mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-09-26 06:41:13 +02:00
v1.87.6.0 fix: make checks reliable and everyday validation faster (#2898)
* fix: acknowledge seeded plans before invoking review skills * fix: distinguish current plan input from conversation history * fix: keep hermetic plan reviews on manual permissions * fix: distinguish tool discovery from file permission ownership * fix: preserve initial plan mode in observation tests * fix: wait for scope decisions before writing review findings * fix: carry autoplan decisions consistently into review artifacts * test: retain native failure context in periodic assertions * fix: advance active file permissions before queued questions * fix: finish red-team attempts before retry and cleanup * fix: finalize plan format captures and judges before retry * fix: cancel setup-gbrain SDK attempts before fixture cleanup * test: select periodic consumers of the bounded attempt helper * fix native Bash permission cards and queued questions * fix: preserve independent decisions and review scope Keep CEO approach, engineering scope and outside-review choices from approving independent remedies together. Carry declared contracts through DX polish and resolve new gaps before editing the plan. Regenerate every host and retain existing stop boundaries. Validation: 654 focused tests passed across nine files; all-host generation passed. Full free and periodic validation pending. Co-Authored-By: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * fix: require approval before design plan amendments Align the Design review philosophy and rating recipe with its section protocol: resolve one proposed fix, then apply only that approved decision and retain honest scores for declined fixes. Validation: 469 focused tests passed across four files; all-host generation passed. Co-Authored-By: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * fix: observe native question completion before transcript persistence Match owned completion hooks to submitted choices, reject conflicting or late answers, and retain bounded failure evidence. * test: recognize review posture in acknowledged native questions Require the selected mode acknowledgement, a completed follow-up question, and its current decoded display while preserving existing posture assertions. * fix: preserve settled CEO choices and isolate pending remedies Resolve established approach gates with cited authority and keep independent fixes out of unrelated option commitments and plan amendments. * fix: carry approved DX choices through later review steps Choose documentation approaches within the accepted scope and map resolved confusion points without reopening them through a bulk menu. * test: handle native settings-file edit prompts Keep one-time owned-file approvals and retain the actual sampled Autoplan permission frame with its matching barrier state. * test: accept standard CEO reply directives with tuning footers Recognize the exact trailing preference footer and letter-list directive while preserving current-display and exact acknowledgement checks. * test: scope split reviewers to their generated plan artifacts * test: observe native Bash permissions and invocation results * test: handle owned Bash prompts during mode preference checks * test: preserve synchronous subprocess rejection in Codex fixture * Fix periodic review handoff navigation Recognize review-first and explicit manual-next-step labels while preserving exact action families, manual preference, and ambiguous-menu rejection. Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * Bind pending file permissions to distinct current targets Allow one captured file request to own the complete current dialog while unrelated file work is pending. Preserve same-path ambiguity, exact input ownership, and one-time grant checks. Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * Make paired CEO verification choices genuinely unresolved Start the positive control with proposed manual checks so its unchanged oracle measures two new coverage decisions. Preserve runtime contracts, targets, count bounds, and all assertions. Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * Keep CEO review options and verification within approved scope Audit every offered option for independent add-ons and keep new verification depth pending until accepted. Preserve already requested coverage and trace plan changes to the actual decision. Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * Assemble DX review artifacts before appending the final report Keep early DX evidence above decisions, update artifact sections in place, and append the report using the actual current file suffix. Re-read after deleting an existing report before choosing the append anchor. Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * Keep outside plan reviews exclusive and invocation-owned Follow one preflight-selected backend, terminate failed Codex work before fallback, and allocate extra prompt/output files uniquely. Consume only the current invocation’s completed output. Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * Select periodic completion evaluations for report writer changes Register the shared review resolver for eight missing consumers and regress selection for all nine completion cases without changing their IDs or tiers. Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * Keep permission ambiguity fixtures on the same normalized target Use distinct raw spellings of one target in the four negative fixtures so they exercise the normalized duplicate-owner guard after exact current-file disambiguation. Preserve the existing exception, no-input, diagnostic and cleanup assertions. Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * Clarify preserved contracts in engineering review fixture Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * Recognize the offered DX follow-up handoff Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * Check independent commitments before presenting review options Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * Keep Codex review output and status in one shell invocation Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * Distinguish seeded plans from reports written by a test attempt Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * Recover clipped Autoplan file approvals with bounded viewport resizing Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * Recover clipped Bash approvals before binding the complete command Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * Isolate setup message tests from the shared checkout Run the real installer in a temporary payload with private config, require successful completion, and guard source and binary contents and mtimes. Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * Fix periodic native permission and report completion handling Match the pinned CLI's soft wraps and clipped headings without granting from incomplete frames. Retire completed file requests, retain mode annotations, and ask section captures for a short final acknowledgement after their full report is saved. Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * Preserve review approvals and validate DX comparison artifacts Keep independent remedies and approved amendments explicit. Give the synthetic DX review its existing documentation and validate peer comparison as required analysis alongside four native decisions. Add positive and negative semantic calibrations while preserving review counts, model budgets and prompt size limits. Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * Make the five-finding CEO fixture's application boundary explicit Materialize the request adapter and service composition used by the synthetic payment application. Explicitly declare the revised unregistered-event and mail-telemetry assumptions while preserving uncaught handler errors, the original invoice path and all five unresolved findings. Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * Keep CEO state-path checks scoped to directory preparation Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * Use checked ports and bounded cleanup in pair-agent tests Discover the daemon port from its owned state file, retain startup diagnostics, and await failed-start cleanup. Add occupied-port, early-exit, deadline, and foreign-state regressions while preserving the existing HTTP assertions and hook budgets. Co-authored-by: Codex <noreply@openai.com> * Preserve queued edit identity and recover clipped Bash permissions Distinguish separately queued unfinished edits from mutation of one native tool ID. Keep grants bound to an exact owned request and reject reused IDs, ambiguous inputs, and competing owners. Support the pinned renderer's literal em dash and request a repaint when only the Bash card's top rule is clipped. Grants still require the complete fresh card and an exact native acknowledgment. Validation: 413 integrated parser/event tests passed; private repaint controls and joint source review passed. Full canonical suite and native periodic rerun remain pending. Co-authored-by: Codex <noreply@openai.com> * Keep periodic reviews within their approved contracts and deliverables Carry exact approvals through engineering review, preserve declared contracts when amending CEO plans, and keep prioritization at the requested decision level. Materialize the revised synthetic SDK reference contract while retaining the five original documentation gaps. Accept the observed semicolon in the finite DX handoff menu and register the direct source dependencies used by the engineering cases. Regenerate canonical review documents without changing model budgets, retries, count bands, or native completion assertions. Validation: all-host generation and 275 review, fixture, selection and parity tests passed. Full free-suite and native periodic validation remain pending. Co-authored-by: Codex <noreply@openai.com> * Keep Eng approval cadence and independence guards explicit * Accept ordinary punctuation in manual review handoffs * Recover file permissions alongside queued Bash calls * Carry approved DX work through later review findings * Clarify the synthetic auth internal failure decision * Bound the periodic DX fixture to onboarding changes * Recognize native Design review handoff labels * Hold scope in the integration-choice review fixture * Carry approved Design decisions through review evidence * Capture listener state when feedback reload fails * Exclude workspace caches before checking deprecated flags * Verify Design UI scope against a seeded review plan * Clarify plan review decisions and outside-voice approval flow * Reject setup menus in the Design UI gate * docs: require focused repair validation before final acceptance * fix: separate review commitments within existing prompt budgets * docs: align generation and contributor validation guidance * fix: advance native review prompts and count acknowledged findings * chore: bump version and changelog (v1.87.1.0) Co-Authored-By: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * chore: enforce cheap checks and side-effect-free validation previews * fix: handle owned Fetch permissions and oversized native cards * test: ground review fixtures in independent executable contracts * fix: preserve review decisions and verify reports before completion * test: construct the synthetic credential URL without a scanner false positive * test: materialize DX examples and verify their actual local behavior * fix: clarify CEO review decisions and execution order * fix: clarify review workflow ordering and select Design quality checks * Fix review decision gates and incomplete evaluation fixtures Persist CEO and engineering commitment ledgers before menus, preserve exact approvals, and distinguish implementation structure from feature scope. Route Autoplan through the canonical CEO Step 0 ordering. Classify DX findings before requesting approval and ground runtime claims in actual evidence. Complete neutral non-target fixture contracts and accept the captured Design handoff purpose without relaxing its ownership or acknowledgment checks. Record runtime-capability verification in AGENTS.md validation discipline. Validation: 1,335 focused tests passed across 21 files; build, all-host freshness, skill validation (647 artifacts / 107 tracked), and credential checks passed. Prior paid failures are preserved; behavioral acceptance remains pending. * Fix review decision boundaries and owned Read prompts Preserve exact approvals across review options, compare consistent DX milestones, and keep proposed implementation separate from review evidence. Bind modern Read prompts to one immutable native request and wait for its result. Retain captured regression verdicts, correct fixture error names, improve import probe diagnostics, and record focused-first validation discipline in AGENTS.md. * Clarify CEO and engineering review decisions Use explicit decision steps, one engineering ledger, and clear scope/write transitions. Preserve exact approvals and distinguish pending test requirements. Keep unrelated generated content unchanged. * Fix review decision ordering and native evaluation interactions * Clarify engineering decisions and test artifact order * Clarify pending choices and approvals in CEO reviews * Make CEO review phases sequential and clarify completion * Fix Design board submission intent matching * Seed an existing browser test baseline for Autoplan * Document decision-log payloads before state initialization * Preserve exact review scope and decide one change before drafting options * Require input identity before repeating passing model judges * Honor permitted storage throughout CEO review completion * Match complete native permission text within the pinned renderer contract * Align review approvals, independent choices, and bounded validation * fix: preserve reopened approvals and declare fixture interfaces * fix: isolate review artifacts and audit complete questions * fix: match detector artifact permissions to configured storage * fix: complete native permissions and review fixture workflows * fix: order CEO review work and separate engineering guarantees * fix: preserve native validation and separate review choices * fix: clarify review decisions and judge complete report context * fix: constrain review judgments and retain parse failures * fix: compare each affected value before review decisions * fix: make engineering review decisions and completion order explicit * fix: give the complete Autoplan evaluation a bounded chain budget * fix(cso): diagnose forbidden Docker endpoints before tool lookup * fix(reviews): reconcile workflow contracts and generated artifacts after main integration * fix(evals): migrate retained regressions to the native review harness * fix(tests): close native harness and workflow integration regressions * fix(evals): preserve complete permission context and native menu contracts * fix(tests): capture synchronous command output without pipe drain stalls * fix(reviews): clarify decision and completion ordering * fix(reviews): separate decision readiness from final completion checks * refactor(reviews): consolidate decision rules and completion branches * fix(plan-eng-review): order preparation and clarify decision routing * fix(plan-eng-review): restore size and question-format guard parity * fix(plan-eng-review): clarify scope phases and blocked completion * fix(plan-eng-review): unify review flow and report destination * fix(plan-eng-review): define bootstrap and question stage ownership * fix(plan-eng-review): clarify review structure and design lookup * fix(plan-eng-review): render report examples and show saved decisions * fix: consolidate Eng review decisions and select their evaluations * test: cover overlapping terminal attachments and clean merged runner type * fix: preserve Office Hours relationship closings during review updates * fix: retain pasted review targets across slash invocations * docs: preserve validation traces and correct release scope * test: cover pasted targets in both review skills * fix: validate report artifacts before recording success * fix: redact source roots at CSO report boundaries * fix: bind native Design questions before answering * test: select report privacy and native recovery regressions * test: bind rejection predicate in extracted observers * fix: bind complete boxed native questions * test: keep the Design UI fixture on native review * fix: preserve review decisions and evaluation completion outcomes * fix: clarify CEO approval and report completion order * fix: align native review evaluation ownership and completion * fix: bind review evaluators to native decisions and owned artifacts * fix: validate review decisions against native outcomes * fix: preserve review evidence and Autoplan phase handoffs * test: bind review evidence to owned decisions and completion * fix: retain owned native history across compaction * fix(evals): validate current review decisions and setup choices * fix: bind Autoplan reviews and phase completion to current amended input * fix: reconcile native review evidence and close Autoplan phases * test: recognize owned whole-candidate complexity decisions * test: preserve report freshness for approved investigation handoffs * fix: recognize scoped review findings and isolate dual voice fixtures * fix: make review handoffs and question dispatch self-contained * test: recognize complete CEO decisions and procedural pauses * fix: bind current CEO comparison options and risk intervals * test: bind engineering decisions and completion to owned evidence * fix: publish Autoplan phase reports before continuing tools * test: verify actual Autoplan dual-review dispatch evidence * test: select dual review when shared evidence fixtures change * fix: clarify plan review decisions and completion gates * fix: make CEO review decisions and return paths explicit * test: keep Autoplan prompt files inside attempt state * test: preserve source whitespace across permission dialog wraps * fix: publish Autoplan phase reports before continuing * test: recognize current CEO comparisons and reject inactive records * fix: reconcile engineering decision states before completion * test: recognize complete Design decisions and reports * test: verify current engineering decisions before navigation * Recognize source-owned component reduction choices * fix: recognize current CEO ledger and commitment grids * test: supply RequestPolicy context to Eng count fixture * fix: save complete engineering decisions before asking * fix: bind Autoplan publication to the complete phase readback * chore: prepare 1.87.5.0 reliability release * fix: clarify engineering review completion and preserve log failures * fix: bind CEO saved choices and current section ancestry * fix(evals): bind review execution and completion evidence * fix(plan-ceo-review): verify complete decisions before asking * fix(evals): preserve complete engineering choice records * fix(evals): preserve complete review outcomes and bounded fixtures * fix(autoplan): publish phase reports before advancing * fix(plan-ceo-review): validate option fields before asking * fix(plan-eng-review): verify current decisions after answers * fix(evals): bind review decisions and bound fixture scope * fix(plan-ceo-review): verify decision rows and edit saved checkpoints * fix(evals): bind review evidence and scope document lookup * fix(plan-eng-review): update resolution state with its answer * fix(reviews): preserve complete questions through dispatch * fix(evals): recognize completed mode declarations * fix(evals): define cache consistency at wrapper completion * fix(evals): validate owned initial scope and completed review handoffs * fix: assemble complete CEO decision fields before saving * fix: authenticate automatic mode decisions without guessing selectors * fix: bind engineering coverage to approved regression contracts * fix(evals): supply review helpers to native Eng capture * fix(plan-eng-review): preserve the full selected option scope * fix(evals): recognize owned engineering seed and regression evidence * fix(evals): bind engineering retry reports to native approvals * docs: clarify release guarantees (v1.87.5.0) Co-Authored-By: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * fix(evals): recognize owned engineering decisions and handoffs * fix(evals): bind engineering decisions and completion evidence * fix(tests): align review contracts and selection fixtures * fix(skills): restore review prompt size limits * fix(plan-eng-review): clarify review execution and completion * fix(evals): preserve configured retries through all supervision layers * Clarify Engineering decisions and report completion * Keep native decision assertions within their source boundary * fix: recognize owned engineering decisions and completed navigation * fix: bind completed auto decisions to their current review * fix: recognize explicit CEO source attribution * fix: dispatch verified CEO decisions without recomposing fields * test: expose existing execution deadlines to review actors * fix: distinguish CEO decision records from incidental headings * test: bind split-scope choices to the registered native actor * test: connect reviewed regressions to required evaluation coverage * Clarify CEO decision routing and completion stages * test: expose existing section review deadlines to fixture actors * test: recognize complete native CEO pacing inventories * test: exclude answered history from current CEO payloads * test: detect phase entry through owned skill HOME aliases * test: validate native review completion and owned report permissions * fix: make Autoplan close packets carry the parent handoff steps * test: assess source-bound HOLD decisions within the existing deadline * fix: keep CEO native decision fields under one formatting authority * test: register integrated review and permission dependencies * test: align native review adapters and finding coverage Preserve explicit AUTO decisions, apply native single-select defaults, and bind complete cropped questions and report permissions to their owned requests. Require seeded review findings instead of crediting setup menus. Keep captured failure controls and additive selection dependencies. The integrated candidate passed 3,099 focused tests across 65 files; affected paid validation remains required before publication. * fix(autoplan): require phase reports before advancing * fix(evals): bind setup and evidence to complete attempts * fix(evals): bind native answers and pending writes to fixture scope Preserve complete option rows when native descriptions wrap, retain current owned Write arguments before journal publication, and keep engineering and DX answers within their declared fixture interfaces. Add captured free regressions without increasing model budgets or relaxing completion checks. * fix(autoplan): verify phase reports across native tool paths Guard owned methodology reads and reviewer dispatches, detect complete driver loads through Bash, and distinguish report-only edits from implementation changes. Follow authenticated native UUID ancestry when journal writes arrive out of order and verify earlier native content for cached phase reads. Keep current close acknowledgment and parent publication in order, require CEO entry before later phases, and register captured failure regressions. * fix(evals): honor native input and collection lifecycles Match complete native Edit panes and truncated question borders, reject stderr close before EOF, and stop the CEO split fixture once its acknowledged scope decisions are collected. Keep semantic validation, process failures, report requirements, and absolute deadlines authoritative. Add captured-event and real-process regressions with selection dependencies. Focused checks pass; final integrated paid and full-suite acceptance remain pending. * fix(autoplan): retain native session ownership across directory changes Recover missed native UUID ancestry through the existing strict graph while preserving ordinary event order and legacy scoping. Bind publication hooks to Claude's original project directory while retaining current cwd for requested file paths. Captured public-event regressions, existing caller checks, and a pinned native CLI loopback verify both fixes. Preserve failed attempts and require fresh paid and final full-suite acceptance. * docs: align evaluation limits and completion version * fix(autoplan): allow authenticated phase reads during journal streaming * fix(evals): bind clipped native questions and owned edit dialogs * fix: preserve overlay retries and bounded cleanup * fix: recognize owned planning preludes in native questions * docs: explain overlay scheduling and cleanup guarantees * fix: require fresh publication after Autoplan phase reruns * Release gstack 1.87.6 * fix: preserve CI paths, process identity, and test deadlines * fix: keep informational setup commands independent of install probes * fix: clarify plan review decisions and bound source audit reports * Fix remaining Windows identity and native path CI failures * Clarify CEO review decision and reviewer-result routing * test: accept no-install planner in retry supervision * fix(ceo-review): make review decisions and report completion explicit * perf(test): add fast PR gates, input-keyed judge reuse and isolated free shards * fix(test): start isolated CEO smoke from its existing project plan * fix(test): repair CI fixture races and preserve retry evidence * fix(ceo-review): clarify approvals, depth and saved completion --------- Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan
co-authored by
OpenAI Codex
OpenAI Codex
parent
35dd014c58
commit
636175d349
File diff suppressed because it is too large
Load Diff
@@ -1,94 +1,159 @@
|
||||
## Review Sections (11 sections, after scope and mode are agreed)
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-skip rule:** Never condense, abbreviate, or skip any review section (1-11) regardless of plan type (strategy, spec, code, infra). Every section in this skill exists for a reason. "This is a strategy doc so implementation sections don't apply" is always wrong — implementation details are where strategy breaks down. If a section genuinely has zero findings, say "No issues found" and move on — but you must evaluate it.
|
||||
**Anti-skip rule:** Evaluate Sections 1–10 in full for every plan, including strategy,
|
||||
spec, code and infra. Run Section 11 if accepted work adds or changes UI screens,
|
||||
components, user interactions, frontend frameworks, user-visible states,
|
||||
mobile/responsive behavior or the design system. Otherwise record `SKIPPED (no UI scope)`. In evaluated sections,
|
||||
say "No issues found" only when there are zero findings.
|
||||
|
||||
**Carry decisions across sections.** Track each finding by its failure mode and
|
||||
individually approved remedy. Selecting a scope or approach alone does not approve
|
||||
every finding within it; each unresolved finding still needs its first individual
|
||||
decision, unless the user explicitly already approved those particular changes.
|
||||
Before raising a finding, check the existing contract and the
|
||||
user's earlier decisions. Present a complete remedy for that one issue, including
|
||||
the validation and failure observability needed to prove it works. Do not split
|
||||
those consequences of the same remedy into repeated approval questions. Keep
|
||||
independent issues separate, even when they affect the same component or test.
|
||||
**Use the review depth chosen in Step 0.** For scope prioritization, use each
|
||||
section to decide inclusion and feasibility under accepted constraints. Diagrams
|
||||
and maps must show candidate boundaries, failure mechanisms, feasibility conditions
|
||||
and unresolved risks. Resolve material blockers now; revisit priorities when new
|
||||
evidence changes them. Leave non-blocking implementation choices pending with an
|
||||
owner and required verification. Use Step 0's depth-expansion decision before
|
||||
designing endpoint, method or state-machine contracts beyond that depth. In strategy-only depth, use
|
||||
capability-level rows and "implementation owner must prove ___" notes instead
|
||||
of method-level registries. In implementation-ready depth, require the concrete
|
||||
method/codepath, contract, rescue and test rows. Report what is approved, what
|
||||
is verified and what remains unchosen; completing prioritization does not mean
|
||||
the implementation is ready.
|
||||
|
||||
When a later section encounters the same issue, verify and reference the approved
|
||||
remedy. Do not reopen it merely to restate the fix or suggest an alternative with
|
||||
no evidenced requirement. New evidence that leaves a failure mode unresolved
|
||||
still needs its own decision; explain what the earlier remedy does not cover.
|
||||
This does not approve an unraised finding or a new TODO: continue to present each
|
||||
new finding and each potential TODO individually under the rules below.
|
||||
**Preserve accepted requirements.** Compare the proposed implementation with
|
||||
stated invariants and acceptance criteria. Report gaps and propose remedies,
|
||||
including omitted mechanisms in HOLD SCOPE. Never weaken a guarantee, accept its
|
||||
violation or change a test to expect it. Low frequency, bounded impact and
|
||||
documentation do not meet stricter requirements. Changing a requirement needs
|
||||
explicit authority; until then, keep both the proposal and original gap unresolved.
|
||||
Carry prior approvals into findings, tasks and the report. Routine auto-decide
|
||||
cannot override user constraints or non-goals.
|
||||
|
||||
**Preserve accepted requirements.** Compare the implementation with the stated
|
||||
invariants and acceptance criteria. If they conflict, report an implementation
|
||||
gap and propose a remedy that meets the requirement. In HOLD SCOPE, that work is
|
||||
in scope even when the sketch omits the necessary mechanism. A sketch describes
|
||||
what is proposed; it does not authorize weakening the required behavior.
|
||||
Do not resolve the gap by rewriting the guarantee, calling the violation
|
||||
acceptable, or changing a test to expect the prohibited result. Low frequency,
|
||||
bounded impact, and documentation do not satisfy a stricter requirement.
|
||||
Changing a requirement needs an explicit decision under the existing approval
|
||||
rules; until approved, keep that proposal pending and the original gap unresolved.
|
||||
Earlier explicitly approved requirement changes and explicit authority to change
|
||||
that scope remain valid. Routine auto-decide permission alone cannot override an
|
||||
explicit user constraint or non-goal. Preserve the distinction in findings, tasks,
|
||||
and the completion report.
|
||||
## CRITICAL RULE — How to ask questions
|
||||
Follow the AskUserQuestion format from the Preamble above. Additional rules for plan reviews:
|
||||
* **One decision unit = one AskUserQuestion call.** Use Step 0D boundaries, not topic labels.
|
||||
* Describe the problem concretely, with file and line references.
|
||||
* Present 2-3 options, including "do nothing" where reasonable.
|
||||
* For each option: effort, risk, and maintenance burden in one line.
|
||||
* Before calling AskUserQuestion, draft the recommended option as a complete remedy
|
||||
for this one issue. Its offered description must state the rescue behavior,
|
||||
verification, and failure visibility needed for that fix. Include those details
|
||||
in the option itself. Omit irrelevant work, and keep independent findings and
|
||||
new TODOs in their own questions.
|
||||
* **Map the reasoning to my engineering preferences above.** One sentence connecting your recommendation to a specific preference.
|
||||
* Use the preamble's `D<N>` question heading and A/B/C option labels. Cite the stable ledger ID separately so a reopened question keeps its earlier decision history.
|
||||
* An "obvious fix" still needs approval when it is not covered by an exact accepted choice.
|
||||
|
||||
## Formatting Rules
|
||||
* Keep option labels short; use Step 0D's exact `currentDecision` fields for the question and option descriptions.
|
||||
* Use **CRITICAL GAP** / **WARNING** / **OK** for scannability.
|
||||
|
||||
## Mode Quick Reference
|
||||
|
||||
The mode changes which work is included, not review depth or section coverage.
|
||||
Apply the review and outputs to the accepted work in every mode.
|
||||
|
||||
| Step | SCOPE EXPANSION | SELECTIVE EXPANSION | HOLD SCOPE | SCOPE REDUCTION |
|
||||
|------|-----------------|---------------------|------------|-----------------|
|
||||
| Scope proposals | Offer additions individually | Offer cherry-picks individually | No expansions | Offer cuts individually |
|
||||
| 10x check | Required; additions need approval | Required; additions need approval | Skip | Skip |
|
||||
| Platonic ideal | Required | Skip | Skip | Skip |
|
||||
| Delight opportunities | At least 5, each opt-in | At least 5, each opt-in | Skip | Skip |
|
||||
| Complexity | Review accepted ambition | Review baseline and accepted additions | Simplest correct accepted scope | Minimum valuable scope |
|
||||
| Temporal interrogation (0I) | Run | Run | Run | Skip |
|
||||
| Separate CEO archive (0H) | Write | Write | Skip | Skip |
|
||||
| Future direction (Section 10) | Review accepted trajectory | Review accepted cherry-picks | Maintainability; no expansions | Maintainability of remaining scope |
|
||||
| Design (Section 11) | Review if UI scope | Review if UI scope | Review if UI scope | Review if UI scope |
|
||||
|
||||
All modes produce the review content. Save it to the permitted working plan;
|
||||
when no plan/report write is permitted, present it in chat as not persisted and
|
||||
end with completion blocked. The CEO archive is additional expansion-mode output.
|
||||
|
||||
### Working review decisions
|
||||
|
||||
At each section's **Decision gate**, follow Analyze → Resolve → Apply below.
|
||||
Continue the six-column ledger with each row's owner section. Review only;
|
||||
do not change code.
|
||||
|
||||
**Analyze.** Check input, source and actual approvals. Correct false claims and
|
||||
dependent test/runbook text without changing approved behavior. Preserve contracts
|
||||
and mitigations even if later text omits them. Flag approval conflicts. Unavailable
|
||||
code proves neither failure nor safety; record unknown risks with their owners
|
||||
and required verification.
|
||||
|
||||
**Resolve.** If this section needs a new decision or evidence warrants reopening
|
||||
one, complete 0D through its post-answer save, then continue to Apply below.
|
||||
Use the same row ID in the ledger, `currentDecision` and question; complete 0D's
|
||||
pre-question checkpoint before each new or reopened question.
|
||||
If all choices are settled, cite their exact answers and go straight to Apply.
|
||||
Resolve critical risks now. Reference other pending rows in their owner sections;
|
||||
do not decide them here. Keep independent safety fixes and throughput improvements
|
||||
in separate rows, following 0D's test table.
|
||||
|
||||
**Apply.** Check the saved plan against each answer's exact scope. Preserve existing
|
||||
content, approved behavior, required implementation, tests and success/failure
|
||||
contracts. Leave unapproved remedies and extra verification pending; do not put
|
||||
them into tasks or prescribe them in diagrams. If the plan already matches, do
|
||||
not save again. Correct discrepancies under the storage policy; if a correction
|
||||
needs approval, resolve it through 0D before repeating this check.
|
||||
|
||||
Record findings and dispositions, then review the next section. Do not write its
|
||||
conclusions or tasks before reviewing it. After Sections 1–10 and Section 11's
|
||||
review or no-UI skip, follow Closing sequence. Keep unresolved choices in the
|
||||
ledger and report; an approval is not proof of implementation or verification.
|
||||
|
||||
### Section 1: Architecture Review
|
||||
Publish **Current scope** in chat using the Step 0E mode-handoff format and the current ledger dispositions, including actual later scope-answer references. Retain mode, rationale and preference attribution. This updates scope after 0G; do not ask or log the mode again. Keep earlier answers as history, showing current accepted scope. Then say `Section 1: Architecture Review`.
|
||||
|
||||
Evaluate and diagram:
|
||||
* Overall system design and component boundaries. Draw the dependency graph.
|
||||
* System design and component boundaries. Draw the dependency graph.
|
||||
* Data flow — all four paths. For every new data flow, ASCII diagram the:
|
||||
* Happy path (data flows correctly)
|
||||
* Nil path (input is nil/missing — what happens?)
|
||||
* Empty path (input is present but empty/zero-length — what happens?)
|
||||
* Error path (upstream call fails — what happens?)
|
||||
* State machines. ASCII diagram for every new stateful object. Include impossible/invalid transitions and what prevents them.
|
||||
* Coupling concerns. Which components are now coupled that weren't before? Is that coupling justified? Draw the before/after dependency graph.
|
||||
* Scaling characteristics. What breaks first under 10x load? Under 100x?
|
||||
* Coupling concerns. What new coupling exists, and is it justified? Draw before/after dependencies.
|
||||
* Scaling characteristics. What breaks first under 10x and 100x load?
|
||||
* Single points of failure. Map them.
|
||||
* Security architecture. Auth boundaries, data access patterns, API surfaces. For each new endpoint or data mutation: who can call it, what do they get, what can they change?
|
||||
* Production failure scenarios. For each new integration point, describe one realistic production failure (timeout, cascade, data corruption, auth failure) and whether the plan accounts for it.
|
||||
* Rollback posture. If this ships and immediately breaks, what's the rollback procedure? Git revert? Feature flag? DB migration rollback? How long?
|
||||
* Production failure scenarios. For each integration point, describe one realistic failure and whether the plan handles it.
|
||||
* Rollback posture. If this ships broken, name the rollback path and time.
|
||||
|
||||
**EXPANSION and SELECTIVE EXPANSION additions:**
|
||||
* What would make this architecture beautiful? Not just correct — elegant. Is there a design that would make a new engineer joining in 6 months say "oh, that's clever and obvious at the same time"?
|
||||
* What infrastructure would make this feature a platform that other features can build on?
|
||||
* What would make this architecture elegant and obvious to a new engineer?
|
||||
* What infrastructure makes this a platform for later features?
|
||||
|
||||
**SELECTIVE EXPANSION:** If any accepted cherry-picks from Step 0D affect the architecture, evaluate their architectural fit here. Flag any that create coupling concerns or don't integrate cleanly — this is a chance to revisit the decision with new information.
|
||||
**SELECTIVE EXPANSION:** If any accepted cherry-picks from Step 0G affect the architecture, evaluate their architectural fit here. Flag any that create coupling concerns or don't integrate cleanly — this is a chance to revisit the decision with new information.
|
||||
|
||||
Required ASCII diagram: full system architecture showing new components and their relationships to existing ones.
|
||||
**STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If this section turned up zero findings, state "No issues, moving on" and proceed. If the section has findings, you MUST call AskUserQuestion as a tool_use — a finding with an "obvious fix" is still a finding and still needs user approval before any change lands in the plan. Do NOT proceed until the user responds.
|
||||
**Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.**
|
||||
**Decision gate.** Complete Analyze → Resolve → Apply above for this section before continuing.
|
||||
|
||||
### Section 2: Error & Rescue Map
|
||||
This is the section that catches silent failures. It is not optional.
|
||||
For every new method, service, or codepath that can fail, fill in this table:
|
||||
For strategy-only depth, map each retained capability, integration or data
|
||||
boundary that can fail. For implementation-ready depth, map every new method,
|
||||
service or codepath that can fail. Use the same table shape for both:
|
||||
```
|
||||
METHOD/CODEPATH | WHAT CAN GO WRONG | EXCEPTION CLASS
|
||||
-------------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------
|
||||
ExampleService#call | API timeout | TimeoutError
|
||||
| API returns 429 | RateLimitError
|
||||
| API returns malformed JSON | JSONParseError
|
||||
| DB connection pool exhausted| ConnectionPoolExhausted
|
||||
| Record not found | RecordNotFound
|
||||
| malformed JSON | JSONParseError
|
||||
-------------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------
|
||||
|
||||
EXCEPTION CLASS | RESCUED? | RESCUE ACTION | USER SEES
|
||||
-----------------------------|-----------|------------------------|------------------
|
||||
TimeoutError | Y | Retry 2x, then raise | "Service temporarily unavailable"
|
||||
RateLimitError | Y | Backoff + retry | Nothing (transparent)
|
||||
TimeoutError | Y | Retry 2x, then raise | Temporary outage
|
||||
RateLimitError | Y | Backoff + retry | Transparent
|
||||
JSONParseError | N ← GAP | — | 500 error ← BAD
|
||||
ConnectionPoolExhausted | N ← GAP | — | 500 error ← BAD
|
||||
RecordNotFound | Y | Return nil, log warning | "Not found" message
|
||||
```
|
||||
Rules for this section:
|
||||
* Catch-all error handling (`rescue StandardError`, `catch (Exception e)`, `except Exception`) is ALWAYS a smell. Name the specific exceptions.
|
||||
* Catching an error with only a generic log message is insufficient. Log the full context: what was being attempted, with what arguments, for what user/request.
|
||||
* Every rescued error must either: retry with backoff, degrade gracefully with a user-visible message, or re-raise with added context. "Swallow and continue" is almost never acceptable.
|
||||
* Generic-only logging is insufficient. Log what was attempted, with what args and for what user/request.
|
||||
* Every rescued error must retry with backoff, degrade gracefully with a user-visible message, or re-raise with added context. "Swallow and continue" is almost never acceptable.
|
||||
* For each GAP (unrescued error that should be rescued): specify the rescue action and what the user should see.
|
||||
* For LLM/AI service calls specifically: what happens when the response is malformed? When it's empty? When it hallucinates invalid JSON? When the model returns a refusal? Each of these is a distinct failure mode.
|
||||
**STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If this section turned up zero findings, state "No issues, moving on" and proceed. If the section has findings, you MUST call AskUserQuestion as a tool_use — a finding with an "obvious fix" is still a finding and still needs user approval before any change lands in the plan. Do NOT proceed until the user responds.
|
||||
**Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.**
|
||||
* For LLM/AI calls: handle malformed, empty, hallucinated-invalid JSON and refusals as distinct failure modes.
|
||||
**Decision gate.** Complete Analyze → Resolve → Apply above for this section before continuing.
|
||||
|
||||
### Section 3: Security & Threat Model
|
||||
Security is not a sub-bullet of architecture. It gets its own section.
|
||||
@@ -103,118 +168,58 @@ Evaluate:
|
||||
* Audit logging. For sensitive operations: is there an audit trail?
|
||||
|
||||
For each finding: threat, likelihood (High/Med/Low), impact (High/Med/Low), and whether the plan mitigates it.
|
||||
**STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If this section turned up zero findings, state "No issues, moving on" and proceed. If the section has findings, you MUST call AskUserQuestion as a tool_use — a finding with an "obvious fix" is still a finding and still needs user approval before any change lands in the plan. Do NOT proceed until the user responds.
|
||||
**Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.**
|
||||
**Decision gate.** Complete Analyze → Resolve → Apply above for this section before continuing.
|
||||
|
||||
### Section 4: Data Flow & Interaction Edge Cases
|
||||
This section traces data through the system and interactions through the UI with adversarial thoroughness.
|
||||
Trace data and user interactions adversarially.
|
||||
|
||||
**Data Flow Tracing:** For every new data flow, produce an ASCII diagram showing:
|
||||
```
|
||||
INPUT ──▶ VALIDATION ──▶ TRANSFORM ──▶ PERSIST ──▶ OUTPUT
|
||||
│ │ │ │ │
|
||||
▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
|
||||
[nil?] [invalid?] [exception?] [conflict?] [stale?]
|
||||
[empty?] [too long?] [timeout?] [dup key?] [partial?]
|
||||
[wrong [wrong type?] [OOM?] [locked?] [encoding?]
|
||||
type?]
|
||||
```
|
||||
`INPUT -> VALIDATION -> TRANSFORM -> PERSIST -> OUTPUT`, with shadow paths for
|
||||
nil/empty/wrong type, invalid/too long, exception/timeout/OOM, conflict/dup/lock,
|
||||
stale/partial/encoding.
|
||||
For each node: what happens on each shadow path? Is it tested?
|
||||
|
||||
**Async ordering:** For flows sharing mutable state, include a combined ASCII
|
||||
schedule with one column per operation and one for shared state. For each pair
|
||||
of overlapping awaits that can affect an invariant, show both completion orders;
|
||||
exclude an order only by naming the mechanism that prevents it. At each `await`,
|
||||
callback or job handoff: pause, let a competing operation complete, resume, then
|
||||
start a fresh consumer. Show the observed result and compare it with the exact
|
||||
caller/time boundary of the stated invariant. The invariant is a requirement,
|
||||
not proof that the implementation meets it. If safe, name the mechanism that
|
||||
prevents the violating schedule. Separate flow diagrams do not prove ordering.
|
||||
One favorable schedule is insufficient. Single-thread execution and atomic calls
|
||||
do not prevent interleaving across awaits. An accepted exception needs its exact
|
||||
contract clause; bounded damage is insufficient. Test the relevant completion
|
||||
orders with controlled pause/release points. Compare relevant pairs; exhaustive
|
||||
permutations are unnecessary.
|
||||
**Async ordering:** For flows sharing mutable state:
|
||||
1. **Define the boundary.** State the invariant and its exact caller/time boundary. Draw a combined ASCII schedule with one column per operation and one for shared state.
|
||||
2. **Exercise both orders.** For each pair of overlapping awaits that can affect that invariant, show both completion orders. At each relevant `await`, callback or job handoff: pause, let a competing operation complete, resume, then start a fresh consumer. Exclude an order only by naming the mechanism that prevents it.
|
||||
3. **Compare the result.** Show the observed result against the invariant. The invariant is a requirement, not proof that the implementation meets it. If safe, name the mechanism that prevents the violating schedule. Separate diagrams, one favorable schedule, single-thread execution and atomic calls do not prove ordering across awaits. An accepted exception needs its exact contract clause; bounded damage is insufficient.
|
||||
4. **Specify regression proof.** Test the relevant completion orders with controlled pause/release points. Compare relevant pairs; exhaustive permutations are unnecessary.
|
||||
|
||||
**Interaction Edge Cases:** For every new user-visible interaction, evaluate:
|
||||
```
|
||||
INTERACTION | EDGE CASE | HANDLED? | HOW?
|
||||
---------------------|------------------------|----------|--------
|
||||
Form submission | Double-click submit | ? |
|
||||
| Submit with stale CSRF | ? |
|
||||
| Submit during deploy | ? |
|
||||
Async operation | User navigates away | ? |
|
||||
| Operation times out | ? |
|
||||
| Retry while in-flight | ? |
|
||||
List/table view | Zero results | ? |
|
||||
| 10,000 results | ? |
|
||||
| Results change mid-page| ? |
|
||||
Background job | Job fails after 3 of | ? |
|
||||
| 10 items processed | |
|
||||
| Job runs twice (dup) | ? |
|
||||
| Queue backs up 2 hours | ? |
|
||||
```
|
||||
`INTERACTION | EDGE CASE | HANDLED? | HOW?`. Include Double-click/stale submit,
|
||||
navigate away/timeout/retry, zero/large/changing list, and failed/duplicate/backlogged jobs.
|
||||
Flag any unhandled edge case as a gap. For each gap, specify the fix.
|
||||
**STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If this section turned up zero findings, state "No issues, moving on" and proceed. If the section has findings, you MUST call AskUserQuestion as a tool_use — a finding with an "obvious fix" is still a finding and still needs user approval before any change lands in the plan. Do NOT proceed until the user responds.
|
||||
**Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.**
|
||||
**Decision gate.** Complete Analyze → Resolve → Apply above for this section before continuing.
|
||||
|
||||
### Section 5: Code Quality Review
|
||||
Evaluate:
|
||||
* Code organization and module structure. Does new code fit existing patterns? If it deviates, is there a reason?
|
||||
* Code organization and module structure. Does new code fit existing patterns?
|
||||
* DRY violations. Be aggressive. If the same logic exists elsewhere, flag it and reference the file and line.
|
||||
* Naming quality. Are new classes, methods, and variables named for what they do, not how they do it?
|
||||
* Error handling patterns. (Cross-reference with Section 2 — this section reviews the patterns; Section 2 maps the specifics.)
|
||||
* Missing edge cases. List explicitly: "What happens when X is nil?" "When the API returns 429?" etc.
|
||||
* Over-engineering check. Any new abstraction solving a problem that doesn't exist yet?
|
||||
* Under-engineering check. Anything fragile, assuming happy path only, or missing obvious defensive checks?
|
||||
* Missing edge cases: nil, empty, 429/timeouts and boundary values.
|
||||
* Over-engineering: abstractions for problems that do not exist yet.
|
||||
* Under-engineering: happy-path fragility or missing defensive checks.
|
||||
* Cyclomatic complexity. Flag any new method that branches more than 5 times. Propose a refactor.
|
||||
**STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If this section turned up zero findings, state "No issues, moving on" and proceed. If the section has findings, you MUST call AskUserQuestion as a tool_use — a finding with an "obvious fix" is still a finding and still needs user approval before any change lands in the plan. Do NOT proceed until the user responds.
|
||||
**Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.**
|
||||
**Decision gate.** Complete Analyze → Resolve → Apply above for this section before continuing.
|
||||
|
||||
### Section 6: Test Review
|
||||
Carry requested or approved coverage forward, including directly determined tests, without re-asking. For an unresolved test-method choice or additional verification scope/depth, name the distinct regression existing tests miss and resolve that choice through 0D before prescribing it. An approved runtime contract alone does not choose extra verification scope.
|
||||
|
||||
Make a complete diagram of every new thing this plan introduces:
|
||||
```
|
||||
NEW UX FLOWS:
|
||||
[list each new user-visible interaction]
|
||||
|
||||
NEW DATA FLOWS:
|
||||
[list each new path data takes through the system]
|
||||
|
||||
NEW CODEPATHS:
|
||||
[list each new branch, condition, or execution path]
|
||||
|
||||
NEW BACKGROUND JOBS / ASYNC WORK:
|
||||
[list each]
|
||||
|
||||
NEW INTEGRATIONS / EXTERNAL CALLS:
|
||||
[list each]
|
||||
|
||||
NEW ERROR/RESCUE PATHS:
|
||||
[list each — cross-reference Section 2]
|
||||
```
|
||||
new UX flows, data flows, codepaths, background jobs/async work,
|
||||
integrations/external calls, and error/rescue paths (cross-reference Section 2).
|
||||
For each item in the diagram:
|
||||
* What type of test covers it? (Unit / Integration / System / E2E)
|
||||
* Does a test for it exist in the plan? If not, write the test spec header.
|
||||
* Does a test for it exist in the plan? If not, draft its header within requested or approved coverage; keep new verification proposals pending until their decision.
|
||||
* What is the happy path test?
|
||||
* What is the failure path test? (Be specific — which failure?)
|
||||
* What is the edge case test? (nil, empty, boundary values, concurrent access)
|
||||
|
||||
For each behavior, name its observable assertion and a wrong result it rejects.
|
||||
First map it to the user's exact requirement or individually approved remedy.
|
||||
A stated outcome plus its retained caller contract can already determine the
|
||||
assertion, even without assertion syntax. Translate semantic counts, conditions
|
||||
and quantifiers exactly; selecting an existing probe or spelling out that check
|
||||
is implementation work, not another approval. Never weaken an exact count to a
|
||||
lower bound. Reuse these requirements without asking again.
|
||||
|
||||
Ask individually only for an unresolved behavioral choice, new outcome, or
|
||||
independent uncovered failure mode. Vague success labels do not settle values;
|
||||
scope/approach approval does not resolve an individual assertion gap. Helper
|
||||
coverage alone does not prove the caller's path. Explain what the existing
|
||||
requirement or approved remedy fails to cover before calling a check missing.
|
||||
Never silently add, defer or waive a missing behavioral assertion. Keep required
|
||||
behaviors mandatory unless the user explicitly approves changing them; honor
|
||||
previously accepted risks and equivalent caller coverage.
|
||||
For each behavior, complete this assertion check:
|
||||
1. **Map the requirement.** Name its observable assertion and a wrong result it rejects. Map it to the user's exact requirement or individually approved remedy. A stated outcome plus its retained caller contract can determine the assertion, even without assertion syntax. Translate semantic counts, conditions and quantifiers exactly; never weaken an exact count to a lower bound.
|
||||
2. **Reuse settled proof.** Selecting an existing probe or spelling out a determined check is implementation work, not another approval. Reuse these requirements without asking again. Verify the caller's path; helper coverage alone does not prove it. Honor previously accepted risks and equivalent caller coverage.
|
||||
3. **Resolve actual gaps.** Explain what the existing requirement or approved remedy fails to cover before calling a check missing. Ask individually only for an unresolved behavioral choice, new outcome, or independent uncovered failure mode. Vague success labels do not settle values; scope/approach approval does not resolve an individual assertion gap. Never silently add, defer or waive a missing behavioral assertion. Keep required behaviors mandatory unless the user explicitly approves changing them.
|
||||
|
||||
Test ambition check (all modes): For each new feature, answer:
|
||||
* What's the test that would make you confident shipping at 2am on a Friday?
|
||||
@@ -226,20 +231,18 @@ Flakiness risk: Flag any test depending on time, randomness, external services,
|
||||
Load/stress test requirements: For any new codepath called frequently or processing significant data.
|
||||
|
||||
For LLM/prompt changes: Check CLAUDE.md for the "Prompt/LLM changes" file patterns. 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.
|
||||
**STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If this section turned up zero findings, state "No issues, moving on" and proceed. If the section has findings, you MUST call AskUserQuestion as a tool_use — a finding with an "obvious fix" is still a finding and still needs user approval before any change lands in the plan. Do NOT proceed until the user responds.
|
||||
**Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.**
|
||||
**Decision gate.** Complete Analyze → Resolve → Apply above for this section before continuing.
|
||||
|
||||
### Section 7: Performance Review
|
||||
Evaluate:
|
||||
* N+1 queries. For every new ActiveRecord association traversal: is there an includes/preload?
|
||||
* N+1 queries. For ORM-backed data access, especially association traversal: does the plan preload/batch instead of querying in a loop?
|
||||
* Memory usage. For every new data structure: what's the maximum size in production?
|
||||
* Database indexes. For every new query: is there an index?
|
||||
* Caching opportunities. For every expensive computation or external call: should it be cached?
|
||||
* Background job sizing. For every new job: worst-case payload, runtime, retry behavior?
|
||||
* Slow paths. Top 3 slowest new codepaths and estimated p99 latency.
|
||||
* Connection pool pressure. New DB connections, Redis connections, HTTP connections?
|
||||
**STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If this section turned up zero findings, state "No issues, moving on" and proceed. If the section has findings, you MUST call AskUserQuestion as a tool_use — a finding with an "obvious fix" is still a finding and still needs user approval before any change lands in the plan. Do NOT proceed until the user responds.
|
||||
**Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.**
|
||||
**Decision gate.** Complete Analyze → Resolve → Apply above for this section before continuing.
|
||||
|
||||
### Section 8: Observability & Debuggability Review
|
||||
New systems break. This section ensures you can see why.
|
||||
@@ -255,8 +258,7 @@ Evaluate:
|
||||
|
||||
**EXPANSION and SELECTIVE EXPANSION addition:**
|
||||
* What observability would make this feature a joy to operate? (For SELECTIVE EXPANSION, include observability for any accepted cherry-picks.)
|
||||
**STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If this section turned up zero findings, state "No issues, moving on" and proceed. If the section has findings, you MUST call AskUserQuestion as a tool_use — a finding with an "obvious fix" is still a finding and still needs user approval before any change lands in the plan. Do NOT proceed until the user responds.
|
||||
**Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.**
|
||||
**Decision gate.** Complete Analyze → Resolve → Apply above for this section before continuing.
|
||||
|
||||
### Section 9: Deployment & Rollout Review
|
||||
Evaluate:
|
||||
@@ -271,8 +273,7 @@ Evaluate:
|
||||
|
||||
**EXPANSION and SELECTIVE EXPANSION addition:**
|
||||
* What deploy infrastructure would make shipping this feature routine? (For SELECTIVE EXPANSION, assess whether accepted cherry-picks change the deployment risk profile.)
|
||||
**STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If this section turned up zero findings, state "No issues, moving on" and proceed. If the section has findings, you MUST call AskUserQuestion as a tool_use — a finding with an "obvious fix" is still a finding and still needs user approval before any change lands in the plan. Do NOT proceed until the user responds.
|
||||
**Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.**
|
||||
**Decision gate.** Complete Analyze → Resolve → Apply above for this section before continuing.
|
||||
|
||||
### Section 10: Long-Term Trajectory Review
|
||||
Evaluate:
|
||||
@@ -280,15 +281,14 @@ Evaluate:
|
||||
* Path dependency. Does this make future changes harder?
|
||||
* Knowledge concentration. Documentation sufficient for a new engineer?
|
||||
* Reversibility. Rate 1-5: 1 = one-way door, 5 = easily reversible.
|
||||
* Ecosystem fit. Aligns with Rails/JS ecosystem direction?
|
||||
* The 1-year question. Read this plan as a new engineer in 12 months — obvious?
|
||||
* Ecosystem fit. Aligns with this repo's framework conventions?
|
||||
* The 1-year question. Is this obvious to a new engineer in 12 months?
|
||||
|
||||
**EXPANSION and SELECTIVE EXPANSION additions:**
|
||||
* What comes after this ships? Phase 2? Phase 3? Does the architecture support that trajectory?
|
||||
* Platform potential. Does this create capabilities other features can leverage?
|
||||
* (SELECTIVE EXPANSION only) Retrospective: Were the right cherry-picks accepted? Did any rejected expansions turn out to be load-bearing for the accepted ones?
|
||||
**STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If this section turned up zero findings, state "No issues, moving on" and proceed. If the section has findings, you MUST call AskUserQuestion as a tool_use — a finding with an "obvious fix" is still a finding and still needs user approval before any change lands in the plan. Do NOT proceed until the user responds.
|
||||
**Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.**
|
||||
**Decision gate.** Complete Analyze → Resolve → Apply above for this section before continuing.
|
||||
|
||||
### Section 11: Design & UX Review (skip if no UI scope detected)
|
||||
The CEO calling in the designer. Not a pixel-level audit — that's /plan-design-review and /design-review. This is ensuring the plan has design intentionality.
|
||||
@@ -310,62 +310,32 @@ Evaluate:
|
||||
Required ASCII diagram: user flow showing screens/states and transitions.
|
||||
|
||||
If this plan has significant UI scope, recommend: "Consider running /plan-design-review for a deep design review of this plan before implementation."
|
||||
**STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If this section turned up zero findings, state "No issues, moving on" and proceed. If the section has findings, you MUST call AskUserQuestion as a tool_use — a finding with an "obvious fix" is still a finding and still needs user approval before any change lands in the plan. Do NOT proceed until the user responds.
|
||||
**Reminder: Do NOT make any code changes. Review only.**
|
||||
|
||||
{{CODEX_PLAN_REVIEW}}
|
||||
**Post-Implementation Design Audit (if UI scope detected):** After implementation, run `/design-review` on the live site to catch visual issues that can only be evaluated with rendered output.
|
||||
**Decision gate.** Complete Analyze → Resolve → Apply above for this section before continuing.
|
||||
|
||||
## Closing sequence
|
||||
|
||||
Continue through the blocks below in file order:
|
||||
1. **Outside Voice:** run the configured review and resolve its findings through 0D. Record disabled or unavailable coverage and continue when no reviewer runs.
|
||||
2. **Resolve remaining TODO choices:** use the selected mode's scope rules.
|
||||
3. **Approval readiness:** check the ledger and record PASS before writing outputs. Its complete checklist is immediately after the TODO choices; no report or log is needed yet.
|
||||
4. **Required Outputs:** follow the three stages below: prepare the plan body and summary, save and verify the terminal report, then publish the summary in chat.
|
||||
5. **Cleanup and history:** perform permitted cleanup, attempt Review Log under the Artifact outcomes policy, then display the dashboard with the actual logging outcome.
|
||||
6. **Navigation:** choose Next Steps and any docs/designs promotion; queue the next skill. For a substantive answer, call 0D for only that change, repeat Approval readiness and Required Outputs, then repeat step 5. Resume navigation without asking settled choices again. Navigation alone does not reopen decisions.
|
||||
7. **Learnings:** finish learning and brain write-back. Return to this skill's main `SKILL.md`, at **Section self-check**. Its EXIT gate verifies completed work and saved readiness without asking again. After a passing gate, refresh the cache, run telemetry last, then exit or return to the caller.
|
||||
|
||||
### Outside Voice Integration Rule
|
||||
|
||||
Outside voice findings are INFORMATIONAL until the user explicitly approves each one.
|
||||
Do NOT incorporate outside voice recommendations into the plan without presenting each
|
||||
finding via AskUserQuestion and getting explicit approval. This applies even when you
|
||||
agree with the outside voice. Cross-model consensus is a strong signal — present it as
|
||||
such — but the user makes the decision.
|
||||
Apply Analyze above to each outside finding before adding it to the same ledger.
|
||||
Correct unsupported draft claims and preserve unknown risks. Reviewer agreement
|
||||
is not new evidence or approval. Reopen a choice only for a supported material
|
||||
risk, citing its prior answer and the new evidence; resolve it through 0D before
|
||||
amending the plan.
|
||||
|
||||
## Post-Implementation Design Audit (if UI scope detected)
|
||||
After implementation, run `/design-review` on the live site to catch visual issues that can only be evaluated with rendered output.
|
||||
{{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.
|
||||
* Describe the problem concretely, with file and line references.
|
||||
* Present 2-3 options, including "do nothing" where reasonable.
|
||||
* For each option: effort, risk, and maintenance burden in one line.
|
||||
* Before calling AskUserQuestion, draft the recommended option as a complete remedy
|
||||
for this one issue. Its offered description must state the rescue behavior,
|
||||
verification, and failure visibility needed for that fix. Include those details
|
||||
in the option itself. Omit irrelevant work, and keep independent findings and
|
||||
new TODOs in their own questions.
|
||||
* **Map the reasoning to my engineering preferences above.** One sentence connecting your recommendation to a specific preference.
|
||||
* Label with issue NUMBER + option LETTER (e.g., "3A", "3B").
|
||||
* **Zero findings:** if a section has zero findings, state "No issues, moving on" and proceed. Otherwise, use AskUserQuestion for each finding — a finding with an "obvious fix" is still a finding and still needs user approval before any change lands in the plan.
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Outputs
|
||||
|
||||
Write the prose sections, registries, diagrams, and Markdown Implementation Tasks
|
||||
below into the active plan file, reflecting only approved changes. Also show the
|
||||
Completion Summary in the conversation. The task JSONL artifact and approved
|
||||
TODOS.md updates use their explicit destinations below.
|
||||
|
||||
### "NOT in scope" section
|
||||
List work considered and explicitly deferred, with one-line rationale each.
|
||||
|
||||
### "What already exists" section
|
||||
List existing code/flows that partially solve sub-problems and whether the plan reuses them.
|
||||
|
||||
### "Dream state delta" section
|
||||
Where this plan leaves us relative to the 12-month ideal.
|
||||
|
||||
### Error & Rescue Registry (from Section 2)
|
||||
Complete table of every method that can fail, every exception class, rescued status, rescue action, user impact.
|
||||
|
||||
### Failure Modes Registry
|
||||
```
|
||||
CODEPATH | FAILURE MODE | RESCUED? | TEST? | USER SEES? | LOGGED?
|
||||
---------|----------------|----------|-------|----------------|--------
|
||||
```
|
||||
Any row with RESCUED=N, TEST=N, USER SEES=Silent → **CRITICAL GAP**.
|
||||
## Resolve remaining TODO choices
|
||||
|
||||
### TODOS.md updates
|
||||
**Keep the selected mode.** In HOLD SCOPE, a potential TODO must address an
|
||||
@@ -376,7 +346,12 @@ HOLD SCOPE. Still audit observability and performance against the requirements,
|
||||
and approve each real deferred gap individually. Expansion modes retain their
|
||||
expansion scan and opt-in ceremony.
|
||||
|
||||
Present each potential TODO as its own individual AskUserQuestion. Never batch TODOs — one per question. Never silently skip this step. Follow the format in `~/.claude/skills/gstack/review/TODOS-format.md`.
|
||||
Only unanswered TODO proposals reach this menu. Do not ask again about an item
|
||||
already deferred, skipped or kept; carry its actual answer and destination forward.
|
||||
Resolve each remaining proposal through all four steps of 0D, using the menu
|
||||
below. Keep its full comparison, saved question/options, Read-back and actual
|
||||
answer. Never batch TODOs — one per question. If none remain, record that and continue.
|
||||
Follow the format in `~/.claude/skills/gstack/review/TODOS-format.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
For each TODO, describe:
|
||||
* **What:** One-line description of the work.
|
||||
@@ -384,14 +359,72 @@ For each TODO, describe:
|
||||
* **Pros:** What you gain by doing this work.
|
||||
* **Cons:** Cost, complexity, or risks of doing it.
|
||||
* **Context:** Enough detail that someone picking this up in 3 months understands the motivation, the current state, and where to start.
|
||||
* **Effort estimate:** S/M/L/XL (human team) → with CC+gstack: S→S, M→S, L→M, XL→L
|
||||
* **Effort estimate:** Give separate human-team and CC+gstack S/M/L/XL labels.
|
||||
For a rough backlog estimate, start with S→S, M→S, L→M, XL→L. These are size
|
||||
categories, not time ratios. When work is decomposed into Implementation Tasks,
|
||||
estimate hours/minutes using that section's task-type ratios and actual work;
|
||||
use those estimates to refine the backlog labels.
|
||||
* **Priority:** P1/P2/P3
|
||||
* **Depends on / blocked by:** Any prerequisites or ordering constraints.
|
||||
|
||||
Then present options: **A)** Add to TODOS.md **B)** Skip — not valuable enough **C)** Build it now in this PR instead of deferring.
|
||||
Then present options: **A)** Add to TODOS.md **B)** Skip — not valuable enough **C)** Keep in the current plan as required work, only when it is already part of accepted scope.
|
||||
|
||||
{{PLAN_REVIEW_APPROVAL_CHECK}}
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Outputs
|
||||
|
||||
Complete these three stages in order. They separate preparing review content from
|
||||
announcing saved completion; no stage depends on a completion log written later.
|
||||
|
||||
### Stage 1 — Prepare the plan body and summary
|
||||
|
||||
Write the following sections, registries, diagrams, Markdown tasks and Completion
|
||||
Summary in the working plan from approved changes. Keep them before the terminal
|
||||
report. Task JSONL and approved TODOs use their specified paths, separate from the
|
||||
0H CEO archive. The prepared summary supplies the report's current facts; it is
|
||||
not yet a chat announcement of saved completion.
|
||||
|
||||
### Review facts
|
||||
|
||||
Derive facts from the approved ledger and completed sections: mode, findings,
|
||||
unresolved choices, critical gaps, scope dispositions and each outside attempt's
|
||||
coverage. Status is `clean` only with zero unresolved choices and critical gaps;
|
||||
otherwise `issues_open`. No report or completion log is needed yet.
|
||||
|
||||
Use these facts in the Summary, report row and Review Log. Artifact cells stay
|
||||
pending until confirmed writes, or not persisted when forbidden. A substantive
|
||||
late decision repeats readiness and recomputes facts before refreshing outputs.
|
||||
|
||||
### "NOT in scope" section
|
||||
List explicitly deferred and rejected work separately, with each actual answer
|
||||
and one-line rationale. Deferred work also goes to TODOS.md; rejected work does not.
|
||||
|
||||
### "What already exists" section
|
||||
List existing code/flows that partially solve sub-problems and whether the plan reuses them.
|
||||
|
||||
### "Dream state delta" section
|
||||
Where this plan leaves us relative to the 12-month ideal.
|
||||
|
||||
### Error & Rescue Registry (from Section 2)
|
||||
Match the approved review depth. For implementation-ready work, list every method
|
||||
that can fail, its exception classes, rescue status/action and user impact.
|
||||
For strategy-only work, use capability rows with failure mechanisms, user impact,
|
||||
known safeguards, and an owner who must verify each unknown before implementation.
|
||||
Do not invent method contracts. For one narrow decision, include only its dependencies.
|
||||
|
||||
### Failure Modes Registry
|
||||
```
|
||||
CODEPATH | FAILURE MODE | RESCUED? | TEST? | USER SEES? | LOGGED?
|
||||
---------|----------------|----------|-------|----------------|--------
|
||||
```
|
||||
Any row with RESCUED=N, TEST=N, USER SEES=Silent → **CRITICAL GAP**.
|
||||
For strategy-only rows, CODEPATH names the capability; mark unknown rescue/test
|
||||
coverage as unknown and name the verification owner. Count capability rows in the
|
||||
Completion Summary; implementation-ready reviews count method/codepath rows.
|
||||
|
||||
### Scope Expansion Decisions (EXPANSION and SELECTIVE EXPANSION only)
|
||||
For EXPANSION and SELECTIVE EXPANSION modes: expansion opportunities and delight items were surfaced and decided in Step 0D (opt-in/cherry-pick ceremony). The decisions are persisted in the CEO plan document. Reference the CEO plan for the full record. Do not re-surface them here — list the accepted expansions for completeness:
|
||||
For EXPANSION and SELECTIVE EXPANSION, reference the CEO plan's full 0G scope record
|
||||
under the storage policy. List its dispositions without asking again:
|
||||
* Accepted: {list items added to scope}
|
||||
* Deferred: {list items sent to TODOS.md}
|
||||
* Skipped: {list items rejected}
|
||||
@@ -410,18 +443,22 @@ List every ASCII diagram in files this plan touches. Still accurate?
|
||||
{{TASKS_SECTION_EMIT:ceo-review}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Completion Summary
|
||||
Fill this template from Review facts now, as part of the plan body. Artifact
|
||||
outcomes remain pending until their writes are confirmed. Stage 3 publishes it
|
||||
after report verification; forbidden writes stay labeled not persisted.
|
||||
|
||||
Use the full mode name from Step 0F; replace spaces with underscores only in the
|
||||
Use the full mode name from Step 0E; replace spaces with underscores only in the
|
||||
review log's `MODE` field. "System Audit" summarizes repository findings from
|
||||
Step 0 and the review sections. "Lake Score" counts complete options chosen
|
||||
out of decisions that compared a complete option with a shortcut; use `N/A`
|
||||
when there were no such decisions.
|
||||
Step 0 and the review sections. "Lake Score" counts complete options selected:
|
||||
Y is the number of answered coverage questions offering a 10/10 option; X is
|
||||
how many selected that option. Report X/Y, excluding kind-only and unanswered
|
||||
questions; use `N/A` when Y is zero.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
+====================================================================+
|
||||
| MEGA PLAN REVIEW — COMPLETION SUMMARY |
|
||||
+====================================================================+
|
||||
| Mode selected | [full mode name from Step 0F] |
|
||||
| Mode selected | [full mode name from Step 0E] |
|
||||
| System Audit | [key findings] |
|
||||
| Step 0 | [mode + key decisions] |
|
||||
| Section 1 (Arch) | ___ issues found |
|
||||
@@ -439,11 +476,11 @@ when there were no such decisions.
|
||||
| NOT in scope | written (___ items) |
|
||||
| What already exists | written |
|
||||
| Dream state delta | written |
|
||||
| Error/rescue registry| ___ methods, ___ CRITICAL GAPS |
|
||||
| Error/rescue registry| ___ rows, ___ CRITICAL GAPS |
|
||||
| Failure modes | ___ total, ___ CRITICAL GAPS |
|
||||
| TODOS.md updates | ___ items proposed |
|
||||
| Scope proposals | ___ proposed, ___ accepted (EXP + SEL) |
|
||||
| CEO plan | written / skipped (HOLD/REDUCTION) |
|
||||
| CEO plan | written / not persisted / skipped by mode |
|
||||
| Outside voice | provider + completed/unavailable/disabled/skipped |
|
||||
| Lake Score | X/Y recommendations chose complete option |
|
||||
| Diagrams produced | ___ (list types) |
|
||||
@@ -455,36 +492,50 @@ when there were no such decisions.
|
||||
### Unresolved Decisions
|
||||
If any AskUserQuestion goes unanswered, note it here. Never silently default.
|
||||
|
||||
### Stage 2 — Save and verify the terminal report
|
||||
|
||||
Use the prepared summary above, then follow this report procedure. Preserve the
|
||||
complete body and summary before the report; no new body section follows it.
|
||||
|
||||
{{PLAN_FILE_REVIEW_REPORT}}
|
||||
|
||||
### Stage 3 — Publish the Completion Summary
|
||||
|
||||
**Publish the Completion Summary:** After the report Read-back gate passes, show
|
||||
the prepared summary in chat with confirmed artifact outcomes. Do not append it
|
||||
after the report in the file. If no plan/report write is permitted, show the
|
||||
complete plan, report and summary as not persisted, then use **Gate outcome:
|
||||
Blocked**. This delivers the review content without claiming saved completion;
|
||||
skip Review Log, success telemetry and the next-skill handoff.
|
||||
|
||||
## Handoff Note Cleanup
|
||||
|
||||
After producing the Completion Summary, clean up any handoff notes for this branch —
|
||||
the review is complete and the context is no longer needed.
|
||||
After producing the Completion Summary, remove this branch's handoff notes only if the storage policy permits cleanup. Otherwise retain them and report that cleanup was not performed.
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
setopt +o nomatch 2>/dev/null || true # zsh compat
|
||||
# gstack-slug prints both SLUG and BRANCH; eval sets them in this shell.
|
||||
{{SLUG_EVAL}}
|
||||
rm -f ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-ceo-handoff-*.md 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Review Log
|
||||
|
||||
After producing the Completion Summary above, persist the review result.
|
||||
Attempt these history writes only after the plan/report's successful write and
|
||||
Read-back. A failed plan/report save or verification stops before this block.
|
||||
If metadata writes are forbidden, skip these commands and show their actual
|
||||
fields in chat as **not persisted**.
|
||||
|
||||
**PLAN MODE EXCEPTION — ALWAYS RUN:** This command writes review metadata to
|
||||
`~/.gstack/` (user config directory, not project files). The skill preamble
|
||||
already writes to `~/.gstack/sessions/` and `~/.gstack/analytics/` — this is
|
||||
the same pattern. The review dashboard depends on this data. Skipping this
|
||||
command breaks the review readiness dashboard in /ship.
|
||||
Both history commands below are best-effort under Step 0's **Artifact outcomes**
|
||||
policy. If one fails, retain its diagnostic, show its actual unsaved fields and
|
||||
continue; do not claim that entry was recorded. Display the dashboard from saved
|
||||
history, clearly identifying this run as unlogged when its review-log write failed
|
||||
or was forbidden. This differs from 0H's required spec-metrics write.
|
||||
This payload omits the dashboard's optional `plan_sha256`: use age for freshness
|
||||
without claiming a content match when no hash was recorded.
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-ceo-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","unresolved":N,"critical_gaps":N,"mode":"MODE","scope_proposed":N,"scope_accepted":N,"scope_deferred":N,"commit":"COMMIT"}'
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-decision-log '{"decision":"CEO review (MODE): SCOPE_SUMMARY","rationale":"VERDICT","scope":"branch","source":"skill","confidence":8}' 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The second command records the accepted scope as a durable cross-session decision so the next session sees what was settled (and why) without re-litigating it. It writes to `~/.gstack/` (same pattern as review-log), is non-interactive, and is best-effort (`|| true` — never blocks the review). Substitute `SCOPE_SUMMARY` (e.g. "accepted 4 of 6 proposals" for expansion, or "held scope" / "cut 3 items" for HOLD/REDUCTION) and `VERDICT` (the one-line verdict from the summary).
|
||||
|
||||
Before running this command, substitute the placeholder values from the Completion Summary you just produced:
|
||||
- **TIMESTAMP**: current ISO 8601 datetime (e.g., 2026-03-16T14:30:00)
|
||||
Substitute these values from the Completion Summary before running the commands:
|
||||
- **TIMESTAMP**: current UTC ISO 8601 datetime (e.g., 2026-03-16T14:30:00Z)
|
||||
- **STATUS**: "clean" if 0 unresolved decisions AND 0 critical gaps; otherwise "issues_open"
|
||||
- **unresolved**: number from "Unresolved decisions" in the summary
|
||||
- **critical_gaps**: number from "Failure modes: ___ CRITICAL GAPS" in the summary
|
||||
@@ -494,9 +545,16 @@ Before running this command, substitute the placeholder values from the Completi
|
||||
- **scope_deferred**: number of items deferred to TODOS.md from scope decisions (0 for HOLD/REDUCTION)
|
||||
- **COMMIT**: output of `git rev-parse --short HEAD`
|
||||
|
||||
{{REVIEW_DASHBOARD}}
|
||||
The second command records the accepted scope so later sessions can reuse it.
|
||||
Substitute `SCOPE_SUMMARY` (e.g. "accepted 4 of 6 proposals", "held scope" or
|
||||
"cut 3 items") and `VERDICT` (the summary's one-line verdict).
|
||||
|
||||
{{PLAN_FILE_REVIEW_REPORT}}
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-ceo-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","unresolved":N,"critical_gaps":N,"mode":"MODE","scope_proposed":N,"scope_accepted":N,"scope_deferred":N,"commit":"COMMIT"}' || { _CEO_LOG_EXIT=$?; echo "Review history not persisted (exit $_CEO_LOG_EXIT)." >&2; }
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-decision-log '{"decision":"CEO review (MODE): SCOPE_SUMMARY","rationale":"VERDICT","scope":"branch","source":"skill","confidence":8}' || { _CEO_DECISION_EXIT=$?; echo "Decision history not persisted (exit $_CEO_DECISION_EXIT)." >&2; }
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
{{REVIEW_DASHBOARD}}
|
||||
|
||||
## Next Steps — Review Chaining
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -522,14 +580,13 @@ At the end of the review, if the vision produced a compelling feature direction,
|
||||
- **B)** Keep in `~/.gstack/projects/` only (local, personal reference)
|
||||
- **C)** Skip
|
||||
|
||||
If promoted, copy the CEO plan content to `docs/designs/{FEATURE}.md` (create the directory if needed) and update the `status` field in the original CEO plan from `ACTIVE` to `PROMOTED`.
|
||||
If promoted and those writes are permitted, copy the CEO plan content to `docs/designs/{FEATURE}.md` (create the directory if needed) and update the original CEO plan's `status` from `ACTIVE` to `PROMOTED`. Otherwise present the proposed design document in chat, marked not persisted; do not claim promotion occurred.
|
||||
|
||||
## Formatting Rules
|
||||
* NUMBER issues (1, 2, 3...) and LETTERS for options (A, B, C...).
|
||||
* Label with NUMBER + LETTER (e.g., "3A", "3B").
|
||||
* One sentence max per option.
|
||||
* After each section, pause and wait for feedback.
|
||||
* Use **CRITICAL GAP** / **WARNING** / **OK** for scannability.
|
||||
## Learnings and brain write-back
|
||||
|
||||
Finish these review tasks without changing the plan. Then return to
|
||||
this skill's main `SKILL.md` at **Section self-check** for terminal verification.
|
||||
Success telemetry and exit happen there.
|
||||
|
||||
{{LEARNINGS_LOG}}
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -537,26 +594,4 @@ If promoted, copy the CEO plan content to `docs/designs/{FEATURE}.md` (create th
|
||||
|
||||
{{BRAIN_WRITE_BACK}}
|
||||
|
||||
{{BRAIN_CACHE_REFRESH}}
|
||||
|
||||
## Mode Quick Reference
|
||||
|
||||
The selected mode changes scope posture, not review coverage. Review every section
|
||||
for the accepted scope; Section 11 is skipped only when that scope has no UI.
|
||||
|
||||
| Step | SCOPE EXPANSION | SELECTIVE EXPANSION | HOLD SCOPE | SCOPE REDUCTION |
|
||||
|------|-----------------|---------------------|------------|-----------------|
|
||||
| Scope proposals | Offer additions individually | Offer cherry-picks individually | No expansions | Offer cuts individually |
|
||||
| 10x check | Required; additions need approval | Required; additions need approval | Skip | Skip |
|
||||
| Platonic ideal | Required | Skip | Skip | Skip |
|
||||
| Delight opportunities | At least 5, each opt-in | At least 5, each opt-in | Skip | Skip |
|
||||
| Complexity | Review accepted ambition | Review baseline and accepted additions | Simplest correct accepted scope | Minimum valuable scope |
|
||||
| Temporal interrogation (0E) | Run | Run | Run | Skip |
|
||||
| Error and rescue map | Full accepted scope | Full accepted scope | Full accepted scope | Full remaining scope |
|
||||
| Observability and deployment | Review all accepted requirements | Review all accepted requirements | Review all accepted requirements | Review all remaining requirements |
|
||||
| Separate CEO archive (0D-POST) | Write | Write | Skip | Skip |
|
||||
| Future direction (Section 10) | Review accepted trajectory | Review accepted cherry-picks | Review maintainability; no expansions | Review maintainability of remaining scope |
|
||||
| Design (Section 11) | Review if UI scope | Review if UI scope | Review if UI scope | Review if UI scope |
|
||||
|
||||
All modes persist approved findings and the required outputs in the active plan.
|
||||
The separate CEO archive is additional persistence for expansion modes.
|
||||
Return to this skill's main `SKILL.md`: Section self-check → EXIT PLAN MODE GATE.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user