mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-09-24 05:40:52 +02:00
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into garrytan/codex-in-ceo-review
# Conflicts: # .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-ship/SKILL.md # CHANGELOG.md # VERSION
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan
+219
-5
@@ -35,6 +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 +138,18 @@ 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.
|
||||
@@ -245,6 +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.
|
||||
|
||||
# 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.
|
||||
@@ -367,15 +418,174 @@ 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
|
||||
@@ -383,7 +593,7 @@ 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
|
||||
@@ -406,6 +616,10 @@ 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.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -126,45 +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.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user