mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-08-19 12:37:18 +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
+477
-35
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ allowed-tools:
|
||||
- Glob
|
||||
- AskUserQuestion
|
||||
- Bash
|
||||
- WebSearch
|
||||
---
|
||||
<!-- AUTO-GENERATED from SKILL.md.tmpl — do not edit directly -->
|
||||
<!-- Regenerate: bun run gen:skill-docs -->
|
||||
@@ -34,6 +35,9 @@ _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 +139,38 @@ 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 +261,42 @@ 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.
|
||||
|
||||
# Plan Review Mode
|
||||
|
||||
Review this plan thoroughly before making any code changes. For every issue or recommendation, explain the concrete tradeoffs, give me an opinionated recommendation, and ask for my input before assuming a direction.
|
||||
@@ -292,46 +364,63 @@ Say to the user via AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
> not per-product — it captures the thinking behind this specific change."
|
||||
|
||||
Options:
|
||||
- A) Run /office-hours first (in another window, then come back)
|
||||
- A) Run /office-hours now (we'll pick up the review right after)
|
||||
- B) Skip — proceed with standard review
|
||||
|
||||
If they skip: "No worries — standard review. If you ever want sharper input, try
|
||||
/office-hours first next time." Then proceed normally. Do not re-offer later in the session.
|
||||
|
||||
If they choose A:
|
||||
|
||||
Say: "Running /office-hours inline. Once the design doc is ready, I'll pick up
|
||||
the review right where we left off."
|
||||
|
||||
Read the office-hours skill file from disk using the Read tool:
|
||||
`~/.claude/skills/gstack/office-hours/SKILL.md`
|
||||
|
||||
Follow it inline, **skipping these sections** (already handled by the parent skill):
|
||||
- Preamble (run first)
|
||||
- AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
- Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
- Search Before Building
|
||||
- Contributor Mode
|
||||
- Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
- Telemetry (run last)
|
||||
|
||||
If the Read fails (file not found), say:
|
||||
"Could not load /office-hours — proceeding with standard review."
|
||||
|
||||
After /office-hours completes, re-run the design doc check:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
SLUG=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/browse/bin/remote-slug 2>/dev/null || basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)")
|
||||
BRANCH=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD 2>/dev/null | tr '/' '-' || echo 'no-branch')
|
||||
DESIGN=$(ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)
|
||||
[ -z "$DESIGN" ] && DESIGN=$(ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)
|
||||
[ -n "$DESIGN" ] && echo "Design doc found: $DESIGN" || echo "No design doc found"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If a design doc is now found, read it and continue the review.
|
||||
If none was produced (user may have cancelled), proceed with standard review.
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 0: Scope Challenge
|
||||
Before reviewing anything, answer these questions:
|
||||
1. **What existing code already partially or fully solves each sub-problem?** Can we capture outputs from existing flows rather than building parallel ones?
|
||||
2. **What is the minimum set of changes that achieves the stated goal?** Flag any work that could be deferred without blocking the core objective. Be ruthless about scope creep.
|
||||
3. **Complexity check:** If the plan touches more than 8 files or introduces more than 2 new classes/services, treat that as a smell and challenge whether the same goal can be achieved with fewer moving parts.
|
||||
4. **TODOS cross-reference:** Read `TODOS.md` if it exists. Are any deferred items blocking this plan? Can any deferred items be bundled into this PR without expanding scope? Does this plan create new work that should be captured as a TODO?
|
||||
4. **Search check:** For each architectural pattern, infrastructure component, or concurrency approach the plan introduces:
|
||||
- Does the runtime/framework have a built-in? Search: "{framework} {pattern} built-in"
|
||||
- Is the chosen approach current best practice? Search: "{pattern} best practice {current year}"
|
||||
- Are there known footguns? Search: "{framework} {pattern} pitfalls"
|
||||
|
||||
If WebSearch is unavailable, skip this check and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
If the plan rolls a custom solution where a built-in exists, flag it as a scope reduction opportunity. Annotate recommendations with **[Layer 1]**, **[Layer 2]**, **[Layer 3]**, or **[EUREKA]** (see preamble's Search Before Building section). If you find a eureka moment — a reason the standard approach is wrong for this case — present it as an architectural insight.
|
||||
5. **TODOS cross-reference:** Read `TODOS.md` if it exists. Are any deferred items blocking this plan? Can any deferred items be bundled into this PR without expanding scope? Does this plan create new work that should be captured as a TODO?
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Completeness check:** Is the plan doing the complete version or a shortcut? With AI-assisted coding, the cost of completeness (100% test coverage, full edge case handling, complete error paths) is 10-100x cheaper than with a human team. If the plan proposes a shortcut that saves human-hours but only saves minutes with CC+gstack, recommend the complete version. Boil the lake.
|
||||
|
||||
If the complexity check triggers (8+ files or 2+ new classes/services), proactively recommend scope reduction via AskUserQuestion — explain what's overbuilt, propose a minimal version that achieves the core goal, and ask whether to reduce or proceed as-is. If the complexity check does not trigger, present your Step 0 findings and proceed directly to Section 1.
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 0.5: Codex plan review (optional)
|
||||
|
||||
Check if the Codex CLI is available: `which codex 2>/dev/null`
|
||||
|
||||
If available, after presenting Step 0 findings, use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
```
|
||||
Want an independent Codex (OpenAI) review of this plan before the detailed review?
|
||||
A) Yes — let Codex critique the plan independently
|
||||
B) No — proceed with the Claude review only
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If the user chooses A: tell Codex to read the plan file itself (avoids ARG_MAX limits for large plans):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
codex exec "You are a brutally honest technical reviewer. Read the plan file at <plan-file-path> and review it for: logical gaps and unstated assumptions, missing error handling or edge cases, overcomplexity (is there a simpler approach?), feasibility risks (what could go wrong?), and missing dependencies or sequencing issues. Be direct. Be terse. No compliments. Just the problems." -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' --enable web_search_cached
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Replace `<plan-file-path>` with the actual path to the plan file detected earlier. Codex has filesystem access in read-only mode and will read the file itself.
|
||||
|
||||
Present the full output under a `CODEX SAYS (plan review):` header. Note any concerns
|
||||
that should inform the subsequent engineering review sections.
|
||||
|
||||
If Codex is not available, skip silently.
|
||||
|
||||
Always work through the full interactive review: one section at a time (Architecture → Code Quality → Tests → Performance) with at most 8 top issues per section.
|
||||
|
||||
**Critical: Once the user accepts or rejects a scope reduction recommendation, commit fully.** Do not re-argue for smaller scope during later review sections. Do not silently reduce scope or skip planned components.
|
||||
@@ -362,23 +451,182 @@ Evaluate:
|
||||
**STOP.** For each issue found in this section, call AskUserQuestion individually. One issue per call. Present options, state your recommendation, explain WHY. Do NOT batch multiple issues into one AskUserQuestion. Only proceed to the next section after ALL issues in this section are resolved.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Test review
|
||||
Make a diagram of all new UX, new data flow, new codepaths, and new branching if statements or outcomes. For each, note what is new about the features discussed in this branch and plan. Then, for each new item in the diagram, make sure there is a corresponding test.
|
||||
|
||||
For LLM/prompt changes: check the "Prompt/LLM changes" file patterns listed in CLAUDE.md. If this plan touches ANY of those patterns, state which eval suites must be run, which cases should be added, and what baselines to compare against. Then use AskUserQuestion to confirm the eval scope with the user.
|
||||
100% coverage is the goal. Evaluate every codepath in the plan and ensure the plan includes tests for each one. If the plan is missing tests, add them — the plan should be complete enough that implementation includes full test coverage from the start.
|
||||
|
||||
**STOP.** For each issue found in this section, call AskUserQuestion individually. One issue per call. Present options, state your recommendation, explain WHY. Do NOT batch multiple issues into one AskUserQuestion. Only proceed to the next section after ALL issues in this section are resolved.
|
||||
### Test Framework Detection
|
||||
|
||||
Before analyzing coverage, detect the project's test framework:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Read CLAUDE.md** — look for a `## Testing` section with test command and framework name. If found, use that as the authoritative source.
|
||||
2. **If CLAUDE.md has no testing section, auto-detect:**
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Detect project runtime
|
||||
[ -f Gemfile ] && echo "RUNTIME:ruby"
|
||||
[ -f package.json ] && echo "RUNTIME:node"
|
||||
[ -f requirements.txt ] || [ -f pyproject.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:python"
|
||||
[ -f go.mod ] && echo "RUNTIME:go"
|
||||
[ -f Cargo.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:rust"
|
||||
# Check for existing test infrastructure
|
||||
ls jest.config.* vitest.config.* playwright.config.* cypress.config.* .rspec pytest.ini phpunit.xml 2>/dev/null
|
||||
ls -d test/ tests/ spec/ __tests__/ cypress/ e2e/ 2>/dev/null
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
3. **If no framework detected:** still produce the coverage diagram, but skip test generation.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 1. Trace every codepath in the plan:**
|
||||
|
||||
Read the plan document. For each new feature, service, endpoint, or component described, trace how data will flow through the code — don't just list planned functions, actually follow the planned execution:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Read the plan.** For each planned component, understand what it does and how it connects to existing code.
|
||||
2. **Trace data flow.** Starting from each entry point (route handler, exported function, event listener, component render), follow the data through every branch:
|
||||
- Where does input come from? (request params, props, database, API call)
|
||||
- What transforms it? (validation, mapping, computation)
|
||||
- Where does it go? (database write, API response, rendered output, side effect)
|
||||
- What can go wrong at each step? (null/undefined, invalid input, network failure, empty collection)
|
||||
3. **Diagram the execution.** For each changed file, draw an ASCII diagram showing:
|
||||
- Every function/method that was added or modified
|
||||
- Every conditional branch (if/else, switch, ternary, guard clause, early return)
|
||||
- Every error path (try/catch, rescue, error boundary, fallback)
|
||||
- Every call to another function (trace into it — does IT have untested branches?)
|
||||
- Every edge: what happens with null input? Empty array? Invalid type?
|
||||
|
||||
This is the critical step — you're building a map of every line of code that can execute differently based on input. Every branch in this diagram needs a test.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 2. Map user flows, interactions, and error states:**
|
||||
|
||||
Code coverage isn't enough — you need to cover how real users interact with the changed code. For each changed feature, think through:
|
||||
|
||||
- **User flows:** What sequence of actions does a user take that touches this code? Map the full journey (e.g., "user clicks 'Pay' → form validates → API call → success/failure screen"). Each step in the journey needs a test.
|
||||
- **Interaction edge cases:** What happens when the user does something unexpected?
|
||||
- Double-click/rapid resubmit
|
||||
- Navigate away mid-operation (back button, close tab, click another link)
|
||||
- Submit with stale data (page sat open for 30 minutes, session expired)
|
||||
- Slow connection (API takes 10 seconds — what does the user see?)
|
||||
- Concurrent actions (two tabs, same form)
|
||||
- **Error states the user can see:** For every error the code handles, what does the user actually experience?
|
||||
- Is there a clear error message or a silent failure?
|
||||
- Can the user recover (retry, go back, fix input) or are they stuck?
|
||||
- What happens with no network? With a 500 from the API? With invalid data from the server?
|
||||
- **Empty/zero/boundary states:** What does the UI show with zero results? With 10,000 results? With a single character input? With maximum-length input?
|
||||
|
||||
Add these to your diagram alongside the code branches. A user flow with no test is just as much a gap as an untested if/else.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 3. Check each branch against existing tests:**
|
||||
|
||||
Go through your diagram branch by branch — both code paths AND user flows. For each one, search for a test that exercises it:
|
||||
- Function `processPayment()` → look for `billing.test.ts`, `billing.spec.ts`, `test/billing_test.rb`
|
||||
- An if/else → look for tests covering BOTH the true AND false path
|
||||
- An error handler → look for a test that triggers that specific error condition
|
||||
- A call to `helperFn()` that has its own branches → those branches need tests too
|
||||
- A user flow → look for an integration or E2E test that walks through the journey
|
||||
- An interaction edge case → look for a test that simulates the unexpected action
|
||||
|
||||
Quality scoring rubric:
|
||||
- ★★★ Tests behavior with edge cases AND error paths
|
||||
- ★★ Tests correct behavior, happy path only
|
||||
- ★ Smoke test / existence check / trivial assertion (e.g., "it renders", "it doesn't throw")
|
||||
|
||||
### E2E Test Decision Matrix
|
||||
|
||||
When checking each branch, also determine whether a unit test or E2E/integration test is the right tool:
|
||||
|
||||
**RECOMMEND E2E (mark as [→E2E] in the diagram):**
|
||||
- Common user flow spanning 3+ components/services (e.g., signup → verify email → first login)
|
||||
- Integration point where mocking hides real failures (e.g., API → queue → worker → DB)
|
||||
- Auth/payment/data-destruction flows — too important to trust unit tests alone
|
||||
|
||||
**RECOMMEND EVAL (mark as [→EVAL] in the diagram):**
|
||||
- Critical LLM call that needs a quality eval (e.g., prompt change → test output still meets quality bar)
|
||||
- Changes to prompt templates, system instructions, or tool definitions
|
||||
|
||||
**STICK WITH UNIT TESTS:**
|
||||
- Pure function with clear inputs/outputs
|
||||
- Internal helper with no side effects
|
||||
- Edge case of a single function (null input, empty array)
|
||||
- Obscure/rare flow that isn't customer-facing
|
||||
|
||||
### REGRESSION RULE (mandatory)
|
||||
|
||||
**IRON RULE:** When the coverage audit identifies a REGRESSION — code that previously worked but the diff broke — a regression test is added to the plan as a critical requirement. No AskUserQuestion. No skipping. Regressions are the highest-priority test because they prove something broke.
|
||||
|
||||
A regression is when:
|
||||
- The diff modifies existing behavior (not new code)
|
||||
- The existing test suite (if any) doesn't cover the changed path
|
||||
- The change introduces a new failure mode for existing callers
|
||||
|
||||
When uncertain whether a change is a regression, err on the side of writing the test.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 4. Output ASCII coverage diagram:**
|
||||
|
||||
Include BOTH code paths and user flows in the same diagram. Mark E2E-worthy and eval-worthy paths:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
CODE PATH COVERAGE
|
||||
===========================
|
||||
[+] src/services/billing.ts
|
||||
│
|
||||
├── processPayment()
|
||||
│ ├── [★★★ TESTED] Happy path + card declined + timeout — billing.test.ts:42
|
||||
│ ├── [GAP] Network timeout — NO TEST
|
||||
│ └── [GAP] Invalid currency — NO TEST
|
||||
│
|
||||
└── refundPayment()
|
||||
├── [★★ TESTED] Full refund — billing.test.ts:89
|
||||
└── [★ TESTED] Partial refund (checks non-throw only) — billing.test.ts:101
|
||||
|
||||
USER FLOW COVERAGE
|
||||
===========================
|
||||
[+] Payment checkout flow
|
||||
│
|
||||
├── [★★★ TESTED] Complete purchase — checkout.e2e.ts:15
|
||||
├── [GAP] [→E2E] Double-click submit — needs E2E, not just unit
|
||||
├── [GAP] Navigate away during payment — unit test sufficient
|
||||
└── [★ TESTED] Form validation errors (checks render only) — checkout.test.ts:40
|
||||
|
||||
[+] Error states
|
||||
│
|
||||
├── [★★ TESTED] Card declined message — billing.test.ts:58
|
||||
├── [GAP] Network timeout UX (what does user see?) — NO TEST
|
||||
└── [GAP] Empty cart submission — NO TEST
|
||||
|
||||
[+] LLM integration
|
||||
│
|
||||
└── [GAP] [→EVAL] Prompt template change — needs eval test
|
||||
|
||||
─────────────────────────────────
|
||||
COVERAGE: 5/13 paths tested (38%)
|
||||
Code paths: 3/5 (60%)
|
||||
User flows: 2/8 (25%)
|
||||
QUALITY: ★★★: 2 ★★: 2 ★: 1
|
||||
GAPS: 8 paths need tests (2 need E2E, 1 needs eval)
|
||||
─────────────────────────────────
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Fast path:** All paths covered → "Test review: All new code paths have test coverage ✓" Continue.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 5. Add missing tests to the plan:**
|
||||
|
||||
For each GAP identified in the diagram, add a test requirement to the plan. Be specific:
|
||||
- What test file to create (match existing naming conventions)
|
||||
- What the test should assert (specific inputs → expected outputs/behavior)
|
||||
- Whether it's a unit test, E2E test, or eval (use the decision matrix)
|
||||
- For regressions: flag as **CRITICAL** and explain what broke
|
||||
|
||||
The plan should be complete enough that when implementation begins, every test is written alongside the feature code — not deferred to a follow-up.
|
||||
|
||||
### Test Plan Artifact
|
||||
|
||||
After producing the test diagram, write a test plan artifact to the project directory so `/qa` and `/qa-only` can consume it as primary test input (replacing the lossy git-diff heuristic):
|
||||
After producing the coverage diagram, write a test plan artifact to the project directory so `/qa` and `/qa-only` can consume it as primary test input:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null) && mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG
|
||||
eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)" && mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG
|
||||
USER=$(whoami)
|
||||
DATETIME=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Write to `~/.gstack/projects/{slug}/{user}-{branch}-test-plan-{datetime}.md`:
|
||||
Write to `~/.gstack/projects/{slug}/{user}-{branch}-eng-review-test-plan-{datetime}.md`:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Test Plan
|
||||
@@ -401,6 +649,10 @@ Repo: {owner/repo}
|
||||
|
||||
This file is consumed by `/qa` and `/qa-only` as primary test input. Include only the information that helps a QA tester know **what to test and where** — not implementation details.
|
||||
|
||||
For LLM/prompt changes: check the "Prompt/LLM changes" file patterns listed in CLAUDE.md. If this plan touches ANY of those patterns, state which eval suites must be run, which cases should be added, and what baselines to compare against. Then use AskUserQuestion to confirm the eval scope with the user.
|
||||
|
||||
**STOP.** For each issue found in this section, call AskUserQuestion individually. One issue per call. Present options, state your recommendation, explain WHY. Do NOT batch multiple issues into one AskUserQuestion. Only proceed to the next section after ALL issues in this section are resolved.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Performance review
|
||||
Evaluate:
|
||||
* N+1 queries and database access patterns.
|
||||
@@ -410,6 +662,125 @@ Evaluate:
|
||||
|
||||
**STOP.** For each issue found in this section, call AskUserQuestion individually. One issue per call. Present options, state your recommendation, explain WHY. Do NOT batch multiple issues into one AskUserQuestion. Only proceed to the next section after ALL issues in this section are resolved.
|
||||
|
||||
## Outside Voice — Independent Plan Challenge (optional, recommended)
|
||||
|
||||
After all review sections are complete, offer an independent second opinion from a
|
||||
different AI system. Two models agreeing on a plan is stronger signal than one model's
|
||||
thorough review.
|
||||
|
||||
**Check tool availability:**
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
which codex 2>/dev/null && echo "CODEX_AVAILABLE" || echo "CODEX_NOT_AVAILABLE"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
|
||||
> "All review sections are complete. Want an outside voice? A different AI system can
|
||||
> give a brutally honest, independent challenge of this plan — logical gaps, feasibility
|
||||
> risks, and blind spots that are hard to catch from inside the review. Takes about 2
|
||||
> minutes."
|
||||
>
|
||||
> RECOMMENDATION: Choose A — an independent second opinion catches structural blind
|
||||
> spots. Two different AI models agreeing on a plan is stronger signal than one model's
|
||||
> thorough review. Completeness: A=9/10, B=7/10.
|
||||
|
||||
Options:
|
||||
- A) Get the outside voice (recommended)
|
||||
- B) Skip — proceed to outputs
|
||||
|
||||
**If B:** Print "Skipping outside voice." and continue to the next section.
|
||||
|
||||
**If A:** Construct the plan review prompt. Read the plan file being reviewed (the file
|
||||
the user pointed this review at, or the branch diff scope). If a CEO plan document
|
||||
was written in Step 0D-POST, read that too — it contains the scope decisions and vision.
|
||||
|
||||
Construct this prompt (substitute the actual plan content — if plan content exceeds 30KB,
|
||||
truncate to the first 30KB and note "Plan truncated for size"):
|
||||
|
||||
"You are a brutally honest technical reviewer examining a development plan that has
|
||||
already been through a multi-section review. Your job is NOT to repeat that review.
|
||||
Instead, find what it missed. Look for: logical gaps and unstated assumptions that
|
||||
survived the review scrutiny, overcomplexity (is there a fundamentally simpler
|
||||
approach the review was too deep in the weeds to see?), feasibility risks the review
|
||||
took for granted, missing dependencies or sequencing issues, and strategic
|
||||
miscalibration (is this the right thing to build at all?). Be direct. Be terse. No
|
||||
compliments. Just the problems.
|
||||
|
||||
THE PLAN:
|
||||
<plan content>"
|
||||
|
||||
**If CODEX_AVAILABLE:**
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
TMPERR_PV=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-planreview-XXXXXXXX)
|
||||
codex exec "<prompt>" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="xhigh"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_PV"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Use a 5-minute timeout (`timeout: 300000`). After the command completes, read stderr:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
cat "$TMPERR_PV"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Present the full output verbatim:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
CODEX SAYS (plan review — outside voice):
|
||||
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
<full codex output, verbatim — do not truncate or summarize>
|
||||
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Error handling:** All errors are non-blocking — the outside voice is informational.
|
||||
- Auth failure (stderr contains "auth", "login", "unauthorized"): "Codex auth failed. Run \`codex login\` to authenticate."
|
||||
- Timeout: "Codex timed out after 5 minutes."
|
||||
- Empty response: "Codex returned no response."
|
||||
|
||||
On any Codex error, fall back to the Claude adversarial subagent.
|
||||
|
||||
**If CODEX_NOT_AVAILABLE (or Codex errored):**
|
||||
|
||||
Dispatch via the Agent tool. The subagent has fresh context — genuine independence.
|
||||
|
||||
Subagent prompt: same plan review prompt as above.
|
||||
|
||||
Present findings under an `OUTSIDE VOICE (Claude subagent):` header.
|
||||
|
||||
If the subagent fails or times out: "Outside voice unavailable. Continuing to outputs."
|
||||
|
||||
**Cross-model tension:**
|
||||
|
||||
After presenting the outside voice findings, note any points where the outside voice
|
||||
disagrees with the review findings from earlier sections. Flag these as:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
CROSS-MODEL TENSION:
|
||||
[Topic]: Review said X. Outside voice says Y. [Your assessment of who's right.]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
For each substantive tension point, auto-propose as a TODO via AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
|
||||
> "Cross-model disagreement on [topic]. The review found [X] but the outside voice
|
||||
> argues [Y]. Worth investigating further?"
|
||||
|
||||
Options:
|
||||
- A) Add to TODOS.md
|
||||
- B) Skip — not substantive
|
||||
|
||||
If no tension points exist, note: "No cross-model tension — both reviewers agree."
|
||||
|
||||
**Persist the result:**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"codex-plan-review","timestamp":"'"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","commit":"'"$(git rev-parse --short HEAD)"'"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Substitute: STATUS = "clean" if no findings, "issues_found" if findings exist.
|
||||
SOURCE = "codex" if Codex ran, "claude" if subagent ran.
|
||||
|
||||
**Cleanup:** Run `rm -f "$TMPERR_PV"` after processing (if Codex was used).
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## CRITICAL RULE — How to ask questions
|
||||
Follow the AskUserQuestion format from the Preamble above. Additional rules for plan reviews:
|
||||
* **One issue = one AskUserQuestion call.** Never combine multiple issues into one question.
|
||||
@@ -465,6 +836,7 @@ At the end of the review, fill in and display this summary so the user can see a
|
||||
- What already exists: written
|
||||
- TODOS.md updates: ___ items proposed to user
|
||||
- Failure modes: ___ critical gaps flagged
|
||||
- Outside voice: ran (codex/claude) / skipped
|
||||
- Lake Score: X/Y recommendations chose complete option
|
||||
|
||||
## Retrospective learning
|
||||
@@ -487,7 +859,7 @@ 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-eng-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","unresolved":N,"critical_gaps":N,"mode":"MODE","commit":"COMMIT"}'
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-eng-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","unresolved":N,"critical_gaps":N,"issues_found":N,"mode":"MODE","commit":"COMMIT"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Substitute values from the Completion Summary:
|
||||
@@ -495,6 +867,7 @@ Substitute values from the Completion Summary:
|
||||
- **STATUS**: "clean" if 0 unresolved decisions AND 0 critical gaps; otherwise "issues_open"
|
||||
- **unresolved**: number from "Unresolved decisions" count
|
||||
- **critical_gaps**: number from "Failure modes: ___ critical gaps flagged"
|
||||
- **issues_found**: total issues found across all review sections (Architecture + Code Quality + Performance + Test gaps)
|
||||
- **MODE**: FULL_REVIEW / SCOPE_REDUCED
|
||||
- **COMMIT**: output of `git rev-parse --short HEAD`
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -506,7 +879,7 @@ 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:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
+====================================================================+
|
||||
@@ -517,7 +890,8 @@ 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 |
|
||||
+====================================================================+
|
||||
@@ -527,7 +901,8 @@ 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\`)
|
||||
@@ -541,6 +916,73 @@ 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, check if additional reviews would be valuable. Read the dashboard output to see which reviews have already been run and whether they are stale.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ allowed-tools:
|
||||
- Glob
|
||||
- AskUserQuestion
|
||||
- Bash
|
||||
- WebSearch
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
{{PREAMBLE}}
|
||||
@@ -81,35 +82,20 @@ Before reviewing anything, answer these questions:
|
||||
1. **What existing code already partially or fully solves each sub-problem?** Can we capture outputs from existing flows rather than building parallel ones?
|
||||
2. **What is the minimum set of changes that achieves the stated goal?** Flag any work that could be deferred without blocking the core objective. Be ruthless about scope creep.
|
||||
3. **Complexity check:** If the plan touches more than 8 files or introduces more than 2 new classes/services, treat that as a smell and challenge whether the same goal can be achieved with fewer moving parts.
|
||||
4. **TODOS cross-reference:** Read `TODOS.md` if it exists. Are any deferred items blocking this plan? Can any deferred items be bundled into this PR without expanding scope? Does this plan create new work that should be captured as a TODO?
|
||||
4. **Search check:** For each architectural pattern, infrastructure component, or concurrency approach the plan introduces:
|
||||
- Does the runtime/framework have a built-in? Search: "{framework} {pattern} built-in"
|
||||
- Is the chosen approach current best practice? Search: "{pattern} best practice {current year}"
|
||||
- Are there known footguns? Search: "{framework} {pattern} pitfalls"
|
||||
|
||||
If WebSearch is unavailable, skip this check and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
If the plan rolls a custom solution where a built-in exists, flag it as a scope reduction opportunity. Annotate recommendations with **[Layer 1]**, **[Layer 2]**, **[Layer 3]**, or **[EUREKA]** (see preamble's Search Before Building section). If you find a eureka moment — a reason the standard approach is wrong for this case — present it as an architectural insight.
|
||||
5. **TODOS cross-reference:** Read `TODOS.md` if it exists. Are any deferred items blocking this plan? Can any deferred items be bundled into this PR without expanding scope? Does this plan create new work that should be captured as a TODO?
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Completeness check:** Is the plan doing the complete version or a shortcut? With AI-assisted coding, the cost of completeness (100% test coverage, full edge case handling, complete error paths) is 10-100x cheaper than with a human team. If the plan proposes a shortcut that saves human-hours but only saves minutes with CC+gstack, recommend the complete version. Boil the lake.
|
||||
|
||||
If the complexity check triggers (8+ files or 2+ new classes/services), proactively recommend scope reduction via AskUserQuestion — explain what's overbuilt, propose a minimal version that achieves the core goal, and ask whether to reduce or proceed as-is. If the complexity check does not trigger, present your Step 0 findings and proceed directly to Section 1.
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 0.5: Codex plan review (optional)
|
||||
|
||||
Check if the Codex CLI is available: `which codex 2>/dev/null`
|
||||
|
||||
If available, after presenting Step 0 findings, use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
```
|
||||
Want an independent Codex (OpenAI) review of this plan before the detailed review?
|
||||
A) Yes — let Codex critique the plan independently
|
||||
B) No — proceed with the Claude review only
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If the user chooses A: tell Codex to read the plan file itself (avoids ARG_MAX limits for large plans):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
codex exec "You are a brutally honest technical reviewer. Read the plan file at <plan-file-path> and review it for: logical gaps and unstated assumptions, missing error handling or edge cases, overcomplexity (is there a simpler approach?), feasibility risks (what could go wrong?), and missing dependencies or sequencing issues. Be direct. Be terse. No compliments. Just the problems." -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' --enable web_search_cached
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Replace `<plan-file-path>` with the actual path to the plan file detected earlier. Codex has filesystem access in read-only mode and will read the file itself.
|
||||
|
||||
Present the full output under a `CODEX SAYS (plan review):` header. Note any concerns
|
||||
that should inform the subsequent engineering review sections.
|
||||
|
||||
If Codex is not available, skip silently.
|
||||
|
||||
Always work through the full interactive review: one section at a time (Architecture → Code Quality → Tests → Performance) with at most 8 top issues per section.
|
||||
|
||||
**Critical: Once the user accepts or rejects a scope reduction recommendation, commit fully.** Do not re-argue for smaller scope during later review sections. Do not silently reduce scope or skip planned components.
|
||||
@@ -140,45 +126,13 @@ Evaluate:
|
||||
**STOP.** For each issue found in this section, call AskUserQuestion individually. One issue per call. Present options, state your recommendation, explain WHY. Do NOT batch multiple issues into one AskUserQuestion. Only proceed to the next section after ALL issues in this section are resolved.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Test review
|
||||
Make a diagram of all new UX, new data flow, new codepaths, and new branching if statements or outcomes. For each, note what is new about the features discussed in this branch and plan. Then, for each new item in the diagram, make sure there is a corresponding test.
|
||||
|
||||
{{TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT_PLAN}}
|
||||
|
||||
For LLM/prompt changes: check the "Prompt/LLM changes" file patterns listed in CLAUDE.md. If this plan touches ANY of those patterns, state which eval suites must be run, which cases should be added, and what baselines to compare against. Then use AskUserQuestion to confirm the eval scope with the user.
|
||||
|
||||
**STOP.** For each issue found in this section, call AskUserQuestion individually. One issue per call. Present options, state your recommendation, explain WHY. Do NOT batch multiple issues into one AskUserQuestion. Only proceed to the next section after ALL issues in this section are resolved.
|
||||
|
||||
### Test Plan Artifact
|
||||
|
||||
After producing the test diagram, write a test plan artifact to the project directory so `/qa` and `/qa-only` can consume it as primary test input (replacing the lossy git-diff heuristic):
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null) && mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG
|
||||
USER=$(whoami)
|
||||
DATETIME=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Write to `~/.gstack/projects/{slug}/{user}-{branch}-test-plan-{datetime}.md`:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Test Plan
|
||||
Generated by /plan-eng-review on {date}
|
||||
Branch: {branch}
|
||||
Repo: {owner/repo}
|
||||
|
||||
## Affected Pages/Routes
|
||||
- {URL path} — {what to test and why}
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Interactions to Verify
|
||||
- {interaction description} on {page}
|
||||
|
||||
## Edge Cases
|
||||
- {edge case} on {page}
|
||||
|
||||
## Critical Paths
|
||||
- {end-to-end flow that must work}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
This file is consumed by `/qa` and `/qa-only` as primary test input. Include only the information that helps a QA tester know **what to test and where** — not implementation details.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Performance review
|
||||
Evaluate:
|
||||
* N+1 queries and database access patterns.
|
||||
@@ -188,6 +142,8 @@ Evaluate:
|
||||
|
||||
**STOP.** For each issue found in this section, call AskUserQuestion individually. One issue per call. Present options, state your recommendation, explain WHY. Do NOT batch multiple issues into one AskUserQuestion. Only proceed to the next section after ALL issues in this section are resolved.
|
||||
|
||||
{{CODEX_PLAN_REVIEW}}
|
||||
|
||||
## CRITICAL RULE — How to ask questions
|
||||
Follow the AskUserQuestion format from the Preamble above. Additional rules for plan reviews:
|
||||
* **One issue = one AskUserQuestion call.** Never combine multiple issues into one question.
|
||||
@@ -243,6 +199,7 @@ At the end of the review, fill in and display this summary so the user can see a
|
||||
- What already exists: written
|
||||
- TODOS.md updates: ___ items proposed to user
|
||||
- Failure modes: ___ critical gaps flagged
|
||||
- Outside voice: ran (codex/claude) / skipped
|
||||
- Lake Score: X/Y recommendations chose complete option
|
||||
|
||||
## Retrospective learning
|
||||
@@ -265,7 +222,7 @@ 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-eng-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","unresolved":N,"critical_gaps":N,"mode":"MODE","commit":"COMMIT"}'
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-eng-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","unresolved":N,"critical_gaps":N,"issues_found":N,"mode":"MODE","commit":"COMMIT"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Substitute values from the Completion Summary:
|
||||
@@ -273,11 +230,14 @@ Substitute values from the Completion Summary:
|
||||
- **STATUS**: "clean" if 0 unresolved decisions AND 0 critical gaps; otherwise "issues_open"
|
||||
- **unresolved**: number from "Unresolved decisions" count
|
||||
- **critical_gaps**: number from "Failure modes: ___ critical gaps flagged"
|
||||
- **issues_found**: total issues found across all review sections (Architecture + Code Quality + Performance + Test gaps)
|
||||
- **MODE**: FULL_REVIEW / SCOPE_REDUCED
|
||||
- **COMMIT**: output of `git rev-parse --short HEAD`
|
||||
|
||||
{{REVIEW_DASHBOARD}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{PLAN_FILE_REVIEW_REPORT}}
|
||||
|
||||
## Next Steps — Review Chaining
|
||||
|
||||
After displaying the Review Readiness Dashboard, check if additional reviews would be valuable. Read the dashboard output to see which reviews have already been run and whether they are stale.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user