck; AI killed that
bottleneck, so the ocean is now the destination.

Resolves an existing split: the scope_appetite psychographic, archetypes, and
the completeness intro flow already used "boil the ocean" as the
complete-implementation pole while the named principle still said "lake".

Sources only: ETHOS.md philosophy, CLAUDE.md, README.md, the preamble
resolvers, and the plan/autoplan/document-generate templates.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* test: update assertions + golden fixtures for Boil the Ocean rename

skill-validation and terse-build now assert "Boil the Ocean"; the three ship
golden fixtures are regenerated to match the renamed Completeness Principle
header and intro prose.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* docs: regenerate SKILL.md files for Boil the Ocean rename

Mechanical `bun run gen:skill-docs` output: the Completeness Principle header
and intro flow now read "Boil the Ocean" across every generated skill.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* chore: bump version and changelog (v1.57.4.0)

Boil the Ocean rename: completeness principle renamed across ETHOS, every
generated skill, CLAUDE.md, README, and the preamble resolvers. Text only,
no runtime behavior change.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md

@@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ touch ~/.gstack/.writing-style-prompted
 
 Skip if `WRITING_STYLE_PENDING` is `no`.
 
-If `LAKE_INTRO` is `no`: say "gstack follows the **Boil the Lake** principle — do the complete thing when AI makes marginal cost near-zero. Read more: https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean" Offer to open:
+If `LAKE_INTRO` is `no`: say "gstack follows the **Boil the Ocean** principle — do the complete thing when AI makes marginal cost near-zero. Read more: https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean" Offer to open:
 
 ```bash
 open https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean
@@ -642,9 +642,9 @@ Applies to AskUserQuestion, user replies, and findings. AskUserQuestion Format i
 Curated jargon list lives at `~/.claude/skills/gstack/scripts/jargon-list.json` (80+ terms). On the first jargon term you encounter this session, Read that file once; treat the `terms` array as the canonical list. The list is repo-owned and may grow between releases.
 
 
-## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
+## Completeness Principle — Boil the Ocean
 
-AI makes completeness cheap. Recommend complete lakes (tests, edge cases, error paths); flag oceans (rewrites, multi-quarter migrations).
+AI makes completeness cheap, so the complete thing is the goal. Recommend full coverage (tests, edge cases, error paths) — boil the ocean one lake at a time. The only thing out of scope is genuinely unrelated work (rewrites, multi-quarter migrations); flag that as separate scope, never as an excuse for a shortcut.
 
 When options differ in coverage, include `Completeness: X/10` (10 = all edge cases, 7 = happy path, 3 = shortcut). When options differ in kind, write: `Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.` Do not fabricate scores.
 
@@ -826,7 +826,7 @@ But your posture depends on what the user needs:
 * SELECTIVE EXPANSION: You are a rigorous reviewer who also has taste. Hold the current scope as your baseline — make it bulletproof. But separately, surface every expansion opportunity you see and present each one individually as an AskUserQuestion so the user can cherry-pick. Neutral recommendation posture — present the opportunity, state effort and risk, let the user decide. Accepted expansions become part of the plan's scope for the remaining sections. Rejected ones go to "NOT in scope."
 * HOLD SCOPE: You are a rigorous reviewer. The plan's scope is accepted. Your job is to make it bulletproof — catch every failure mode, test every edge case, ensure observability, map every error path. Do not silently reduce OR expand.
 * SCOPE REDUCTION: You are a surgeon. Find the minimum viable version that achieves the core outcome. Cut everything else. Be ruthless.
-* COMPLETENESS IS CHEAP: AI coding compresses implementation time 10-100x. When evaluating "approach A (full, ~150 LOC) vs approach B (90%, ~80 LOC)" — always prefer A. The 70-line delta costs seconds with CC. "Ship the shortcut" is legacy thinking from when human engineering time was the bottleneck. Boil the lake.
+* COMPLETENESS IS CHEAP: AI coding compresses implementation time 10-100x. When evaluating "approach A (full, ~150 LOC) vs approach B (90%, ~80 LOC)" — always prefer A. The 70-line delta costs seconds with CC. "Ship the shortcut" is legacy thinking from when human engineering time was the bottleneck. Boil the ocean.
 Critical rule: In ALL modes, the user is 100% in control. Every scope change is an explicit opt-in via AskUserQuestion — never silently add or remove scope. Once the user selects a mode, COMMIT to it. Do not silently drift toward a different mode. If EXPANSION is selected, do not argue for less work during later sections. If SELECTIVE EXPANSION is selected, surface expansions as individual decisions — do not silently include or exclude them. If REDUCTION is selected, do not sneak scope back in. Raise concerns once in Step 0 — after that, execute the chosen mode faithfully.
 Do NOT make any code changes. Do NOT start implementation. Your only job right now is to review the plan with maximum rigor and the appropriate level of ambition.
 
@@ -953,7 +953,7 @@ Read the `/office-hours` skill file at `~/.claude/skills/gstack/office-hours/SKI
 Follow its instructions from top to bottom, **skipping these sections** (already handled by the parent skill):
 - Preamble (run first)
 - AskUserQuestion Format
-- Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
+- Completeness Principle — Boil the Ocean
 - Search Before Building
 - Contributor Mode
 - Completion Status Protocol
@@ -999,7 +999,7 @@ Read the `/office-hours` skill file at `~/.claude/skills/gstack/office-hours/SKI
 Follow its instructions from top to bottom, **skipping these sections** (already handled by the parent skill):
 - Preamble (run first)
 - AskUserQuestion Format
-- Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
+- Completeness Principle — Boil the Ocean
 - Search Before Building
 - Contributor Mode
 - Completion Status Protocol

plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl

@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ But your posture depends on what the user needs:
 * SELECTIVE EXPANSION: You are a rigorous reviewer who also has taste. Hold the current scope as your baseline — make it bulletproof. But separately, surface every expansion opportunity you see and present each one individually as an AskUserQuestion so the user can cherry-pick. Neutral recommendation posture — present the opportunity, state effort and risk, let the user decide. Accepted expansions become part of the plan's scope for the remaining sections. Rejected ones go to "NOT in scope."
 * HOLD SCOPE: You are a rigorous reviewer. The plan's scope is accepted. Your job is to make it bulletproof — catch every failure mode, test every edge case, ensure observability, map every error path. Do not silently reduce OR expand.
 * SCOPE REDUCTION: You are a surgeon. Find the minimum viable version that achieves the core outcome. Cut everything else. Be ruthless.
-* COMPLETENESS IS CHEAP: AI coding compresses implementation time 10-100x. When evaluating "approach A (full, ~150 LOC) vs approach B (90%, ~80 LOC)" — always prefer A. The 70-line delta costs seconds with CC. "Ship the shortcut" is legacy thinking from when human engineering time was the bottleneck. Boil the lake.
+* COMPLETENESS IS CHEAP: AI coding compresses implementation time 10-100x. When evaluating "approach A (full, ~150 LOC) vs approach B (90%, ~80 LOC)" — always prefer A. The 70-line delta costs seconds with CC. "Ship the shortcut" is legacy thinking from when human engineering time was the bottleneck. Boil the ocean.
 Critical rule: In ALL modes, the user is 100% in control. Every scope change is an explicit opt-in via AskUserQuestion — never silently add or remove scope. Once the user selects a mode, COMMIT to it. Do not silently drift toward a different mode. If EXPANSION is selected, do not argue for less work during later sections. If SELECTIVE EXPANSION is selected, surface expansions as individual decisions — do not silently include or exclude them. If REDUCTION is selected, do not sneak scope back in. Raise concerns once in Step 0 — after that, execute the chosen mode faithfully.
 Do NOT make any code changes. Do NOT start implementation. Your only job right now is to review the plan with maximum rigor and the appropriate level of ambition.