Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into garrytan/plan-flag-unresolved-issues

2026-09-23 05:10:50 +02:00 · 2026-06-08 06:40:21 -07:00
parent 271358fba0 9cc41b7163
commit 49035bdd88
117 changed files with 3672 additions and 268 deletions
@@ -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
@@ -622,12 +622,19 @@ if [ -d "$_PROJ" ]; then
  fi
  _LATEST_CP=$(find "$_PROJ/checkpoints" -name "*.md" -type f 2>/dev/null | xargs ls -t 2>/dev/null | head -1)
  [ -n "$_LATEST_CP" ] && echo "LATEST_CHECKPOINT: $_LATEST_CP"
+  if [ -f "$_PROJ/decisions.active.json" ]; then
+    echo "--- ACTIVE DECISIONS (recent, scope-relevant) ---"
+    ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-decision-search --recent 5 2>/dev/null
+    echo "--- END DECISIONS ---"
+  fi
  echo "--- END ARTIFACTS ---"
 fi
 ```

 If artifacts are listed, read the newest useful one. If `LAST_SESSION` or `LATEST_CHECKPOINT` appears, give a 2-sentence welcome back summary. If `RECENT_PATTERN` clearly implies a next skill, suggest it once.

+**Cross-session decisions.** If `ACTIVE DECISIONS` are listed, treat them as prior settled calls with their rationale — do not silently re-litigate them; if you're about to reverse one, say so explicitly. Reach for `~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-decision-search` whenever a question touches a past decision ("what did we decide / why / did we try"). When you or the user make a DURABLE decision (architecture, scope, tool/vendor choice, or a reversal) — NOT a turn-level or trivial choice — log it with `~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-decision-log` (`--supersede <id>` for a reversal). Reliable and local; gbrain not required.
+
 ## Writing Style (skip entirely if `EXPLAIN_LEVEL: terse` appears in the preamble echo OR the user's current message explicitly requests terse / no-explanations output)

 Applies to AskUserQuestion, user replies, and findings. AskUserQuestion Format is structure; this is prose quality.
@@ -642,9 +649,9 @@ 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 +833,7 @@ 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 +960,7 @@ 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 +1006,7 @@ 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
@@ -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.

@@ -597,8 +597,11 @@ command breaks the review readiness dashboard in /ship.

 ```bash
 ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-ceo-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","unresolved":N,"critical_gaps":N,"mode":"MODE","scope_proposed":N,"scope_accepted":N,"scope_deferred":N,"commit":"COMMIT"}'
+~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-decision-log '{"decision":"CEO review (MODE): SCOPE_SUMMARY","rationale":"VERDICT","scope":"branch","source":"skill","confidence":8}' 2>/dev/null || true
 ```

+The second command records the accepted scope as a durable cross-session decision so the next session sees what was settled (and why) without re-litigating it. It writes to `~/.gstack/` (same pattern as review-log), is non-interactive, and is best-effort (`|| true` — never blocks the review). Substitute `SCOPE_SUMMARY` (e.g. "accepted 4 of 6 proposals" for expansion, or "held scope" / "cut 3 items" for HOLD/REDUCTION) and `VERDICT` (the one-line verdict from the summary).
+
 Before running this command, substitute the placeholder values from the Completion Summary you just produced:
 - **TIMESTAMP**: current ISO 8601 datetime (e.g., 2026-03-16T14:30:00)
 - **STATUS**: "clean" if 0 unresolved decisions AND 0 critical gaps; otherwise "issues_open"
@@ -391,8 +391,11 @@ command breaks the review readiness dashboard in /ship.

 ```bash
 ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-ceo-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","unresolved":N,"critical_gaps":N,"mode":"MODE","scope_proposed":N,"scope_accepted":N,"scope_deferred":N,"commit":"COMMIT"}'
+~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-decision-log '{"decision":"CEO review (MODE): SCOPE_SUMMARY","rationale":"VERDICT","scope":"branch","source":"skill","confidence":8}' 2>/dev/null || true
 ```

+The second command records the accepted scope as a durable cross-session decision so the next session sees what was settled (and why) without re-litigating it. It writes to `~/.gstack/` (same pattern as review-log), is non-interactive, and is best-effort (`|| true` — never blocks the review). Substitute `SCOPE_SUMMARY` (e.g. "accepted 4 of 6 proposals" for expansion, or "held scope" / "cut 3 items" for HOLD/REDUCTION) and `VERDICT` (the one-line verdict from the summary).
+
 Before running this command, substitute the placeholder values from the Completion Summary you just produced:
 - **TIMESTAMP**: current ISO 8601 datetime (e.g., 2026-03-16T14:30:00)
 - **STATUS**: "clean" if 0 unresolved decisions AND 0 critical gaps; otherwise "issues_open"