mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-08-23 14:32:33 +02:00
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into garrytan/zsh-glob-fix
# Conflicts: # .agents/skills/gstack-browse/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-design-consultation/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-design-review/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-document-release/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-investigate/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-office-hours/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-plan-design-review/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-plan-eng-review/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-qa-only/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-qa/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-retro/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-review/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-setup-browser-cookies/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-ship/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack/SKILL.md
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan
+322
-5
@@ -34,6 +34,9 @@ _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)
|
||||
@@ -135,6 +138,38 @@ 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.
|
||||
|
||||
**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.
|
||||
@@ -225,6 +260,42 @@ success/error/abort, and `USED_BROWSE` with true/false based on whether `$B` was
|
||||
If you cannot determine the outcome, use "unknown". This runs in the background and
|
||||
never blocks the user.
|
||||
|
||||
## Plan Status Footer
|
||||
|
||||
When you are in plan mode and about to call ExitPlanMode:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Check if the plan file already has a `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT` section.
|
||||
2. If it DOES — skip (a review skill already wrote a richer report).
|
||||
3. If it does NOT — run this command:
|
||||
|
||||
\`\`\`bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-read
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
Then write a `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT` section to the end of the plan file:
|
||||
|
||||
- If the output contains review entries (JSONL lines before `---CONFIG---`): format the
|
||||
standard report table with runs/status/findings per skill, same format as the review
|
||||
skills use.
|
||||
- If the output is `NO_REVIEWS` or empty: write this placeholder table:
|
||||
|
||||
\`\`\`markdown
|
||||
## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT
|
||||
|
||||
| Review | Trigger | Why | Runs | Status | Findings |
|
||||
|--------|---------|-----|------|--------|----------|
|
||||
| CEO Review | \`/plan-ceo-review\` | Scope & strategy | 0 | — | — |
|
||||
| Codex Review | \`/codex review\` | Independent 2nd opinion | 0 | — | — |
|
||||
| Eng Review | \`/plan-eng-review\` | Architecture & tests (required) | 0 | — | — |
|
||||
| Design Review | \`/plan-design-review\` | UI/UX gaps | 0 | — | — |
|
||||
|
||||
**VERDICT:** NO REVIEWS YET — run \`/autoplan\` for full review pipeline, or individual reviews above.
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
**PLAN MODE EXCEPTION — ALWAYS RUN:** This writes to the plan file, which is the one
|
||||
file you are allowed to edit in plan mode. The plan file review report is part of the
|
||||
plan's living status.
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 0: Detect base branch
|
||||
|
||||
Determine which branch this PR targets. Use the result as "the base branch" in all subsequent steps.
|
||||
@@ -350,6 +421,113 @@ AskUserQuestion: "I've rated this plan {N}/10 on design completeness. The bigges
|
||||
|
||||
**STOP.** Do NOT proceed until user responds.
|
||||
|
||||
## Design Outside Voices (parallel)
|
||||
|
||||
Use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
> "Want outside design voices before the detailed review? Codex evaluates against OpenAI's design hard rules + litmus checks; Claude subagent does an independent completeness review."
|
||||
>
|
||||
> A) Yes — run outside design voices
|
||||
> B) No — proceed without
|
||||
|
||||
If user chooses B, skip this step and continue.
|
||||
|
||||
**Check Codex availability:**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
which codex 2>/dev/null && echo "CODEX_AVAILABLE" || echo "CODEX_NOT_AVAILABLE"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**If Codex is available**, launch both voices simultaneously:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Codex design voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
TMPERR_DESIGN=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-design-XXXXXXXX)
|
||||
codex exec "Read the plan file at [plan-file-path]. Evaluate this plan's UI/UX design against these criteria.
|
||||
|
||||
HARD REJECTION — flag if ANY apply:
|
||||
1. Generic SaaS card grid as first impression
|
||||
2. Beautiful image with weak brand
|
||||
3. Strong headline with no clear action
|
||||
4. Busy imagery behind text
|
||||
5. Sections repeating same mood statement
|
||||
6. Carousel with no narrative purpose
|
||||
7. App UI made of stacked cards instead of layout
|
||||
|
||||
LITMUS CHECKS — answer YES or NO for each:
|
||||
1. Brand/product unmistakable in first screen?
|
||||
2. One strong visual anchor present?
|
||||
3. Page understandable by scanning headlines only?
|
||||
4. Each section has one job?
|
||||
5. Are cards actually necessary?
|
||||
6. Does motion improve hierarchy or atmosphere?
|
||||
7. Would design feel premium with all decorative shadows removed?
|
||||
|
||||
HARD RULES — first classify as MARKETING/LANDING PAGE vs APP UI vs HYBRID, then flag violations of the matching rule set:
|
||||
- MARKETING: First viewport as one composition, brand-first hierarchy, full-bleed hero, 2-3 intentional motions, composition-first layout
|
||||
- APP UI: Calm surface hierarchy, dense but readable, utility language, minimal chrome
|
||||
- UNIVERSAL: CSS variables for colors, no default font stacks, one job per section, cards earn existence
|
||||
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, what will happen if it ships unresolved, and the specific fix. Be opinionated. No hedging." -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_DESIGN"
|
||||
```
|
||||
Use a 5-minute timeout (`timeout: 300000`). After the command completes, read stderr:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
cat "$TMPERR_DESIGN" && rm -f "$TMPERR_DESIGN"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Claude design subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
Dispatch a subagent with this prompt:
|
||||
"Read the plan file at [plan-file-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 ("48px Söhne Bold header, #1a1a1a on white") or generic patterns ("clean modern card-based layout")?
|
||||
5. What design decisions will haunt the implementer if left ambiguous?
|
||||
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix."
|
||||
|
||||
**Error handling (all non-blocking):**
|
||||
- **Auth failure:** If stderr contains "auth", "login", "unauthorized", or "API key": "Codex authentication failed. Run `codex login` to authenticate."
|
||||
- **Timeout:** "Codex timed out after 5 minutes."
|
||||
- **Empty response:** "Codex returned no response."
|
||||
- On any Codex error: proceed with Claude subagent output only, tagged `[single-model]`.
|
||||
- If Claude subagent also fails: "Outside voices unavailable — continuing with primary review."
|
||||
|
||||
Present Codex output under a `CODEX SAYS (design critique):` header.
|
||||
Present subagent output under a `CLAUDE SUBAGENT (design completeness):` header.
|
||||
|
||||
**Synthesis — Litmus scorecard:**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
DESIGN OUTSIDE VOICES — LITMUS SCORECARD:
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
Check Claude Codex Consensus
|
||||
─────────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
|
||||
1. Brand unmistakable in first screen? — — —
|
||||
2. One strong visual anchor? — — —
|
||||
3. Scannable by headlines only? — — —
|
||||
4. Each section has one job? — — —
|
||||
5. Cards actually necessary? — — —
|
||||
6. Motion improves hierarchy? — — —
|
||||
7. Premium without decorative shadows? — — —
|
||||
─────────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
|
||||
Hard rejections triggered: — — —
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Fill in each cell from the Codex and subagent outputs. CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ. NOT SPEC'D = not enough info to evaluate.
|
||||
|
||||
**Pass integration (respects existing 7-pass contract):**
|
||||
- Hard rejections → raised as the FIRST items in Pass 1, tagged `[HARD REJECTION]`
|
||||
- Litmus DISAGREE items → raised in the relevant pass with both perspectives
|
||||
- Litmus CONFIRMED failures → pre-loaded as known issues in the relevant pass
|
||||
- Passes can skip discovery and go straight to fixing for pre-identified issues
|
||||
|
||||
**Log the result:**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"design-outside-voices","timestamp":"'"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","commit":"'"$(git rev-parse --short HEAD)"'"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace STATUS with "clean" or "issues_found", SOURCE with "codex+subagent", "codex-only", "subagent-only", or "unavailable".
|
||||
|
||||
## The 0-10 Rating Method
|
||||
|
||||
For each design section, rate the plan 0-10 on that dimension. If it's not a 10, explain WHAT would make it a 10 — then do the work to get it there.
|
||||
@@ -398,6 +576,75 @@ Apply time-horizon design: 5-sec visceral, 5-min behavioral, 5-year reflective.
|
||||
### Pass 4: AI Slop Risk
|
||||
Rate 0-10: Does the plan describe specific, intentional UI — or generic patterns?
|
||||
FIX TO 10: Rewrite vague UI descriptions with specific alternatives.
|
||||
|
||||
### Design Hard Rules
|
||||
|
||||
**Classifier — determine rule set before evaluating:**
|
||||
- **MARKETING/LANDING PAGE** (hero-driven, brand-forward, conversion-focused) → apply Landing Page Rules
|
||||
- **APP UI** (workspace-driven, data-dense, task-focused: dashboards, admin, settings) → apply App UI Rules
|
||||
- **HYBRID** (marketing shell with app-like sections) → apply Landing Page Rules to hero/marketing sections, App UI Rules to functional sections
|
||||
|
||||
**Hard rejection criteria** (instant-fail patterns — flag if ANY apply):
|
||||
1. Generic SaaS card grid as first impression
|
||||
2. Beautiful image with weak brand
|
||||
3. Strong headline with no clear action
|
||||
4. Busy imagery behind text
|
||||
5. Sections repeating same mood statement
|
||||
6. Carousel with no narrative purpose
|
||||
7. App UI made of stacked cards instead of layout
|
||||
|
||||
**Litmus checks** (answer YES/NO for each — used for cross-model consensus scoring):
|
||||
1. Brand/product unmistakable in first screen?
|
||||
2. One strong visual anchor present?
|
||||
3. Page understandable by scanning headlines only?
|
||||
4. Each section has one job?
|
||||
5. Are cards actually necessary?
|
||||
6. Does motion improve hierarchy or atmosphere?
|
||||
7. Would design feel premium with all decorative shadows removed?
|
||||
|
||||
**Landing page rules** (apply when classifier = MARKETING/LANDING):
|
||||
- First viewport reads as one composition, not a dashboard
|
||||
- Brand-first hierarchy: brand > headline > body > CTA
|
||||
- Typography: expressive, purposeful — no default stacks (Inter, Roboto, Arial, system)
|
||||
- No flat single-color backgrounds — use gradients, images, subtle patterns
|
||||
- Hero: full-bleed, edge-to-edge, no inset/tiled/rounded variants
|
||||
- Hero budget: brand, one headline, one supporting sentence, one CTA group, one image
|
||||
- No cards in hero. Cards only when card IS the interaction
|
||||
- One job per section: one purpose, one headline, one short supporting sentence
|
||||
- Motion: 2-3 intentional motions minimum (entrance, scroll-linked, hover/reveal)
|
||||
- Color: define CSS variables, avoid purple-on-white defaults, one accent color default
|
||||
- Copy: product language not design commentary. "If deleting 30% improves it, keep deleting"
|
||||
- Beautiful defaults: composition-first, brand as loudest text, two typefaces max, cardless by default, first viewport as poster not document
|
||||
|
||||
**App UI rules** (apply when classifier = APP UI):
|
||||
- Calm surface hierarchy, strong typography, few colors
|
||||
- Dense but readable, minimal chrome
|
||||
- Organize: primary workspace, navigation, secondary context, one accent
|
||||
- Avoid: dashboard-card mosaics, thick borders, decorative gradients, ornamental icons
|
||||
- Copy: utility language — orientation, status, action. Not mood/brand/aspiration
|
||||
- Cards only when card IS the interaction
|
||||
- Section headings state what area is or what user can do ("Selected KPIs", "Plan status")
|
||||
|
||||
**Universal rules** (apply to ALL types):
|
||||
- Define CSS variables for color system
|
||||
- No default font stacks (Inter, Roboto, Arial, system)
|
||||
- One job per section
|
||||
- "If deleting 30% of the copy improves it, keep deleting"
|
||||
- Cards earn their existence — no decorative card grids
|
||||
|
||||
**AI Slop blacklist** (the 10 patterns that scream "AI-generated"):
|
||||
1. Purple/violet/indigo gradient backgrounds or blue-to-purple color schemes
|
||||
2. **The 3-column feature grid:** icon-in-colored-circle + bold title + 2-line description, repeated 3x symmetrically. THE most recognizable AI layout.
|
||||
3. Icons in colored circles as section decoration (SaaS starter template look)
|
||||
4. Centered everything (`text-align: center` on all headings, descriptions, cards)
|
||||
5. Uniform bubbly border-radius on every element (same large radius on everything)
|
||||
6. Decorative blobs, floating circles, wavy SVG dividers (if a section feels empty, it needs better content, not decoration)
|
||||
7. Emoji as design elements (rockets in headings, emoji as bullet points)
|
||||
8. Colored left-border on cards (`border-left: 3px solid <accent>`)
|
||||
9. Generic hero copy ("Welcome to [X]", "Unlock the power of...", "Your all-in-one solution for...")
|
||||
10. Cookie-cutter section rhythm (hero → 3 features → testimonials → pricing → CTA, every section same height)
|
||||
|
||||
Source: [OpenAI "Designing Delightful Frontends with GPT-5.4"](https://developers.openai.com/blog/designing-delightful-frontends-with-gpt-5-4) (Mar 2026) + gstack design methodology.
|
||||
- "Cards with icons" → what differentiates these from every SaaS template?
|
||||
- "Hero section" → what makes this hero feel like THIS product?
|
||||
- "Clean, modern UI" → meaningless. Replace with actual design decisions.
|
||||
@@ -497,13 +744,14 @@ the same pattern. The review dashboard depends on this data. Skipping this
|
||||
command breaks the review readiness dashboard in /ship.
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-design-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","overall_score":N,"unresolved":N,"decisions_made":N,"commit":"COMMIT"}'
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-design-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","initial_score":N,"overall_score":N,"unresolved":N,"decisions_made":N,"commit":"COMMIT"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Substitute values from the Completion Summary:
|
||||
- **TIMESTAMP**: current ISO 8601 datetime
|
||||
- **STATUS**: "clean" if overall score 8+ AND 0 unresolved; otherwise "issues_open"
|
||||
- **overall_score**: final overall design score (0-10)
|
||||
- **initial_score**: initial overall design score before fixes (0-10)
|
||||
- **overall_score**: final overall design score after fixes (0-10)
|
||||
- **unresolved**: number of unresolved design decisions
|
||||
- **decisions_made**: number of design decisions added to the plan
|
||||
- **COMMIT**: output of `git rev-parse --short HEAD`
|
||||
@@ -516,7 +764,7 @@ After completing the review, read the review log and config to display the dashb
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-read
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, plan-eng-review, plan-design-review, design-review-lite, codex-review). Ignore entries with timestamps older than 7 days. For Design Review, show whichever is more recent between `plan-design-review` (full visual audit) and `design-review-lite` (code-level check). Append "(FULL)" or "(LITE)" to the status to distinguish. Display:
|
||||
Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, plan-eng-review, plan-design-review, design-review-lite, adversarial-review, codex-review, codex-plan-review). Ignore entries with timestamps older than 7 days. For the Adversarial row, show whichever is more recent between `adversarial-review` (new auto-scaled) and `codex-review` (legacy). For Design Review, show whichever is more recent between `plan-design-review` (full visual audit) and `design-review-lite` (code-level check). Append "(FULL)" or "(LITE)" to the status to distinguish. Display:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
+====================================================================+
|
||||
@@ -527,7 +775,8 @@ Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, pl
|
||||
| Eng Review | 1 | 2026-03-16 15:00 | CLEAR | YES |
|
||||
| CEO Review | 0 | — | — | no |
|
||||
| Design Review | 0 | — | — | no |
|
||||
| Codex Review | 0 | — | — | no |
|
||||
| Adversarial | 0 | — | — | no |
|
||||
| Outside Voice | 0 | — | — | no |
|
||||
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||||
| VERDICT: CLEARED — Eng Review passed |
|
||||
+====================================================================+
|
||||
@@ -537,7 +786,8 @@ Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, pl
|
||||
- **Eng Review (required by default):** The only review that gates shipping. Covers architecture, code quality, tests, performance. Can be disabled globally with \`gstack-config set skip_eng_review true\` (the "don't bother me" setting).
|
||||
- **CEO Review (optional):** Use your judgment. Recommend it for big product/business changes, new user-facing features, or scope decisions. Skip for bug fixes, refactors, infra, and cleanup.
|
||||
- **Design Review (optional):** Use your judgment. Recommend it for UI/UX changes. Skip for backend-only, infra, or prompt-only changes.
|
||||
- **Codex Review (enabled by default when Codex CLI is installed):** Independent review + adversarial challenge from OpenAI Codex CLI. Shows pass/fail gate. Runs automatically when enabled — configure with \`gstack-config set codex_reviews enabled|disabled\`.
|
||||
- **Adversarial Review (automatic):** Auto-scales by diff size. Small diffs (<50 lines) skip adversarial. Medium diffs (50–199) get cross-model adversarial. Large diffs (200+) get all 4 passes: Claude structured, Codex structured, Claude adversarial subagent, Codex adversarial. No configuration needed.
|
||||
- **Outside Voice (optional):** Independent plan review from a different AI model. Offered after all review sections complete in /plan-ceo-review and /plan-eng-review. Falls back to Claude subagent if Codex is unavailable. Never gates shipping.
|
||||
|
||||
**Verdict logic:**
|
||||
- **CLEARED**: Eng Review has >= 1 entry within 7 days with status "clean" (or \`skip_eng_review\` is \`true\`)
|
||||
@@ -551,6 +801,73 @@ Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, pl
|
||||
- For entries without a \`commit\` field (legacy entries): display "Note: {skill} review from {date} has no commit tracking — consider re-running for accurate staleness detection"
|
||||
- If all reviews match the current HEAD, do not display any staleness notes
|
||||
|
||||
## Plan File Review Report
|
||||
|
||||
After displaying the Review Readiness Dashboard in conversation output, also update the
|
||||
**plan file** itself so review status is visible to anyone reading the plan.
|
||||
|
||||
### Detect the plan file
|
||||
|
||||
1. Check if there is an active plan file in this conversation (the host provides plan file
|
||||
paths in system messages — look for plan file references in the conversation context).
|
||||
2. If not found, skip this section silently — not every review runs in plan mode.
|
||||
|
||||
### Generate the report
|
||||
|
||||
Read the review log output you already have from the Review Readiness Dashboard step above.
|
||||
Parse each JSONL entry. Each skill logs different fields:
|
||||
|
||||
- **plan-ceo-review**: \`status\`, \`unresolved\`, \`critical_gaps\`, \`mode\`, \`scope_proposed\`, \`scope_accepted\`, \`scope_deferred\`, \`commit\`
|
||||
→ Findings: "{scope_proposed} proposals, {scope_accepted} accepted, {scope_deferred} deferred"
|
||||
→ If scope fields are 0 or missing (HOLD/REDUCTION mode): "mode: {mode}, {critical_gaps} critical gaps"
|
||||
- **plan-eng-review**: \`status\`, \`unresolved\`, \`critical_gaps\`, \`issues_found\`, \`mode\`, \`commit\`
|
||||
→ Findings: "{issues_found} issues, {critical_gaps} critical gaps"
|
||||
- **plan-design-review**: \`status\`, \`initial_score\`, \`overall_score\`, \`unresolved\`, \`decisions_made\`, \`commit\`
|
||||
→ Findings: "score: {initial_score}/10 → {overall_score}/10, {decisions_made} decisions"
|
||||
- **codex-review**: \`status\`, \`gate\`, \`findings\`, \`findings_fixed\`
|
||||
→ Findings: "{findings} findings, {findings_fixed}/{findings} fixed"
|
||||
|
||||
All fields needed for the Findings column are now present in the JSONL entries.
|
||||
For the review you just completed, you may use richer details from your own Completion
|
||||
Summary. For prior reviews, use the JSONL fields directly — they contain all required data.
|
||||
|
||||
Produce this markdown table:
|
||||
|
||||
\`\`\`markdown
|
||||
## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT
|
||||
|
||||
| Review | Trigger | Why | Runs | Status | Findings |
|
||||
|--------|---------|-----|------|--------|----------|
|
||||
| CEO Review | \`/plan-ceo-review\` | Scope & strategy | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
|
||||
| Codex Review | \`/codex review\` | Independent 2nd opinion | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
|
||||
| Eng Review | \`/plan-eng-review\` | Architecture & tests (required) | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
|
||||
| Design Review | \`/plan-design-review\` | UI/UX gaps | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
Below the table, add these lines (omit any that are empty/not applicable):
|
||||
|
||||
- **CODEX:** (only if codex-review ran) — one-line summary of codex fixes
|
||||
- **CROSS-MODEL:** (only if both Claude and Codex reviews exist) — overlap analysis
|
||||
- **UNRESOLVED:** total unresolved decisions across all reviews
|
||||
- **VERDICT:** list reviews that are CLEAR (e.g., "CEO + ENG CLEARED — ready to implement").
|
||||
If Eng Review is not CLEAR and not skipped globally, append "eng review required".
|
||||
|
||||
### Write to the plan file
|
||||
|
||||
**PLAN MODE EXCEPTION — ALWAYS RUN:** This writes to the plan file, which is the one
|
||||
file you are allowed to edit in plan mode. The plan file review report is part of the
|
||||
plan's living status.
|
||||
|
||||
- Search the plan file for a \`## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\` section **anywhere** in the file
|
||||
(not just at the end — content may have been added after it).
|
||||
- If found, **replace it** entirely using the Edit tool. Match from \`## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\`
|
||||
through either the next \`## \` heading or end of file, whichever comes first. This ensures
|
||||
content added after the report section is preserved, not eaten. If the Edit fails
|
||||
(e.g., concurrent edit changed the content), re-read the plan file and retry once.
|
||||
- If no such section exists, **append it** to the end of the plan file.
|
||||
- Always place it as the very last section in the plan file. If it was found mid-file,
|
||||
move it: delete the old location and append at the end.
|
||||
|
||||
## Next Steps — Review Chaining
|
||||
|
||||
After displaying the Review Readiness Dashboard, recommend the next review(s) based on what this design review discovered. Read the dashboard output to see which reviews have already been run and whether they are stale.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -128,6 +128,8 @@ AskUserQuestion: "I've rated this plan {N}/10 on design completeness. The bigges
|
||||
|
||||
**STOP.** Do NOT proceed until user responds.
|
||||
|
||||
{{DESIGN_OUTSIDE_VOICES}}
|
||||
|
||||
## The 0-10 Rating Method
|
||||
|
||||
For each design section, rate the plan 0-10 on that dimension. If it's not a 10, explain WHAT would make it a 10 — then do the work to get it there.
|
||||
@@ -176,6 +178,8 @@ Apply time-horizon design: 5-sec visceral, 5-min behavioral, 5-year reflective.
|
||||
### Pass 4: AI Slop Risk
|
||||
Rate 0-10: Does the plan describe specific, intentional UI — or generic patterns?
|
||||
FIX TO 10: Rewrite vague UI descriptions with specific alternatives.
|
||||
|
||||
{{DESIGN_HARD_RULES}}
|
||||
- "Cards with icons" → what differentiates these from every SaaS template?
|
||||
- "Hero section" → what makes this hero feel like THIS product?
|
||||
- "Clean, modern UI" → meaningless. Replace with actual design decisions.
|
||||
@@ -275,19 +279,22 @@ the same pattern. The review dashboard depends on this data. Skipping this
|
||||
command breaks the review readiness dashboard in /ship.
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-design-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","overall_score":N,"unresolved":N,"decisions_made":N,"commit":"COMMIT"}'
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-design-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","initial_score":N,"overall_score":N,"unresolved":N,"decisions_made":N,"commit":"COMMIT"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Substitute values from the Completion Summary:
|
||||
- **TIMESTAMP**: current ISO 8601 datetime
|
||||
- **STATUS**: "clean" if overall score 8+ AND 0 unresolved; otherwise "issues_open"
|
||||
- **overall_score**: final overall design score (0-10)
|
||||
- **initial_score**: initial overall design score before fixes (0-10)
|
||||
- **overall_score**: final overall design score after fixes (0-10)
|
||||
- **unresolved**: number of unresolved design decisions
|
||||
- **decisions_made**: number of design decisions added to the plan
|
||||
- **COMMIT**: output of `git rev-parse --short HEAD`
|
||||
|
||||
{{REVIEW_DASHBOARD}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{PLAN_FILE_REVIEW_REPORT}}
|
||||
|
||||
## Next Steps — Review Chaining
|
||||
|
||||
After displaying the Review Readiness Dashboard, recommend the next review(s) based on what this design review discovered. Read the dashboard output to see which reviews have already been run and whether they are stale.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user