mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-09-27 07:01:54 +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
+164
@@ -0,0 +1,164 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"transcript": {
|
||||
"status": "ready",
|
||||
"calls": [],
|
||||
"assistantMessages": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ee44396b-0d26-48b8-9521-c71a59ef6deb",
|
||||
"text": "Received. I have the draft plan (\"deterministic skill-list ordering\") in context as the review target, and I understand that for this invocation you want only the review-mode decision \u2014 no substantive review, Office Hours, or setup yet.\n\nStanding by for your slash command.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T06:54:01.741Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ee44396b-0d26-48b8-9521-c71a59ef6deb",
|
||||
"text": "Starting `/plan-ceo-review`. Running the preamble first.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T06:54:07.428Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ee44396b-0d26-48b8-9521-c71a59ef6deb",
|
||||
"text": "**Mode decision done: HOLD SCOPE** (auto-decided from your `/plan-tune` preference; question logged with `auto_decided: true`).\n\nStopping here as requested. Not run: Office Hours offer, routing-rules setup, Steps 0A\u20130D/0G/0I, the 11 review sections, and the review report. Not calling ExitPlanMode, since the review gate requires a terminal `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT` that doesn't exist yet. Skill-end telemetry is also held until the workflow actually completes (telemetry is off anyway).\n\nThe plan file records the mode decision, its evidence, and the pending list so the later review resumes from 0A without re-asking the mode. Note the target codebase isn't in this fixture repo (only `CLAUDE.md` and `PLAN.md`), so the substantive review will need the real source tree to trace the listing path.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T06:55:33.631Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"tools": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ee44396b-0d26-48b8-9521-c71a59ef6deb",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T06:54:09.847Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Uu3YwLP5mhkKkiA4GBA7fi",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "_SS=\"$HOME/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-start\"\n[ -x \"$_SS\" ] || _SS=\".claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-start\"\n\"$_SS\" --skill \"plan-ceo-review\" --model \"claude\" --parent-pid \"$PPID\" \\\n || echo \"SKILL_START: unavailable \u2014 stale install; run ./setup or /gstack-upgrade (preamble degraded, continue the user's task)\"",
|
||||
"description": "Run gstack skill-start preamble"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf6gKXMK9QLot3Pyn2m4n",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf6gKWpJpy7bq3fU1rKfB"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ee44396b-0d26-48b8-9521-c71a59ef6deb",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T06:54:11.675Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Uu3YwLP5mhkKkiA4GBA7fi",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "SKILL_START_PROTO: 1\nBRANCH: main\nPROACTIVE: true\nPROACTIVE_PROMPTED: yes\nSKILL_PREFIX: false\nREPO_MODE: unknown\nSESSION_KIND: interactive\nCONDUCTOR_SESSION: true\nACTIVATED: yes\nFIRST_LOOP_SHOWN: yes\nFIRST_TASK: \nLAKE_INTRO: yes\nTELEMETRY: off\nTEL_PROMPTED: yes\nSESSION_ID: 3494736-1789541651-45a4f3bb\nTEL_START: 1789541651\nEXPLAIN_LEVEL: default\nQUESTION_TUNING: true\nUPDATE_CHECK: false\nLEARNINGS: 0\nHAS_ROUTING: no\nROUTING_DECLINED: false\nVENDORED_GSTACK: no\nMODEL_OVERLAY: claude\nCHECKPOINT_MODE: explicit\nCHECKPOINT_PUSH: false\nGSTACK_PLAN_MODE: active\nARTIFACTS_SYNC: off\nGSTACK_INSTRUCTION_BEGIN: routing-injection 3494736-1789541651-45a4f3bb\ngstack works best when the project CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. If no CLAUDE.md exists in the project root, create it. Use AskUserQuestion:\n\n> gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules.\n\nOptions: A) Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended) B) No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually\n\nIf A: append this section to the end of CLAUDE.md, then commit it (`git add CLAUDE.md && git commit -m \"chore: add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md\"`):\n\n## Skill routing\n\nWhen the user's request matches an available skill, invoke it via the Skill tool. When in doubt, invoke the skill.\n\nKey routing rules:\n- Product ideas/brainstorming \u2192 invoke /office-hours\n- Strategy/scope \u2192 invoke /plan-ceo-review\n- Architecture \u2192 invoke /plan-eng-review\n- Design system/plan review \u2192 invoke /design-consultation or /plan-design-review\n- Full review pipeline \u2192 invoke /autoplan\n- Bugs/errors \u2192 invoke /investigate\n- QA/testing site behavior \u2192 invoke /qa or /qa-only\n- Code review/diff check \u2192 invoke /review\n- Visual polish \u2192 invoke /design-review\n- Ship/deploy/PR \u2192 invoke /ship or /land-and-deploy\n- Save progress \u2192 invoke /context-save\n- Resume context \u2192 invoke /context-restore\n- Author a backlog-ready spec/issue \u2192 invoke /spec\n\nIf B: run `/tmp/g-0rk78u4r/gstack-paid-shard-jw8AyJ/tmp/gstack-hermetic-3494590-UqVR5u/skill-home-OxOM0K/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set routing_declined true` and say they can re-enable with `/tmp/g-0rk78u4r/gstack-paid-shard-jw8AyJ/tmp/gstack-hermetic-3494590-UqVR5u/skill-home-OxOM0K/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set routing_declined false`. This only happens once per project.\nGSTACK_INSTRUCTION_END",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ee44396b-0d26-48b8-9521-c71a59ef6deb",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T06:54:39.581Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01WGtm9HPgAE3HUGpuErHF3d",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/g-0rk78u4r/gstack-paid-shard-jw8AyJ/tmp/gstack-plan-count-gl40TV/PLAN.md"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf6gLF54DqW8Yty2QySBH",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf6gLESLufvAtxRvnEDX6"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ee44396b-0d26-48b8-9521-c71a59ef6deb",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T06:54:39.599Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01WGtm9HPgAE3HUGpuErHF3d",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "1\t# Draft: deterministic skill-list ordering\n2\t\n3\tUsers compare skill listings in scripts and reviews. Make the existing listing\n4\tpath sort registered skill names deterministically before rendering them.\n5\tKeep skill membership, aliases, metadata and text/JSON output formats unchanged.\n6\tCover mixed-case names and differing directory enumeration order with tests.\n7\t\n8\tThis draft is the review target, not the current branch. For this invocation,\n9\tI want only the review-mode decision; I will handle optional Office Hours and\n10\tsetup separately, and run the substantive review later. No review mode has\n11\tbeen selected.",
|
||||
"file": {
|
||||
"filePath": "/tmp/g-0rk78u4r/gstack-paid-shard-jw8AyJ/tmp/gstack-plan-count-gl40TV/PLAN.md",
|
||||
"content": "# Draft: deterministic skill-list ordering\n\nUsers compare skill listings in scripts and reviews. Make the existing listing\npath sort registered skill names deterministically before rendering them.\nKeep skill membership, aliases, metadata and text/JSON output formats unchanged.\nCover mixed-case names and differing directory enumeration order with tests.\n\nThis draft is the review target, not the current branch. For this invocation,\nI want only the review-mode decision; I will handle optional Office Hours and\nsetup separately, and run the substantive review later. No review mode has\nbeen selected.",
|
||||
"numLines": 11,
|
||||
"startLine": 1,
|
||||
"totalLines": 11
|
||||
},
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ee44396b-0d26-48b8-9521-c71a59ef6deb",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T06:54:41.646Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_011NYbDJsp6TgmzXvNGoGyAS",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null || echo \"NO_REMOTE\"; echo \"---\"; git log --oneline -30; echo \"---\"; git ls-files | head -50; echo \"---\"; ls -a",
|
||||
"description": "Detect remote, list history and tracked files"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf6gLF54DqW8Yty2QySBH",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf6gLESLufvAtxRvnEDX6"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ee44396b-0d26-48b8-9521-c71a59ef6deb",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T06:54:42.749Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_011NYbDJsp6TgmzXvNGoGyAS",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "NO_REMOTE\n---\n2779a87 Seed review plan\n---\nCLAUDE.md\nPLAN.md\n---\n.\n..\n.git\nCLAUDE.md\nPLAN.md",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ee44396b-0d26-48b8-9521-c71a59ef6deb",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T06:54:43.521Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_014G1dGEwsKKew4saU1vJouc",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "printf '%s' \"Select plan-ceo-review mode: SCOPE EXPANSION / SELECTIVE EXPANSION / HOLD SCOPE / SCOPE REDUCTION\" | ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-question-preference --check \"plan-ceo-review-mode\" --summary-stdin; echo \"EXIT: $?\"",
|
||||
"description": "Check user preference for the mode question"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf6gLF54DqW8Yty2QySBH",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf6gLESLufvAtxRvnEDX6"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ee44396b-0d26-48b8-9521-c71a59ef6deb",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T06:54:46.609Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_014G1dGEwsKKew4saU1vJouc",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "AUTO_DECIDE\nEXIT: 0",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ee44396b-0d26-48b8-9521-c71a59ef6deb",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T06:55:17.000Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UCgxKyAiQkPnDABjM2CyCX",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-question-log '{\"skill\":\"plan-ceo-review\",\"question_id\":\"plan-ceo-review-mode\",\"question_summary\":\"Select plan-ceo-review mode\",\"category\":\"routing\",\"door_type\":\"two-way\",\"options_count\":4,\"user_choice\":\"HOLD SCOPE\",\"recommended\":\"HOLD SCOPE\",\"auto_decided\":true,\"session_id\":\"3494736-1789541651-45a4f3bb\"}' 2>/dev/null && echo \"LOGGED\" || echo \"LOG_FAILED (best-effort)\"",
|
||||
"description": "Log auto-decided mode question"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf6gNpBuy7X9moC4UftRa",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf6gNokNrBmwPqDeS1QHM"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ee44396b-0d26-48b8-9521-c71a59ef6deb",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T06:55:19.106Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UCgxKyAiQkPnDABjM2CyCX",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "LOGGED",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ee44396b-0d26-48b8-9521-c71a59ef6deb",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T06:55:26.891Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01AHKHrQ7jadSQNSaT2iPFvo",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Write",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/g-0rk78u4r/gstack-paid-shard-jw8AyJ/tmp/gstack-hermetic-3494590-UqVR5u/with-skills/.claude/plans/keep-this-draft-plan-foamy-newt.md",
|
||||
"content": "# Plan review: deterministic skill-list ordering\n\n## Context\n\nReview target is the draft in `PLAN.md`: make the existing skill listing path\nsort registered skill names deterministically before rendering, keeping\nmembership, aliases, metadata and text/JSON output formats unchanged, with tests\nfor mixed-case names and differing directory enumeration order. Users compare\nlistings in scripts and reviews, so nondeterministic order breaks diffs.\n\nThis session ran `/plan-ceo-review` for the review-mode decision only, per the\nuser's request. Office Hours, setup (routing-rules onboarding), and the\nsubstantive review (Step 0A\u20130D, 0G, 0I, review sections, report) are pending.\n\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| D-MODE (user, via /plan-tune preference) | Review mode. Goal type: fix/refactor of existing behavior (PLAN.md lines 3\u20136). Planned files: ~2\u20133 (listing source + tests), estimate, target codebase not in fixture | none | HOLD SCOPE | approved | `gstack-question-preference --check plan-ceo-review-mode` \u2192 AUTO_DECIDE, exit 0, session 3494736-1789541651-45a4f3bb. Scope: review mode only; approves no plan changes |\n\n## Pending\n\n- Step 0A Premise Challenge, 0B Existing Code Leverage, 0C Dream State, 0D Alternatives\n- 0G HOLD SCOPE checks (complexity, minimum change, invariants), 0I Temporal Interrogation\n- Review sections 1\u201311, required outputs, `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT`\n- Routing-rules onboarding prompt (deferred; re-fires on next healthy run)\n"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf6gNpBuy7X9moC4UftRa",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf6gNokNrBmwPqDeS1QHM"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ee44396b-0d26-48b8-9521-c71a59ef6deb",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T06:55:26.941Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01AHKHrQ7jadSQNSaT2iPFvo",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "File created successfully at: /tmp/g-0rk78u4r/gstack-paid-shard-jw8AyJ/tmp/gstack-hermetic-3494590-UqVR5u/with-skills/.claude/plans/keep-this-draft-plan-foamy-newt.md (file state is current in your context \u2014 no need to Read it back)",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"options": {
|
||||
"skillName": "plan-ceo-review",
|
||||
"sessionId": "ee44396b-0d26-48b8-9521-c71a59ef6deb",
|
||||
"commandStartedAt": 1789541641934,
|
||||
"now": 1789542229115,
|
||||
"proseQuestionObserved": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,199 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"provenance": {
|
||||
"source": "6aef8d74a7835a0986694d57d4fa5748ac960379",
|
||||
"actualRetryObservationSha256": "1d2518db0bb642603837871550e3266a08d33b3e813a6663b7848f27e32575f5",
|
||||
"ownedRetryStateSha256": "42d0526aac60cb483d84c74a4cfd0bcd8751b4f342292b5cdab54d01330a3529",
|
||||
"firstObservationSha256": "1a9f66b0ab7c3609c5242efe2502bb274e238b8eeafe7d1145077322d27009c6",
|
||||
"qualification": "Retry public events, measured session window and owned preference/log state are retained actual bytes. First declaration is a literal representation control; its deleted state was not reconstructed. Both original paid attempts failed and receive no verdict credit."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"retry": {
|
||||
"transcript": {
|
||||
"status": "ready",
|
||||
"calls": [],
|
||||
"assistantMessages": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "7d17117d-04c4-4665-8495-80dd7b6f780b",
|
||||
"text": "Received — I have the draft plan for deterministic skill-list ordering in context, along with your constraints: this invocation is a mode-only handoff (review-mode decision only, full mode name in the audit record's `user_choice`/`recommended` fields and in the public decision; Office Hours, setup, and the substantive review deferred). I'll wait for your slash command before starting or calling any tools.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T23:22:05.894Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "7d17117d-04c4-4665-8495-80dd7b6f780b",
|
||||
"text": "Starting `/plan-ceo-review` with the preamble.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T23:22:13.771Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "7d17117d-04c4-4665-8495-80dd7b6f780b",
|
||||
"text": "**Decision: HOLD SCOPE** for the deterministic skill-list ordering plan.\n\nProvenance: `plan-ceo-review-mode` preference check returned `AUTO_DECIDE` (exit 0), so the step-2 recommendation was selected automatically. Logged with `user_choice: \"HOLD SCOPE\"`, `recommended: \"HOLD SCOPE\"`, `auto_decided: true`, session `1027702-1789600938-8c9cfea5`.\n\nStopped here per your request. Not done, deliberately:\n- Office Hours prerequisite offer and the `routing-injection` CLAUDE.md setup (deferred to you; the setup gate re-fires next healthy run).\n- Sections 1–11, review report, and ExitPlanMode (the gate requires a persisted `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT`, so plan mode stays active).\n- Skill-end recorded as `abort` (mode-only run, telemetry is off anyway).\n\nOne thing to watch when you run the substantive review: the listing code isn't in this repo (only CLAUDE.md and PLAN.md), so the ~2-file estimate and the whole 0B code-leverage step need the real checkout. No durable learnings this session.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T23:23:28.931Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"tools": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "7d17117d-04c4-4665-8495-80dd7b6f780b",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T23:22:15.851Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UEc1T4PXUpSKJmMMkkPbeA",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "_SS=\"$HOME/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-start\"\n[ -x \"$_SS\" ] || _SS=\".claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-start\"\n\"$_SS\" --skill \"plan-ceo-review\" --model \"claude\" --parent-pid \"$PPID\" \\\n || echo \"SKILL_START: unavailable — stale install; run ./setup or /gstack-upgrade (preamble degraded, continue the user's task)\"",
|
||||
"description": "Run gstack skill-start preamble"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf7yffPo1q9zKbYP9Hahq",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf7yff6Rwwx83pdA55v5p"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "7d17117d-04c4-4665-8495-80dd7b6f780b",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T23:22:18.125Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UEc1T4PXUpSKJmMMkkPbeA",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "SKILL_START_PROTO: 1\nBRANCH: main\nPROACTIVE: true\nPROACTIVE_PROMPTED: yes\nSKILL_PREFIX: false\nREPO_MODE: unknown\nSESSION_KIND: interactive\nCONDUCTOR_SESSION: true\nACTIVATED: yes\nFIRST_LOOP_SHOWN: yes\nFIRST_TASK: \nLAKE_INTRO: yes\nTELEMETRY: off\nTEL_PROMPTED: yes\nSESSION_ID: 1027702-1789600938-8c9cfea5\nTEL_START: 1789600938\nEXPLAIN_LEVEL: default\nQUESTION_TUNING: true\nUPDATE_CHECK: false\nLEARNINGS: 0\nHAS_ROUTING: no\nROUTING_DECLINED: false\nVENDORED_GSTACK: no\nMODEL_OVERLAY: claude\nCHECKPOINT_MODE: explicit\nCHECKPOINT_PUSH: false\nGSTACK_PLAN_MODE: active\nARTIFACTS_SYNC: off\nGSTACK_INSTRUCTION_BEGIN: routing-injection 1027702-1789600938-8c9cfea5\ngstack works best when the project CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. If no CLAUDE.md exists in the project root, create it. Use AskUserQuestion:\n\n> gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules.\n\nOptions: A) Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended) B) No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually\n\nIf A: append this section to the end of CLAUDE.md, then commit it (`git add CLAUDE.md && git commit -m \"chore: add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md\"`):\n\n## Skill routing\n\nWhen the user's request matches an available skill, invoke it via the Skill tool. When in doubt, invoke the skill.\n\nKey routing rules:\n- Product ideas/brainstorming → invoke /office-hours\n- Strategy/scope → invoke /plan-ceo-review\n- Architecture → invoke /plan-eng-review\n- Design system/plan review → invoke /design-consultation or /plan-design-review\n- Full review pipeline → invoke /autoplan\n- Bugs/errors → invoke /investigate\n- QA/testing site behavior → invoke /qa or /qa-only\n- Code review/diff check → invoke /review\n- Visual polish → invoke /design-review\n- Ship/deploy/PR → invoke /ship or /land-and-deploy\n- Save progress → invoke /context-save\n- Resume context → invoke /context-restore\n- Author a backlog-ready spec/issue → invoke /spec\n\nIf B: run `/tmp/g-cwnk0pmy/gstack-paid-shard-ypi4Cy/tmp/gstack-hermetic-995234-TlfMl1/skill-home-yYeJrn/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set routing_declined true` and say they can re-enable with `/tmp/g-cwnk0pmy/gstack-paid-shard-ypi4Cy/tmp/gstack-hermetic-995234-TlfMl1/skill-home-yYeJrn/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set routing_declined false`. This only happens once per project.\nGSTACK_INSTRUCTION_END",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "7d17117d-04c4-4665-8495-80dd7b6f780b",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T23:22:37.985Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01MBKa6McdZE3dj9rZ86sMcZ",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "echo \"REMOTE: $(git remote get-url origin 2>&1)\"; echo \"HEAD: $(git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null || echo none)\"; git branch --show-current; echo \"--- files ---\"; git ls-files | head -50; echo \"--- TODO scan ---\"; grep -rn \"TODO\\|FIXME\\|HACK\\|XXX\" --exclude-dir=.git . 2>/dev/null | head -10",
|
||||
"description": "Detect platform, base branch, list repo files"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf7ygYtezX1heh1tS8w7a",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf7ygYdWymVqDC5GcpWy2"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "7d17117d-04c4-4665-8495-80dd7b6f780b",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T23:22:39.382Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01MBKa6McdZE3dj9rZ86sMcZ",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "REMOTE: error: No such remote 'origin'\nHEAD: none\nmain\n--- files ---\nCLAUDE.md\nPLAN.md\n--- TODO scan ---",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "7d17117d-04c4-4665-8495-80dd7b6f780b",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T23:22:43.322Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01B8AyyL7RVqZcz5mpAt5cvN",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/g-cwnk0pmy/gstack-paid-shard-ypi4Cy/tmp/gstack-plan-count-J1wRTD/PLAN.md"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf7yi7parg4EEDf7LtJag",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf7yi7VUktv6Tqf8468ay"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "7d17117d-04c4-4665-8495-80dd7b6f780b",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T23:22:43.344Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01B8AyyL7RVqZcz5mpAt5cvN",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "1\t# Draft: deterministic skill-list ordering\n2\t\n3\tUsers compare skill listings in scripts and reviews. Make the existing listing\n4\tpath sort registered skill names deterministically before rendering them.\n5\tKeep skill membership, aliases, metadata and text/JSON output formats unchanged.\n6\tCover mixed-case names and differing directory enumeration order with tests.\n7\t\n8\tThis draft is the review target, not the current branch. For this invocation,\n9\tI want only the review-mode decision; I will handle optional Office Hours and\n10\tsetup separately, and run the substantive review later. No review mode has\n11\tbeen selected. For this mode-only handoff, use the full selected mode name in\n12\tthe normal audit record's user_choice and recommended fields, and name it in\n13\tyour public decision. A menu letter alone would not identify the chosen mode.",
|
||||
"file": {
|
||||
"filePath": "/tmp/g-cwnk0pmy/gstack-paid-shard-ypi4Cy/tmp/gstack-plan-count-J1wRTD/PLAN.md",
|
||||
"content": "# Draft: deterministic skill-list ordering\n\nUsers compare skill listings in scripts and reviews. Make the existing listing\npath sort registered skill names deterministically before rendering them.\nKeep skill membership, aliases, metadata and text/JSON output formats unchanged.\nCover mixed-case names and differing directory enumeration order with tests.\n\nThis draft is the review target, not the current branch. For this invocation,\nI want only the review-mode decision; I will handle optional Office Hours and\nsetup separately, and run the substantive review later. No review mode has\nbeen selected. For this mode-only handoff, use the full selected mode name in\nthe normal audit record's user_choice and recommended fields, and name it in\nyour public decision. A menu letter alone would not identify the chosen mode.",
|
||||
"numLines": 13,
|
||||
"startLine": 1,
|
||||
"totalLines": 13
|
||||
},
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "7d17117d-04c4-4665-8495-80dd7b6f780b",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T23:22:51.248Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_011rwqteLkPzvCSGjKhvgHeE",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "printf '%s' \"Select plan-ceo-review mode for deterministic skill-list ordering plan (recommend HOLD SCOPE)\" | ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-question-preference --check \"plan-ceo-review-mode\" --summary-stdin; echo \"EXIT: $?\"",
|
||||
"description": "Check stored preference for the mode question"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf7yiQgqY5dxg613Lbcju",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf7yiQSCqLZMnhYk4gmKZ"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "7d17117d-04c4-4665-8495-80dd7b6f780b",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T23:22:52.300Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_011rwqteLkPzvCSGjKhvgHeE",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "AUTO_DECIDE\nEXIT: 0",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "7d17117d-04c4-4665-8495-80dd7b6f780b",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T23:23:13.394Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01KM2ZPCjiYeAjaeZhyEnUGQ",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-question-log '{\"skill\":\"plan-ceo-review\",\"question_id\":\"plan-ceo-review-mode\",\"question_summary\":\"Select review mode for deterministic skill-list ordering plan\",\"category\":\"routing\",\"door_type\":\"two-way\",\"options_count\":4,\"user_choice\":\"HOLD SCOPE\",\"recommended\":\"HOLD SCOPE\",\"auto_decided\":true,\"session_id\":\"1027702-1789600938-8c9cfea5\"}' && echo LOGGED",
|
||||
"description": "Log auto-decided mode selection to question log"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf7yj55ezMouAUvoF7y16",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf7yj4jpBMoTkQsyPVj1v"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "7d17117d-04c4-4665-8495-80dd7b6f780b",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T23:23:14.647Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01KM2ZPCjiYeAjaeZhyEnUGQ",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "LOGGED",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "7d17117d-04c4-4665-8495-80dd7b6f780b",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T23:23:19.548Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01C6sdbNSuCHH2v1bRUMxFC7",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-end --skill \"plan-ceo-review\" --outcome abort \\\n --session-id \"1027702-1789600938-8c9cfea5\" --tel-start \"1789600938\" --used-browse no \\\n --error-message \"\" --failed-step \"\" 2>/dev/null || true; echo done",
|
||||
"description": "Close skill session telemetry for mode-only run"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf7ykiXwq6dyYHiZaRMkb",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf7ykiDLaNxgijaJvmNij"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "7d17117d-04c4-4665-8495-80dd7b6f780b",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T23:23:20.776Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01C6sdbNSuCHH2v1bRUMxFC7",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "SKILL_END: recorded outcome=abort duration_s=62\ndone",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"options": {
|
||||
"skillName": "plan-ceo-review",
|
||||
"sessionId": "7d17117d-04c4-4665-8495-80dd7b6f780b",
|
||||
"commandStartedAt": 1789600926048,
|
||||
"now": 1789601513094,
|
||||
"proseQuestionObserved": false,
|
||||
"stateEvidence": {
|
||||
"questionId": "plan-ceo-review-mode",
|
||||
"preference": "never-ask",
|
||||
"records": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"skill": "plan-ceo-review",
|
||||
"question_id": "plan-ceo-review-mode",
|
||||
"question_summary": "Select review mode for deterministic skill-list ordering plan",
|
||||
"category": "routing",
|
||||
"door_type": "two-way",
|
||||
"options_count": 4,
|
||||
"user_choice": "HOLD SCOPE",
|
||||
"recommended": "HOLD SCOPE",
|
||||
"auto_decided": true,
|
||||
"session_id": "1027702-1789600938-8c9cfea5",
|
||||
"source": "agent",
|
||||
"followed_recommendation": true,
|
||||
"ts": "2026-09-16T23:23:14.637Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
"firstDeclaration": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "aaaae645-dfdd-4d90-b936-9cdccef8ea6d",
|
||||
"text": "**Decision: review mode is HOLD SCOPE** for the deterministic skill-list ordering plan. Auto-decided from your stored `plan-ceo-review-mode` preference (check exited 0 with `AUTO_DECIDE`); the recommendation it confirmed came from the fix/refactor rule, since the plan corrects existing behavior and freezes membership, aliases, metadata and output formats. Estimated 2–3 changed files, well under the reduction threshold.\n\n**Recorded:**\n- Audit record logged via `gstack-question-log`: `question_id: plan-ceo-review-mode`, `user_choice: HOLD SCOPE`, `recommended: HOLD SCOPE`, `auto_decided: true`.\n- Working plan with Step 0 evidence (0A–0E), audit findings and a two-row ledger written to `.claude/plans/keep-this-draft-plan-parallel-rivest.md`. Two pending design rows for the substantive review: R1 (exact sort key for mixed-case names, locale independence) and R2 (JSON output shape, whether keyed-object order also needs sorting).\n- Skill-end telemetry logged with `outcome=abort` since the review workflow was deliberately ended at mode selection, not completed.\n\n**Skipped, by your instruction:** Office Hours offer, `routing-injection` CLAUDE.md setup, cross-project learnings prompt. Landscape web research skipped as immaterial to this decision (Aside not installed).\n\n**Not done:** the 11-section review, required outputs and `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT`. The exit-plan-mode gate was not attempted and ExitPlanMode was not called. No durable learnings this session.\n\nStatus: **DONE** for the mode-only handoff. When you're ready, re-invoke `/plan-ceo-review` and it will pick up the HOLD SCOPE route (0G → 0I → review sections) from the working plan.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T23:14:43.895Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,208 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"provenance": {
|
||||
"source": "043a75b461e35ee6836cebf0633c58d87ed16126",
|
||||
"runId": "ship-all-043a75b4-462f1a9f-b669-46e7-be4e-bcbbd18ee174",
|
||||
"attempt": "plan-ceo-review-1789556788212-3aA2I5",
|
||||
"outcome": "timeout",
|
||||
"publicCaptureSha256": "4d827b11207855bb0c7ce7972364ce17d953465a8f25da891b6e833b9c9e4d48",
|
||||
"qualification": "Exact public messages and tool events; no question-log file was retained. Tests provide a separately labeled synthetic owned-file witness, not a retrospective paid pass."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"transcript": {
|
||||
"status": "ready",
|
||||
"calls": [],
|
||||
"assistantMessages": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9f796d40-55de-43d9-abc8-7002fd5fec7f",
|
||||
"text": "Received. I have the draft plan — deterministic skill-list ordering: sort registered skill names before rendering in the existing listing path, keep membership/aliases/metadata/text+JSON output unchanged, add tests for mixed-case names and differing directory enumeration order. Noted that this draft is the review target (not the current branch), that you want only the review-mode decision for this invocation, and that no review mode has been selected yet.\n\nWaiting for your slash command.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T10:56:41.760Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9f796d40-55de-43d9-abc8-7002fd5fec7f",
|
||||
"text": "Running the /plan-ceo-review preamble first.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T10:56:47.113Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9f796d40-55de-43d9-abc8-7002fd5fec7f",
|
||||
"text": "**Review mode: HOLD SCOPE** — auto-decided from your stored `plan-ceo-review-mode` preference (`AUTO_DECIDE`), recommendation derived from the plan being a fix/refactor of existing behavior across ~2 files. Recorded as ledger row D1 in the working plan file at `.claude/plans/keep-this-draft-plan-cheeky-lerdorf.md`, with the draft plan, stated limits, and mode provenance.\n\n**STATUS: DONE** for the requested scope (mode decision only).\n\nDeferred at your instruction, not skipped silently:\n- Office Hours / design-doc offer.\n- Setup prompts that fired: CLAUDE.md skill-routing rules (also blocked by plan mode's no-edit rule) and the cross-project-learnings config. Both gates are marker-based and will re-fire on the next run.\n- The substantive review (system audit against the real target repo, 0A–0C, 0G HOLD checks, 0I, Sections 1–11, `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT`). Not run, so I did not call ExitPlanMode; the plan file notes the exit gate is not yet satisfied.\n\nQuestion decision logged (`auto_decided: true`); skill-end telemetry recorded. No durable learnings this session.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T10:58:30.436Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"planReadyRequests": []
|
||||
},
|
||||
"tools": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9f796d40-55de-43d9-abc8-7002fd5fec7f",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T10:56:49.261Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_015WuDn8gUUQwFrhCd9mBwZK",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "_SS=\"$HOME/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-start\"\n[ -x \"$_SS\" ] || _SS=\".claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-start\"\n\"$_SS\" --skill \"plan-ceo-review\" --model \"claude\" --parent-pid \"$PPID\" \\\n || echo \"SKILL_START: unavailable — stale install; run ./setup or /gstack-upgrade (preamble degraded, continue the user's task)\"",
|
||||
"description": "Run gstack skill-start preamble"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf6zpnEuxNRV2MEa7p3Az",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf6zpmn8PCBpNps2S9mYY"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9f796d40-55de-43d9-abc8-7002fd5fec7f",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T10:56:50.999Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_015WuDn8gUUQwFrhCd9mBwZK",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "SKILL_START_PROTO: 1\nBRANCH: main\nPROACTIVE: true\nPROACTIVE_PROMPTED: yes\nSKILL_PREFIX: false\nREPO_MODE: unknown\nSESSION_KIND: interactive\nCONDUCTOR_SESSION: true\nACTIVATED: yes\nFIRST_LOOP_SHOWN: yes\nFIRST_TASK: \nLAKE_INTRO: yes\nTELEMETRY: off\nTEL_PROMPTED: yes\nSESSION_ID: 11077-1789556210-f86a3cad\nTEL_START: 1789556210\nEXPLAIN_LEVEL: default\nQUESTION_TUNING: true\nUPDATE_CHECK: false\nLEARNINGS: 0\nHAS_ROUTING: no\nROUTING_DECLINED: false\nVENDORED_GSTACK: no\nMODEL_OVERLAY: claude\nCHECKPOINT_MODE: explicit\nCHECKPOINT_PUSH: false\nGSTACK_PLAN_MODE: active\nARTIFACTS_SYNC: off\nGSTACK_INSTRUCTION_BEGIN: routing-injection 11077-1789556210-f86a3cad\ngstack works best when the project CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. If no CLAUDE.md exists in the project root, create it. Use AskUserQuestion:\n\n> gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules.\n\nOptions: A) Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended) B) No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually\n\nIf A: append this section to the end of CLAUDE.md, then commit it (`git add CLAUDE.md && git commit -m \"chore: add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md\"`):\n\n## Skill routing\n\nWhen the user's request matches an available skill, invoke it via the Skill tool. When in doubt, invoke the skill.\n\nKey routing rules:\n- Product ideas/brainstorming → invoke /office-hours\n- Strategy/scope → invoke /plan-ceo-review\n- Architecture → invoke /plan-eng-review\n- Design system/plan review → invoke /design-consultation or /plan-design-review\n- Full review pipeline → invoke /autoplan\n- Bugs/errors → invoke /investigate\n- QA/testing site behavior → invoke /qa or /qa-only\n- Code review/diff check → invoke /review\n- Visual polish → invoke /design-review\n- Ship/deploy/PR → invoke /ship or /land-and-deploy\n- Save progress → invoke /context-save\n- Resume context → invoke /context-restore\n- Author a backlog-ready spec/issue → invoke /spec\n\nIf B: run `/tmp/g-q50pz9gl/gstack-paid-shard-5hQylt/tmp/gstack-hermetic-10931-KbhuIv/skill-home-3b8YQx/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set routing_declined true` and say they can re-enable with `/tmp/g-q50pz9gl/gstack-paid-shard-5hQylt/tmp/gstack-hermetic-10931-KbhuIv/skill-home-3b8YQx/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set routing_declined false`. This only happens once per project.\nGSTACK_INSTRUCTION_END",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9f796d40-55de-43d9-abc8-7002fd5fec7f",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T10:57:14.310Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_013DpdbERXSbhaLk6tqRHUdc",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "echo \"--- remote ---\"; git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null || echo \"no remote\"; echo \"--- log ---\"; git log --oneline -30; echo \"--- stash ---\"; git stash list; echo \"--- files ---\"; git ls-files | head -50; echo \"--- todos ---\"; grep -rn \"TODO\\|FIXME\\|HACK\\|XXX\" -l --exclude-dir=node_modules --exclude-dir=vendor --exclude-dir=.git . 2>/dev/null | head -30",
|
||||
"description": "Audit repo state, history and file list"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf6zqT7FJ5AA5LRr7AoNL",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf6zqSY25s29ZEMCZX2cp"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9f796d40-55de-43d9-abc8-7002fd5fec7f",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T10:57:16.359Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_013DpdbERXSbhaLk6tqRHUdc",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "--- remote ---\nno remote\n--- log ---\nce7e491 Seed review plan\n--- stash ---\n--- files ---\nCLAUDE.md\nPLAN.md\n--- todos ---",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9f796d40-55de-43d9-abc8-7002fd5fec7f",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T10:57:20.541Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_017ufEb6b8BhteKzU1HRCCSv",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/g-q50pz9gl/gstack-paid-shard-5hQylt/tmp/gstack-plan-count-dFbJ2H/PLAN.md"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf6zsKc7JAStTnfcDXbBA",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf6zsJzQF6dm3ZUV8vofL"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9f796d40-55de-43d9-abc8-7002fd5fec7f",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T10:57:20.563Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_017ufEb6b8BhteKzU1HRCCSv",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "1\t# Draft: deterministic skill-list ordering\n2\t\n3\tUsers compare skill listings in scripts and reviews. Make the existing listing\n4\tpath sort registered skill names deterministically before rendering them.\n5\tKeep skill membership, aliases, metadata and text/JSON output formats unchanged.\n6\tCover mixed-case names and differing directory enumeration order with tests.\n7\t\n8\tThis draft is the review target, not the current branch. For this invocation,\n9\tI want only the review-mode decision; I will handle optional Office Hours and\n10\tsetup separately, and run the substantive review later. No review mode has\n11\tbeen selected.",
|
||||
"file": {
|
||||
"filePath": "/tmp/g-q50pz9gl/gstack-paid-shard-5hQylt/tmp/gstack-plan-count-dFbJ2H/PLAN.md",
|
||||
"content": "# Draft: deterministic skill-list ordering\n\nUsers compare skill listings in scripts and reviews. Make the existing listing\npath sort registered skill names deterministically before rendering them.\nKeep skill membership, aliases, metadata and text/JSON output formats unchanged.\nCover mixed-case names and differing directory enumeration order with tests.\n\nThis draft is the review target, not the current branch. For this invocation,\nI want only the review-mode decision; I will handle optional Office Hours and\nsetup separately, and run the substantive review later. No review mode has\nbeen selected.",
|
||||
"numLines": 11,
|
||||
"startLine": 1,
|
||||
"totalLines": 11
|
||||
},
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9f796d40-55de-43d9-abc8-7002fd5fec7f",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T10:57:25.331Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01YS6e8Cd4apwcB4uVLnHKTn",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "printf '%s' \"Which review mode should /plan-ceo-review use for the deterministic skill-list ordering plan\" | ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-question-preference --check \"plan-ceo-review-mode\" --summary-stdin; echo \"EXIT: $?\"",
|
||||
"description": "Check stored preference for review-mode question"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf6zsdSfK4f4biXzX7t8w",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf6zsd1NC2JRMuQTmungP"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9f796d40-55de-43d9-abc8-7002fd5fec7f",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T10:57:26.469Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01YS6e8Cd4apwcB4uVLnHKTn",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "AUTO_DECIDE\nEXIT: 0",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9f796d40-55de-43d9-abc8-7002fd5fec7f",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T10:58:07.949Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01X8KfCh4G15KGJ4DwURvoAg",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Write",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/g-q50pz9gl/gstack-paid-shard-5hQylt/tmp/gstack-hermetic-10931-KbhuIv/with-skills/.claude/plans/keep-this-draft-plan-cheeky-lerdorf.md",
|
||||
"content": "# Working plan: deterministic skill-list ordering\n\n## Context\n\nUsers diff skill listings in scripts and reviews. Today the listing renders\nregistered skill names in whatever order the registry/directory enumeration\nyields, so identical installs can print different orders and spurious diffs.\nThe fix: sort registered skill names deterministically in the existing listing\npath before rendering. Skill membership, aliases, metadata and the text/JSON\noutput formats stay unchanged. Tests must cover mixed-case names and differing\ndirectory enumeration order.\n\nSource: PLAN.md (repo root, commit ce7e491). This draft is the review target;\nthe current branch (`main`, fixture repo with only CLAUDE.md + PLAN.md) is not.\n\n## Draft plan under review (verbatim)\n\n> Users compare skill listings in scripts and reviews. Make the existing listing\n> path sort registered skill names deterministically before rendering them.\n> Keep skill membership, aliases, metadata and text/JSON output formats unchanged.\n> Cover mixed-case names and differing directory enumeration order with tests.\n\n## Stated limits (carried forward unchanged)\n\n| Measure | Value | Source |\n|---|---|---|\n| Sort target | registered skill names, in the existing listing path | PLAN.md L3-4 |\n| Invariants | membership, aliases, metadata, text + JSON formats unchanged | PLAN.md L5 |\n| Required tests | mixed-case names; differing directory enumeration order | PLAN.md L6 |\n| Planned changed files | ~2 (listing module edit + test file) — ESTIMATE, target code not in this repo | derived |\n\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| D1 (user) — /plan-ceo-review mode | 0E step 2: ~2 planned files (estimate) ≤ 15; goal = correcting existing listing behavior (fix/refactor). Preference check `plan-ceo-review-mode` → `AUTO_DECIDE`, exit 0 (2026-09-16). | none selected (PLAN.md L10-11) | HOLD SCOPE (recommended); alternatives SCOPE EXPANSION / SELECTIVE EXPANSION / SCOPE REDUCTION | approved | Auto-decided via stored user preference (`AUTO_DECIDE` on `plan-ceo-review-mode`). Scope: review mode for this plan only. Change with /plan-tune. |\n\n## Mode selection record\n\n- **Mode:** HOLD SCOPE\n- **Provenance:** successful preference check (`gstack-question-preference --check plan-ceo-review-mode` → `AUTO_DECIDE`); recommendation derived from 0E step 2 (fix/refactor, ~2 files). No question was asked. Logged as `auto_decided: true`.\n- **Rationale:** the plan corrects existing behavior in an existing code path with explicit invariants (formats, membership, aliases, metadata unchanged). HOLD SCOPE preserves those invariants and applies maximum rigor to failure paths, edge cases (case-insensitive vs case-sensitive collation, locale, duplicate names differing only by case, empty registry, alias/name collisions) and test coverage, without inviting scope additions to a deliberately narrow change.\n- **What HOLD SCOPE governs downstream:** 0G HOLD checks (complexity ≤ 8 files / ≤ 2 new classes; minimum change; keep stated invariants), 0I temporal interrogation, then the 11-section review from `sections/review-sections.md`. Every deferral still needs an explicit per-item Defer/Keep answer.\n\n## NOT in scope (this invocation)\n\nPer the user's instruction (PLAN.md L8-11), this invocation delivered only the\nreview-mode decision. Deferred by the user, not rejected:\n\n- Office Hours / design doc offer — user will handle separately.\n- CLAUDE.md skill-routing rules (routing-injection instruction) — setup; also blocked by plan mode's no-edit rule. Gate is marker-based and will re-fire.\n- Cross-project learnings config prompt (`cross_project_learnings` unset) — setup.\n- Substantive review: pre-review system audit against the real target repo, 0A–0C evidence, 0G HOLD checks, 0I, Sections 1–11, required outputs and the `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT` — to be run later under HOLD SCOPE.\n\n## Review status\n\nReview NOT yet run. No `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT` exists; ExitPlanMode must not\nbe called on this file until the substantive review completes and the exit gate\npasses.\n"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf6zt4nAigAT64BHMN1wo",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf6zt4FARf2d6hiHtaWoo"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9f796d40-55de-43d9-abc8-7002fd5fec7f",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T10:58:08.000Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01X8KfCh4G15KGJ4DwURvoAg",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "File created successfully at: /tmp/g-q50pz9gl/gstack-paid-shard-5hQylt/tmp/gstack-hermetic-10931-KbhuIv/with-skills/.claude/plans/keep-this-draft-plan-cheeky-lerdorf.md (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9f796d40-55de-43d9-abc8-7002fd5fec7f",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T10:58:19.202Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_014GT7uPk6KACM1Li2SMKPdJ",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-question-log '{\"skill\":\"plan-ceo-review\",\"question_id\":\"plan-ceo-review-mode\",\"question_summary\":\"Review mode for deterministic skill-list ordering plan\",\"category\":\"routing\",\"door_type\":\"two-way\",\"options_count\":4,\"user_choice\":\"HOLD SCOPE\",\"recommended\":\"HOLD SCOPE\",\"auto_decided\":true,\"session_id\":\"11077-1789556210-f86a3cad\"}' 2>/dev/null && echo \"QLOG: ok\" || echo \"QLOG: unavailable\"\n~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-end --skill \"plan-ceo-review\" --outcome success \\\n --session-id \"11077-1789556210-f86a3cad\" --tel-start \"1789556210\" --used-browse no \\\n --error-message \"\" --failed-step \"\" 2>/dev/null && echo \"SKILL_END: ok\" || echo \"SKILL_END: skipped\"",
|
||||
"description": "Log mode decision and run skill-end telemetry"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf6zw85gXy9qJ79NGvPK6",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf6zw7kq95PqHn8ui8Tv7"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9f796d40-55de-43d9-abc8-7002fd5fec7f",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T10:58:21.288Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_014GT7uPk6KACM1Li2SMKPdJ",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "QLOG: ok\nSKILL_END: recorded outcome=success duration_s=91\nSKILL_END: ok",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"options": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "9f796d40-55de-43d9-abc8-7002fd5fec7f",
|
||||
"skillName": "plan-ceo-review",
|
||||
"commandStartedAt": 1789556201929,
|
||||
"now": 1789556788210
|
||||
},
|
||||
"retryObservation": {
|
||||
"provenance": {
|
||||
"source": "043a75b461e35ee6836cebf0633c58d87ed16126",
|
||||
"attempt": "plan-ceo-review-1789557388416-XDXHv5",
|
||||
"outcome": "timeout",
|
||||
"observationSha256": "bab99804f4d2d34754289ff3d087953848e73aad5ce07750a6f7a76c47caefef",
|
||||
"qualification": "Exact retained public messages. Tool events and owned log file were not retained for this retry; tests of its prose explicitly use synthetic owned context."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"transcript": {
|
||||
"status": "ready",
|
||||
"calls": [],
|
||||
"assistantMessages": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "583e8162-2741-4ab7-91fd-7f5f216cd6d6",
|
||||
"text": "Received. I have the draft plan — deterministic sorting of registered skill names in the existing listing path, with membership, aliases, metadata, and text/JSON output formats unchanged, plus tests covering mixed-case names and differing directory enumeration order.\n\nI'll hold here and won't start any review or call tools. Send your slash command when ready.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T11:06:41.931Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "583e8162-2741-4ab7-91fd-7f5f216cd6d6",
|
||||
"text": "Starting `/plan-ceo-review`. Running the preamble first.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T11:06:48.011Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "583e8162-2741-4ab7-91fd-7f5f216cd6d6",
|
||||
"text": "**Mode decision: HOLD SCOPE** (auto-decided from your `plan-ceo-review-mode` preference; recommendation was HOLD SCOPE regardless).\n\nProvenance: preference check exited 0 with `AUTO_DECIDE`; logged with `auto_decided: true`. Ledger row M1 is approved with that reference; rows P1 (mixed-case sort key) and P2 (enumeration-order test method) are recorded as unresolved for the substantive review.\n\nStopping here per your instruction. Nothing beyond the plan file was written; skill-end telemetry recorded as `abort` since the review workflow was intentionally cut short, not completed. Plan file with Step 0 evidence, ledger, and deferred items: `.claude/plans/keep-this-draft-plan-virtual-milner.md`. Not calling ExitPlanMode; the review report does not exist yet and the exit gate requires it.\n\nDeferred to you: `/office-hours`, cross-project-learnings config, CLAUDE.md routing onboarding (all re-fire on the next run). No durable learnings this session.\n\n**STATUS:** DONE (scoped to mode decision only)",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T11:09:10.227Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"options": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "583e8162-2741-4ab7-91fd-7f5f216cd6d6",
|
||||
"skillName": "plan-ceo-review",
|
||||
"commandStartedAt": 1789556802164,
|
||||
"now": 1789557388414
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,191 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"source": "749df4446b5a1abd24a590bed745efa7a5fcd43b",
|
||||
"transcript": {
|
||||
"status": "ready",
|
||||
"calls": [],
|
||||
"assistantMessages": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9893ce92-9028-406c-a783-95891c0c392a",
|
||||
"text": "Received. I have the draft plan (\"deterministic skill-list ordering\") as context — I'll hold off on reviewing it or calling any tools until your next message with a slash command.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T12:11:18.072Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9893ce92-9028-406c-a783-95891c0c392a",
|
||||
"text": "Running the `/plan-ceo-review` preamble first.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T12:11:26.172Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9893ce92-9028-406c-a783-95891c0c392a",
|
||||
"text": "Recording the decision and provenance in the plan file so the later review resumes from it.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T12:12:41.844Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9893ce92-9028-406c-a783-95891c0c392a",
|
||||
"text": "**Mode decision: HOLD SCOPE** (auto-decided from your saved preference; change with `/plan-tune`). No 0D approach decision was needed. Recorded with provenance and an empty ledger in the plan file at `.claude/plans/keep-this-draft-plan-cozy-leaf.md`.\n\nStopping here per your request. Not done this invocation: the `/office-hours` offer, the `routing-injection` setup block (also blocked by plan mode), the cross-project learnings question, and the substantive review (0G → 0I → `sections/review-sections.md`). No GSTACK REVIEW REPORT exists yet, so I'm not calling ExitPlanMode; the exit gate stays unattempted. Telemetry is off and the workflow is paused rather than complete, so `gstack-skill-end` was not run.\n\nNo durable learnings this session.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T12:13:02.513Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"tools": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9893ce92-9028-406c-a783-95891c0c392a",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T12:11:28.370Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01AeSFqhe7c5enwyaeYepTrr",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "_SS=\"$HOME/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-start\"\n[ -x \"$_SS\" ] || _SS=\".claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-start\"\n\"$_SS\" --skill \"plan-ceo-review\" --model \"claude\" --parent-pid \"$PPID\" \\\n || echo \"SKILL_START: unavailable — stale install; run ./setup or /gstack-upgrade (preamble degraded, continue the user's task)\"",
|
||||
"description": "Run gstack skill-start preamble"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf76WjknNVe924t3HUBJU",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf76WjSBWqdba7d82fFzo"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9893ce92-9028-406c-a783-95891c0c392a",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T12:11:30.286Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01AeSFqhe7c5enwyaeYepTrr",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "SKILL_START_PROTO: 1\nBRANCH: main\nPROACTIVE: true\nPROACTIVE_PROMPTED: yes\nSKILL_PREFIX: false\nREPO_MODE: unknown\nSESSION_KIND: interactive\nCONDUCTOR_SESSION: true\nACTIVATED: yes\nFIRST_LOOP_SHOWN: yes\nFIRST_TASK: \nLAKE_INTRO: yes\nTELEMETRY: off\nTEL_PROMPTED: yes\nSESSION_ID: 303535-1789560690-d258d884\nTEL_START: 1789560690\nEXPLAIN_LEVEL: default\nQUESTION_TUNING: true\nUPDATE_CHECK: false\nLEARNINGS: 0\nHAS_ROUTING: no\nROUTING_DECLINED: false\nVENDORED_GSTACK: no\nMODEL_OVERLAY: claude\nCHECKPOINT_MODE: explicit\nCHECKPOINT_PUSH: false\nGSTACK_PLAN_MODE: active\nARTIFACTS_SYNC: off\nGSTACK_INSTRUCTION_BEGIN: routing-injection 303535-1789560690-d258d884\ngstack works best when the project CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. If no CLAUDE.md exists in the project root, create it. Use AskUserQuestion:\n\n> gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules.\n\nOptions: A) Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended) B) No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually\n\nIf A: append this section to the end of CLAUDE.md, then commit it (`git add CLAUDE.md && git commit -m \"chore: add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md\"`):\n\n## Skill routing\n\nWhen the user's request matches an available skill, invoke it via the Skill tool. When in doubt, invoke the skill.\n\nKey routing rules:\n- Product ideas/brainstorming → invoke /office-hours\n- Strategy/scope → invoke /plan-ceo-review\n- Architecture → invoke /plan-eng-review\n- Design system/plan review → invoke /design-consultation or /plan-design-review\n- Full review pipeline → invoke /autoplan\n- Bugs/errors → invoke /investigate\n- QA/testing site behavior → invoke /qa or /qa-only\n- Code review/diff check → invoke /review\n- Visual polish → invoke /design-review\n- Ship/deploy/PR → invoke /ship or /land-and-deploy\n- Save progress → invoke /context-save\n- Resume context → invoke /context-restore\n- Author a backlog-ready spec/issue → invoke /spec\n\nIf B: run `/tmp/g-tdzc6ak8/gstack-paid-shard-xYN4Cc/tmp/gstack-hermetic-303389-yR1x9K/skill-home-51TBrH/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set routing_declined true` and say they can re-enable with `/tmp/g-tdzc6ak8/gstack-paid-shard-xYN4Cc/tmp/gstack-hermetic-303389-yR1x9K/skill-home-51TBrH/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set routing_declined false`. This only happens once per project.\nGSTACK_INSTRUCTION_END",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9893ce92-9028-406c-a783-95891c0c392a",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T12:11:53.011Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Kcrxz1eXcJX2XDR1269Kz5",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/g-tdzc6ak8/gstack-paid-shard-xYN4Cc/tmp/gstack-plan-count-Pq7XAY/PLAN.md"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf76XdeDPGxUc6pnERg7A",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf76Xd5E4wePWFjEygSjc"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9893ce92-9028-406c-a783-95891c0c392a",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T12:11:53.030Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Kcrxz1eXcJX2XDR1269Kz5",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "1\t# Draft: deterministic skill-list ordering\n2\t\n3\tUsers compare skill listings in scripts and reviews. Make the existing listing\n4\tpath sort registered skill names deterministically before rendering them.\n5\tKeep skill membership, aliases, metadata and text/JSON output formats unchanged.\n6\tCover mixed-case names and differing directory enumeration order with tests.\n7\t\n8\tThis draft is the review target, not the current branch. For this invocation,\n9\tI want only the review-mode decision; I will handle optional Office Hours and\n10\tsetup separately, and run the substantive review later. No review mode has\n11\tbeen selected.",
|
||||
"file": {
|
||||
"filePath": "/tmp/g-tdzc6ak8/gstack-paid-shard-xYN4Cc/tmp/gstack-plan-count-Pq7XAY/PLAN.md",
|
||||
"content": "# Draft: deterministic skill-list ordering\n\nUsers compare skill listings in scripts and reviews. Make the existing listing\npath sort registered skill names deterministically before rendering them.\nKeep skill membership, aliases, metadata and text/JSON output formats unchanged.\nCover mixed-case names and differing directory enumeration order with tests.\n\nThis draft is the review target, not the current branch. For this invocation,\nI want only the review-mode decision; I will handle optional Office Hours and\nsetup separately, and run the substantive review later. No review mode has\nbeen selected.",
|
||||
"numLines": 11,
|
||||
"startLine": 1,
|
||||
"totalLines": 11
|
||||
},
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9893ce92-9028-406c-a783-95891c0c392a",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T12:11:55.298Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BjUgmBvhobrsBskr1XWUEU",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "echo \"--- remote ---\"; git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null || echo \"no remote\"; echo \"--- files ---\"; git ls-files | head -50; echo \"--- log ---\"; git log --oneline -30; echo \"--- stash ---\"; git stash list; echo \"--- todos ---\"; ls TODOS.md DESIGN.md docs/designs 2>/dev/null || echo \"none\"",
|
||||
"description": "Inspect repo remote, files, log, stash"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf76XdeDPGxUc6pnERg7A",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf76Xd5E4wePWFjEygSjc"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9893ce92-9028-406c-a783-95891c0c392a",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T12:11:57.319Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BjUgmBvhobrsBskr1XWUEU",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "--- remote ---\nno remote\n--- files ---\nCLAUDE.md\nPLAN.md\n--- log ---\nb868bfc Seed review plan\n--- stash ---\n--- todos ---\nnone",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9893ce92-9028-406c-a783-95891c0c392a",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T12:12:07.216Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01JWzXYtUsACBQabXbPKNFeS",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "printf '%s' \"Select plan-ceo-review mode (SCOPE EXPANSION / SELECTIVE EXPANSION / HOLD SCOPE / SCOPE REDUCTION) for deterministic skill-list ordering plan\" | ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-question-preference --check \"plan-ceo-review-mode\" --summary-stdin; echo \"EXIT: $?\"",
|
||||
"description": "Check saved preference for mode question"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf76ZdBjUnsqYzmmLi1xj",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf76ZcbWWwBr1oAyWd4ki"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9893ce92-9028-406c-a783-95891c0c392a",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T12:12:09.291Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01JWzXYtUsACBQabXbPKNFeS",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "AUTO_DECIDE\nEXIT: 0",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9893ce92-9028-406c-a783-95891c0c392a",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T12:12:34.017Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01D9mMwoigAGUphzisZCHJbr",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-question-log '{\"skill\":\"plan-ceo-review\",\"question_id\":\"plan-ceo-review-mode\",\"question_summary\":\"Select review mode for deterministic skill-list ordering plan\",\"category\":\"routing\",\"door_type\":\"two-way\",\"options_count\":4,\"user_choice\":\"HOLD SCOPE\",\"recommended\":\"HOLD SCOPE\",\"auto_decided\":true,\"session_id\":\"303535-1789560690-d258d884\"}' 2>/dev/null && echo LOGGED || echo \"log unavailable (best-effort)\"",
|
||||
"description": "Log auto-decided mode question"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf76aWUBkhXTSZ2enBbUJ",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf76aVsU5nkcBp8YY29ZX"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9893ce92-9028-406c-a783-95891c0c392a",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T12:12:35.875Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01D9mMwoigAGUphzisZCHJbr",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "LOGGED",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9893ce92-9028-406c-a783-95891c0c392a",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T12:12:56.074Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_0195Wwz8CooDkZR23BubwmDW",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Write",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/g-tdzc6ak8/gstack-paid-shard-xYN4Cc/tmp/gstack-hermetic-303389-yR1x9K/with-skills/.claude/plans/keep-this-draft-plan-cozy-leaf.md",
|
||||
"content": "# /plan-ceo-review — mode decision only (2026-09-16)\n\n## Plan under review\n\n`PLAN.md` in the fixture repo: \"Draft: deterministic skill-list ordering\".\nSort registered skill names deterministically in the existing listing path\nbefore rendering. Hold fixed: skill membership, aliases, metadata, text/JSON\noutput formats. Tests must cover mixed-case names and differing directory\nenumeration order.\n\n## Session facts\n\n- Base branch: `main` (no remote; git-native fallback).\n- Repo state: fixture only (CLAUDE.md, PLAN.md). No TODOS.md, no design doc,\n no handoff note, no stash, one commit.\n- Preamble: `SESSION_KIND: interactive`, `CONDUCTOR_SESSION: true`,\n `QUESTION_TUNING: true`, `GSTACK_PLAN_MODE: active`, `TELEMETRY: off`.\n- Estimated planned changes: 2–3 files (listing module + tests, maybe one\n fixture). Estimate; no source under review yet in this repo.\n\n## Review mode: HOLD SCOPE\n\nProvenance: successful preference check. `gstack-question-preference --check\nplan-ceo-review-mode` returned `AUTO_DECIDE` (exit 0); recommendation was HOLD\nSCOPE (goal = correcting existing behavior; <15 planned files). Logged via\n`gstack-question-log` with `auto_decided: true`. No question was asked.\n\nApplication: preserve the plan's scope exactly. Rigor goes to the sort-key\ncontract (case handling, tie stability), text/JSON emitting identical order,\nalias positioning relative to canonical names, and tests that vary enumeration\norder rather than assume it.\n\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| (none) | No 0D approach decision was needed before mode selection. | — | — | — | — |\n\n## Deferred by user (handle separately)\n\n- `/office-hours` prerequisite offer — not offered this invocation, per user.\n- Setup: `routing-injection` instruction block (add skill routing to CLAUDE.md\n and commit) — deferred; also blocked by plan mode. Re-fires next healthy run.\n- Cross-project learnings config question — not asked.\n- Substantive review: Step 0G (HOLD SCOPE checks) → 0I → `sections/review-sections.md`\n (Sections 1–11, outputs, GSTACK REVIEW REPORT). Not started.\n\n## Status\n\nWorkflow paused after 0E at the user's request. No GSTACK REVIEW REPORT yet;\nexit-plan-mode gate not attempted.\n"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf76cTf5w9jC3EyzoncBP",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf76cTJVgeUk4MQ9kupd9"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9893ce92-9028-406c-a783-95891c0c392a",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T12:12:56.131Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_0195Wwz8CooDkZR23BubwmDW",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "File created successfully at: /tmp/g-tdzc6ak8/gstack-paid-shard-xYN4Cc/tmp/gstack-hermetic-303389-yR1x9K/with-skills/.claude/plans/keep-this-draft-plan-cozy-leaf.md (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"options": {
|
||||
"skillName": "plan-ceo-review",
|
||||
"sessionId": "9893ce92-9028-406c-a783-95891c0c392a",
|
||||
"commandStartedAt": 1789560678258,
|
||||
"now": 1789560840000,
|
||||
"stateEvidence": {
|
||||
"questionId": "plan-ceo-review-mode",
|
||||
"preference": "never-ask",
|
||||
"records": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"skill": "plan-ceo-review",
|
||||
"question_id": "plan-ceo-review-mode",
|
||||
"question_summary": "Select review mode for deterministic skill-list ordering plan",
|
||||
"category": "routing",
|
||||
"door_type": "two-way",
|
||||
"options_count": 4,
|
||||
"user_choice": "HOLD SCOPE",
|
||||
"recommended": "HOLD SCOPE",
|
||||
"auto_decided": true,
|
||||
"session_id": "303535-1789560690-d258d884",
|
||||
"source": "agent",
|
||||
"followed_recommendation": true,
|
||||
"ts": "2026-09-16T12:12:35.867Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
"timingQualification": "The exact observer millisecond was not separately retained. Native slash input timestamp is an upper bound; the preceding seed ACK is a lower bound. Both bounds reproduce the same null outcome, with no intervening public tool or declaration. No paid outcome is promoted."
|
||||
}
|
||||
+255
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+150
@@ -0,0 +1,150 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"provenance": {
|
||||
"source": "361c4dd7642ac03f4a35d720d263905d41db318f",
|
||||
"nativeObservationSha256": "5364e3e636604f3e2d7d262ef38599ae2717ca66a2c0e860ef40fbda2beac4a0",
|
||||
"stateLogSha256": "75a20d0f36f50b985fb7aca158b714686f773f8715b982503e5db90825635540",
|
||||
"actualOutcome": "first attempt timeout; detector rejected completed mode; no paid credit from free replay",
|
||||
"stateOwnership": "Exact isolated state was retained while the owned actor was still alive; source recorder binds it before launch."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"transcript": {
|
||||
"status": "ready",
|
||||
"calls": [],
|
||||
"assistantMessages": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "57089e4d-d4b3-42af-a537-368ba748fa32",
|
||||
"text": "Received. I have the draft plan \u2014 deterministic skill-list ordering: sort registered skill names before rendering in the existing listing path, keep membership/aliases/metadata and text/JSON output unchanged, and add tests covering mixed-case names and differing directory enumeration order.\n\nNoted the constraints for this invocation: the draft (not the current branch) is the review target; you want only the review-mode decision, with the full selected mode name used in the audit record's `user_choice` and `recommended` fields and named in the public decision; Office Hours, setup, and the substantive review are deferred.\n\nStanding by for your slash command.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T02:21:46.292Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "57089e4d-d4b3-42af-a537-368ba748fa32",
|
||||
"text": "Running the `/plan-ceo-review` preamble first.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T02:21:51.941Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "57089e4d-d4b3-42af-a537-368ba748fa32",
|
||||
"text": "**Decision: review mode is HOLD SCOPE** (auto-decided from your `plan-ceo-review-mode` preference; recommendation would have been the same).\n\nAudit record written: `plan-ceo-review-mode`, `user_choice: \"HOLD SCOPE\"`, `recommended: \"HOLD SCOPE\"`, `auto_decided: true`, session `1636135-1789611715-2ba489e0`.\n\nStopped here per your request. Skipped: Office Hours offer (no design doc found; you're handling it separately), the CLAUDE.md routing-rules setup prompt (deferred, re-fires next healthy run), the cross-project learnings prompt, and Sections 1\u201311. No plan file written and no ExitPlanMode, since the substantive review hasn't run. Skill session closed with outcome `abort` to mark the intentional early stop. No durable learnings this session.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T02:23:11.495Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"tools": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "57089e4d-d4b3-42af-a537-368ba748fa32",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T02:21:54.199Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Ni4b9NZeiexmcAz1jRTUa4",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "_SS=\"$HOME/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-start\"\n[ -x \"$_SS\" ] || _SS=\".claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-start\"\n\"$_SS\" --skill \"plan-ceo-review\" --model \"claude\" --parent-pid \"$PPID\" \\\n || echo \"SKILL_START: unavailable \u2014 stale install; run ./setup or /gstack-upgrade (preamble degraded, continue the user's task)\"",
|
||||
"description": "Run gstack skill-start preamble"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf8DNKMSXDghtvZ8kLC9S",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf8DNK2qeH5gtSVB8JZpo"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "57089e4d-d4b3-42af-a537-368ba748fa32",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T02:21:55.870Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Ni4b9NZeiexmcAz1jRTUa4",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "SKILL_START_PROTO: 1\nBRANCH: main\nPROACTIVE: true\nPROACTIVE_PROMPTED: yes\nSKILL_PREFIX: false\nREPO_MODE: unknown\nSESSION_KIND: interactive\nCONDUCTOR_SESSION: true\nACTIVATED: yes\nFIRST_LOOP_SHOWN: yes\nFIRST_TASK: \nLAKE_INTRO: yes\nTELEMETRY: off\nTEL_PROMPTED: yes\nSESSION_ID: 1636135-1789611715-2ba489e0\nTEL_START: 1789611715\nEXPLAIN_LEVEL: default\nQUESTION_TUNING: true\nUPDATE_CHECK: false\nLEARNINGS: 0\nHAS_ROUTING: no\nROUTING_DECLINED: false\nVENDORED_GSTACK: no\nMODEL_OVERLAY: claude\nCHECKPOINT_MODE: explicit\nCHECKPOINT_PUSH: false\nGSTACK_PLAN_MODE: active\nARTIFACTS_SYNC: off\nGSTACK_INSTRUCTION_BEGIN: routing-injection 1636135-1789611715-2ba489e0\ngstack works best when the project CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. If no CLAUDE.md exists in the project root, create it. Use AskUserQuestion:\n\n> gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules.\n\nOptions: A) Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended) B) No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually\n\nIf A: append this section to the end of CLAUDE.md, then commit it (`git add CLAUDE.md && git commit -m \"chore: add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md\"`):\n\n## Skill routing\n\nWhen the user's request matches an available skill, invoke it via the Skill tool. When in doubt, invoke the skill.\n\nKey routing rules:\n- Product ideas/brainstorming \u2192 invoke /office-hours\n- Strategy/scope \u2192 invoke /plan-ceo-review\n- Architecture \u2192 invoke /plan-eng-review\n- Design system/plan review \u2192 invoke /design-consultation or /plan-design-review\n- Full review pipeline \u2192 invoke /autoplan\n- Bugs/errors \u2192 invoke /investigate\n- QA/testing site behavior \u2192 invoke /qa or /qa-only\n- Code review/diff check \u2192 invoke /review\n- Visual polish \u2192 invoke /design-review\n- Ship/deploy/PR \u2192 invoke /ship or /land-and-deploy\n- Save progress \u2192 invoke /context-save\n- Resume context \u2192 invoke /context-restore\n- Author a backlog-ready spec/issue \u2192 invoke /spec\n\nIf B: run `/tmp/g-58_o3060/gstack-paid-shard-tirHiO/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1635761-AhDi3L/skill-home-7Xxg6x/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set routing_declined true` and say they can re-enable with `/tmp/g-58_o3060/gstack-paid-shard-tirHiO/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1635761-AhDi3L/skill-home-7Xxg6x/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set routing_declined false`. This only happens once per project.\nGSTACK_INSTRUCTION_END",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "57089e4d-d4b3-42af-a537-368ba748fa32",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T02:22:21.448Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01PZLBA8zXFBaH7GKy2ZTBt2",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "cd /tmp/g-58_o3060/gstack-paid-shard-tirHiO/tmp/gstack-plan-count-Sq1tMd\necho \"--- REMOTE ---\"; git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null || echo \"no remote\"\necho \"--- BASE ---\"; git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's|refs/remotes/origin/||' || echo \"fallback: main\"\necho \"--- LOG ---\"; git log --oneline -30\necho \"--- STASH ---\"; git stash list\necho \"--- FILES ---\"; git ls-files\necho \"--- TODO MARKERS ---\"; grep -r \"TODO\\|FIXME\\|HACK\\|XXX\" -l --exclude-dir=node_modules --exclude-dir=vendor --exclude-dir=.git . 2>/dev/null | head -30\necho \"--- DESIGN DOC ---\"\nSLUG=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/browse/bin/remote-slug 2>/dev/null || basename \"$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)\")\nBRANCH=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD 2>/dev/null | tr '/' '-' || echo 'no-branch')\n_LOCALDOC=$(ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)\n[ -z \"$_LOCALDOC\" ] && _LOCALDOC=$(ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)\n_REPOTOP=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || echo \"\")\n_REPODOC=\"\"\nif [ -n \"$_REPOTOP\" ]; then\n [ -f \"$_REPOTOP/DESIGN.md\" ] && _REPODOC=\"$_REPOTOP/DESIGN.md\"\n [ -z \"$_REPODOC\" ] && _REPODOC=$(ls -t \"$_REPOTOP\"/docs/designs/*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)\nfi\nDESIGN=\"$_LOCALDOC\"\nif [ -n \"$_REPODOC\" ] && { [ -z \"$_LOCALDOC\" ] || [ \"$_REPODOC\" -nt \"$_LOCALDOC\" ]; }; then DESIGN=\"$_REPODOC\"; fi\n[ -n \"$DESIGN\" ] && echo \"Design doc found: $DESIGN\" || echo \"No design doc found\"\nHANDOFF=$(ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-ceo-handoff-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)\n[ -n \"$HANDOFF\" ] && echo \"HANDOFF_FOUND: $HANDOFF\" || echo \"NO_HANDOFF\"\necho \"--- CONTEXT RECOVERY ---\"\neval \"$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)\"\n_PROJ=\"${GSTACK_HOME:-$HOME/.gstack}/projects/${SLUG:-unknown}\"\n[ -d \"$_PROJ\" ] && { find \"$_PROJ/ceo-plans\" \"$_PROJ/checkpoints\" -type f -name \"*.md\" 2>/dev/null | head -3; [ -f \"$_PROJ/timeline.jsonl\" ] && tail -5 \"$_PROJ/timeline.jsonl\"; } || echo \"no project artifacts dir\"\necho \"--- LEARNINGS ---\"\n_CROSS_PROJ=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get cross_project_learnings 2>/dev/null || echo \"unset\")\necho \"CROSS_PROJECT: $_CROSS_PROJ\"\n~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-learnings-search --limit 10 2>/dev/null || true\necho \"--- MODE PREFERENCE CHECK ---\"\nprintf '%s' \"Select review mode for plan-ceo-review (SCOPE EXPANSION / SELECTIVE EXPANSION / HOLD SCOPE / SCOPE REDUCTION)\" | ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-question-preference --check \"plan-ceo-review-mode\" --summary-stdin; echo \"exit=$?\"",
|
||||
"description": "Audit repo, check design doc/handoff/learnings, check mode preference"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf8DP1E4aq4DRc2K5Ewyx",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf8DNzsE1ob9ADYAmVVXv"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "57089e4d-d4b3-42af-a537-368ba748fa32",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T02:22:22.862Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01PZLBA8zXFBaH7GKy2ZTBt2",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "--- REMOTE ---\nno remote\n--- BASE ---\n--- LOG ---\n6f1e970 Seed review plan\n--- STASH ---\n--- FILES ---\nCLAUDE.md\nPLAN.md\n--- TODO MARKERS ---\n--- DESIGN DOC ---\nNo design doc found\nNO_HANDOFF\n--- CONTEXT RECOVERY ---\n{\"skill\":\"plan-ceo-review\",\"event\":\"started\",\"branch\":\"main\",\"session\":\"1636135-1789611715-2ba489e0\",\"ts\":\"2026-09-17T02:21:55.882Z\"}\n--- LEARNINGS ---\nCROSS_PROJECT: false\n--- MODE PREFERENCE CHECK ---\nAUTO_DECIDE\nexit=0",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "57089e4d-d4b3-42af-a537-368ba748fa32",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T02:22:30.397Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_018i5NzcXZHvXm3AVgrrGwd6",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/g-58_o3060/gstack-paid-shard-tirHiO/tmp/gstack-plan-count-Sq1tMd/PLAN.md"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf8DQzYgaC6b34P8j2Akt",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf8DQzELDS1bZC3Mc7ovq"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "57089e4d-d4b3-42af-a537-368ba748fa32",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T02:22:30.422Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_018i5NzcXZHvXm3AVgrrGwd6",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "1\t# Draft: deterministic skill-list ordering\n2\t\n3\tUsers compare skill listings in scripts and reviews. Make the existing listing\n4\tpath sort registered skill names deterministically before rendering them.\n5\tKeep skill membership, aliases, metadata and text/JSON output formats unchanged.\n6\tCover mixed-case names and differing directory enumeration order with tests.\n7\t\n8\tThis draft is the review target, not the current branch. For this invocation,\n9\tI want only the review-mode decision; I will handle optional Office Hours and\n10\tsetup separately, and run the substantive review later. No review mode has\n11\tbeen selected. For this mode-only handoff, use the full selected mode name in\n12\tthe normal audit record's user_choice and recommended fields, and name it in\n13\tyour public decision. A menu letter alone would not identify the chosen mode.",
|
||||
"file": {
|
||||
"filePath": "/tmp/g-58_o3060/gstack-paid-shard-tirHiO/tmp/gstack-plan-count-Sq1tMd/PLAN.md",
|
||||
"content": "# Draft: deterministic skill-list ordering\n\nUsers compare skill listings in scripts and reviews. Make the existing listing\npath sort registered skill names deterministically before rendering them.\nKeep skill membership, aliases, metadata and text/JSON output formats unchanged.\nCover mixed-case names and differing directory enumeration order with tests.\n\nThis draft is the review target, not the current branch. For this invocation,\nI want only the review-mode decision; I will handle optional Office Hours and\nsetup separately, and run the substantive review later. No review mode has\nbeen selected. For this mode-only handoff, use the full selected mode name in\nthe normal audit record's user_choice and recommended fields, and name it in\nyour public decision. A menu letter alone would not identify the chosen mode.",
|
||||
"numLines": 13,
|
||||
"startLine": 1,
|
||||
"totalLines": 13
|
||||
},
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "57089e4d-d4b3-42af-a537-368ba748fa32",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T02:23:04.158Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Vw74oBKAG62mkR5wrxWnB5",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-question-log '{\"skill\":\"plan-ceo-review\",\"question_id\":\"plan-ceo-review-mode\",\"question_summary\":\"Select review mode for deterministic skill-list ordering draft (fix/refactor, ~2 files)\",\"category\":\"routing\",\"door_type\":\"two-way\",\"options_count\":4,\"user_choice\":\"HOLD SCOPE\",\"recommended\":\"HOLD SCOPE\",\"auto_decided\":true,\"session_id\":\"1636135-1789611715-2ba489e0\"}' && echo \"QUESTION_LOG: ok\"\n~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-end --skill \"plan-ceo-review\" --outcome abort \\\n --session-id \"1636135-1789611715-2ba489e0\" --tel-start \"1789611715\" --used-browse no \\\n --error-message \"\" --failed-step \"\" 2>/dev/null && echo \"SKILL_END: ok\" || echo \"SKILL_END: skipped\"",
|
||||
"description": "Log mode decision to audit record and close skill session"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf8DRYuboVYaaKCkjHW6E",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf8DRYZm9H6THJbAyyKYK"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "57089e4d-d4b3-42af-a537-368ba748fa32",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T02:23:05.423Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Vw74oBKAG62mkR5wrxWnB5",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "QUESTION_LOG: ok\nSKILL_END: recorded outcome=abort duration_s=70\nSKILL_END: ok",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"options": {
|
||||
"skillName": "plan-ceo-review",
|
||||
"sessionId": "57089e4d-d4b3-42af-a537-368ba748fa32",
|
||||
"commandStartedAt": 1789611706536,
|
||||
"now": 1789612292094,
|
||||
"proseQuestionObserved": false,
|
||||
"stateEvidence": {
|
||||
"questionId": "plan-ceo-review-mode",
|
||||
"preference": "never-ask",
|
||||
"records": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"skill": "plan-ceo-review",
|
||||
"question_id": "plan-ceo-review-mode",
|
||||
"question_summary": "Select review mode for deterministic skill-list ordering draft (fix/refactor, ~2 files)",
|
||||
"category": "routing",
|
||||
"door_type": "two-way",
|
||||
"options_count": 4,
|
||||
"user_choice": "HOLD SCOPE",
|
||||
"recommended": "HOLD SCOPE",
|
||||
"auto_decided": true,
|
||||
"session_id": "1636135-1789611715-2ba489e0",
|
||||
"source": "agent",
|
||||
"followed_recommendation": true,
|
||||
"ts": "2026-09-17T02:23:05.311Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
+167
@@ -0,0 +1,167 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"provenance": {
|
||||
"source": "cab3edc8b24f873b55f6edc6d98b60981eda52cb",
|
||||
"note": "Actual retained public retry events; decision-log artifact was not retained. Tests construct state separately and grant no paid pass credit."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"transcript": {
|
||||
"status": "ready",
|
||||
"calls": [],
|
||||
"assistantMessages": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ad3610c0-de12-4059-8b34-ad8c78bbaa1e",
|
||||
"text": "Received. I have the draft plan \u2014 \"deterministic skill-list ordering\" \u2014 as context: sort registered skill names deterministically in the existing listing path, keep membership/aliases/metadata/output formats unchanged, and test mixed-case names plus differing directory enumeration order.\n\nI understand this invocation is scoped to the review-mode decision only; Office Hours, setup, and the substantive review are deferred. Waiting for your slash command.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:18:45.999Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ad3610c0-de12-4059-8b34-ad8c78bbaa1e",
|
||||
"text": "Running the `/plan-ceo-review` preamble first.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:18:50.709Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ad3610c0-de12-4059-8b34-ad8c78bbaa1e",
|
||||
"text": "**Mode: HOLD SCOPE** (auto-decided from your `/plan-tune` preference).\n\nStopping here as requested. State for the later run:\n\n- Ledger and Step 0 observations saved to the host plan file (`.claude/plans/keep-this-draft-plan-velvety-zebra.md`). Row L1 approved (mode); L2 (collation for mixed-case names) and L3 (sort location shared by text/JSON) left unresolved for the substantive review.\n- Deferred by your instruction: `/office-hours` offer, the CLAUDE.md routing-rules onboarding (will re-fire next healthy run), web landscape check, and the 11-section review.\n- One thing to watch: this fixture repo has no code, so the \"existing listing path\" must be located in the real codebase before HOLD SCOPE's complexity check can count files.\n- Telemetry logged as `abort` (deliberate partial run). No durable learnings this session.\n\nNot calling ExitPlanMode; the review report gate has not been run.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:20:41.135Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"tools": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ad3610c0-de12-4059-8b34-ad8c78bbaa1e",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:18:52.991Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_0113w4U3eipufuWfVZSqqzZ9",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "_SS=\"$HOME/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-start\"\n[ -x \"$_SS\" ] || _SS=\".claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-start\"\n\"$_SS\" --skill \"plan-ceo-review\" --model \"claude\" --parent-pid \"$PPID\" \\\n || echo \"SKILL_START: unavailable \u2014 stale install; run ./setup or /gstack-upgrade (preamble degraded, continue the user's task)\"",
|
||||
"description": "Run gstack skill-start preamble"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf5mJYN8ysP1et79o5znP",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf5mJXyZQqvKHn1B6p7Es"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ad3610c0-de12-4059-8b34-ad8c78bbaa1e",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:18:54.708Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_0113w4U3eipufuWfVZSqqzZ9",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "SKILL_START_PROTO: 1\nBRANCH: main\nPROACTIVE: true\nPROACTIVE_PROMPTED: yes\nSKILL_PREFIX: false\nREPO_MODE: unknown\nSESSION_KIND: interactive\nCONDUCTOR_SESSION: true\nACTIVATED: yes\nFIRST_LOOP_SHOWN: yes\nFIRST_TASK: \nLAKE_INTRO: yes\nTELEMETRY: off\nTEL_PROMPTED: yes\nSESSION_ID: 1044454-1789499934-d555792e\nTEL_START: 1789499934\nEXPLAIN_LEVEL: default\nQUESTION_TUNING: true\nUPDATE_CHECK: false\nLEARNINGS: 0\nHAS_ROUTING: no\nROUTING_DECLINED: false\nVENDORED_GSTACK: no\nMODEL_OVERLAY: claude\nCHECKPOINT_MODE: explicit\nCHECKPOINT_PUSH: false\nGSTACK_PLAN_MODE: active\nARTIFACTS_SYNC: off\nGSTACK_INSTRUCTION_BEGIN: routing-injection 1044454-1789499934-d555792e\ngstack works best when the project CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. If no CLAUDE.md exists in the project root, create it. Use AskUserQuestion:\n\n> gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules.\n\nOptions: A) Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended) B) No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually\n\nIf A: append this section to the end of CLAUDE.md, then commit it (`git add CLAUDE.md && git commit -m \"chore: add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md\"`):\n\n## Skill routing\n\nWhen the user's request matches an available skill, invoke it via the Skill tool. When in doubt, invoke the skill.\n\nKey routing rules:\n- Product ideas/brainstorming \u2192 invoke /office-hours\n- Strategy/scope \u2192 invoke /plan-ceo-review\n- Architecture \u2192 invoke /plan-eng-review\n- Design system/plan review \u2192 invoke /design-consultation or /plan-design-review\n- Full review pipeline \u2192 invoke /autoplan\n- Bugs/errors \u2192 invoke /investigate\n- QA/testing site behavior \u2192 invoke /qa or /qa-only\n- Code review/diff check \u2192 invoke /review\n- Visual polish \u2192 invoke /design-review\n- Ship/deploy/PR \u2192 invoke /ship or /land-and-deploy\n- Save progress \u2192 invoke /context-save\n- Resume context \u2192 invoke /context-restore\n- Author a backlog-ready spec/issue \u2192 invoke /spec\n\nIf B: run `/tmp/gstack-owned-display-e18ize81/gstack-paid-shard-9LVxvJ/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1008115-QjLIEw/skill-home-EzUIQ9/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set routing_declined true` and say they can re-enable with `/tmp/gstack-owned-display-e18ize81/gstack-paid-shard-9LVxvJ/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1008115-QjLIEw/skill-home-EzUIQ9/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set routing_declined false`. This only happens once per project.\nGSTACK_INSTRUCTION_END",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ad3610c0-de12-4059-8b34-ad8c78bbaa1e",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:19:13.449Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01QmqnxUoHuNUBCiBmNfFFr6",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "cd /tmp/gstack-owned-display-e18ize81/gstack-paid-shard-9LVxvJ/tmp/gstack-plan-count-dF6xgk\necho \"--- REMOTE ---\"; git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null || echo \"no remote\"\necho \"--- HEAD ---\"; git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null || echo \"no origin/HEAD\"\ngit rev-parse --verify origin/main 2>/dev/null || echo \"no origin/main\"\necho \"--- LOG ---\"; git log --oneline -30\necho \"--- STASH ---\"; git stash list\necho \"--- TODO markers ---\"; grep -r \"TODO\\|FIXME\\|HACK\\|XXX\" -l --exclude-dir=node_modules --exclude-dir=vendor --exclude-dir=.git . | head -30\necho \"--- FILES ---\"; git ls-files | head -100\necho \"--- TODOS.md ---\"; cat TODOS.md 2>/dev/null || echo \"no TODOS.md\"",
|
||||
"description": "Detect base branch and audit repo state"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf5mKAP5WaMNmt7GzNBoe",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf5mK9zFr7kiE3AvMXSb3"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ad3610c0-de12-4059-8b34-ad8c78bbaa1e",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:19:15.887Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01QmqnxUoHuNUBCiBmNfFFr6",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "--- REMOTE ---\nno remote\n--- HEAD ---\nno origin/HEAD\n16ce1b369cdf5b51a22b417938c1c67406814727\n--- LOG ---\n16ce1b3 Seed review plan\n--- STASH ---\n--- TODO markers ---\n--- FILES ---\nCLAUDE.md\nPLAN.md\n--- TODOS.md ---\nno TODOS.md",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ad3610c0-de12-4059-8b34-ad8c78bbaa1e",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:19:20.075Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01L1nmKddQFCt2MNPgwc6rkR",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-e18ize81/gstack-paid-shard-9LVxvJ/tmp/gstack-plan-count-dF6xgk/PLAN.md"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf5mLjDoS7ZyVfWUYWTUG",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf5mLieZhhPN5CCHkARs7"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ad3610c0-de12-4059-8b34-ad8c78bbaa1e",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:19:20.104Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01L1nmKddQFCt2MNPgwc6rkR",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "1\t# Draft: deterministic skill-list ordering\n2\t\n3\tUsers compare skill listings in scripts and reviews. Make the existing listing\n4\tpath sort registered skill names deterministically before rendering them.\n5\tKeep skill membership, aliases, metadata and text/JSON output formats unchanged.\n6\tCover mixed-case names and differing directory enumeration order with tests.\n7\t\n8\tThis draft is the review target, not the current branch. For this invocation,\n9\tI want only the review-mode decision; I will handle optional Office Hours and\n10\tsetup separately, and run the substantive review later. No review mode has\n11\tbeen selected.",
|
||||
"file": {
|
||||
"filePath": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-e18ize81/gstack-paid-shard-9LVxvJ/tmp/gstack-plan-count-dF6xgk/PLAN.md",
|
||||
"content": "# Draft: deterministic skill-list ordering\n\nUsers compare skill listings in scripts and reviews. Make the existing listing\npath sort registered skill names deterministically before rendering them.\nKeep skill membership, aliases, metadata and text/JSON output formats unchanged.\nCover mixed-case names and differing directory enumeration order with tests.\n\nThis draft is the review target, not the current branch. For this invocation,\nI want only the review-mode decision; I will handle optional Office Hours and\nsetup separately, and run the substantive review later. No review mode has\nbeen selected.",
|
||||
"numLines": 11,
|
||||
"startLine": 1,
|
||||
"totalLines": 11
|
||||
},
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ad3610c0-de12-4059-8b34-ad8c78bbaa1e",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:19:39.465Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_015xWHmsaXv2mH7BpxdNZ6xB",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "cd /tmp/gstack-owned-display-e18ize81/gstack-paid-shard-9LVxvJ/tmp/gstack-plan-count-dF6xgk\nsetopt +o nomatch 2>/dev/null || true\nSLUG=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/browse/bin/remote-slug 2>/dev/null || basename \"$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)\")\nBRANCH=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD 2>/dev/null | tr '/' '-' || echo 'no-branch')\necho \"SLUG=$SLUG BRANCH=$BRANCH\"\n_LOCALDOC=$(ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)\n[ -z \"$_LOCALDOC\" ] && _LOCALDOC=$(ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)\n_REPOTOP=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || echo \"\")\n_REPODOC=\"\"\nif [ -n \"$_REPOTOP\" ]; then\n [ -f \"$_REPOTOP/DESIGN.md\" ] && _REPODOC=\"$_REPOTOP/DESIGN.md\"\n [ -z \"$_REPODOC\" ] && _REPODOC=$(ls -t \"$_REPOTOP\"/docs/designs/*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)\nfi\nDESIGN=\"$_LOCALDOC\"\nif [ -n \"$_REPODOC\" ] && { [ -z \"$_LOCALDOC\" ] || [ \"$_REPODOC\" -nt \"$_LOCALDOC\" ]; }; then DESIGN=\"$_REPODOC\"; fi\n[ -n \"$DESIGN\" ] && echo \"Design doc found: $DESIGN\" || echo \"No design doc found\"\nHANDOFF=$(ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-ceo-handoff-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)\n[ -n \"$HANDOFF\" ] && echo \"HANDOFF_FOUND: $HANDOFF\" || echo \"NO_HANDOFF\"\necho \"--- LEARNINGS ---\"\n_CROSS_PROJ=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get cross_project_learnings 2>/dev/null || echo \"unset\")\necho \"CROSS_PROJECT: $_CROSS_PROJ\"\nif [ \"$_CROSS_PROJ\" = \"true\" ]; then ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-learnings-search --limit 10 --cross-project 2>/dev/null || true\nelse ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-learnings-search --limit 10 2>/dev/null || true; fi\necho \"--- BRAIN ---\"\nfor k in product goals recent-decisions; do echo \"### $k\"; ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-brain-cache get $k --project \"$SLUG\" 2>/dev/null || echo \"(no $k digest)\"; done\necho \"### user-profile\"; ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-brain-cache get user-profile 2>/dev/null || echo \"(no user-profile digest)\"\necho \"--- DECISIONS ---\"\n[ -f ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/decisions.active.json ] && ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-decision-search --recent 5 2>/dev/null || echo \"no active decisions\"\necho \"--- MODE PREF ---\"\nprintf '%s' \"Select plan-ceo-review mode: SCOPE EXPANSION / SELECTIVE EXPANSION / HOLD SCOPE / SCOPE REDUCTION for deterministic skill-list ordering plan\" | ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-question-preference --check \"plan-ceo-review-mode\" --summary-stdin; echo \"exit=$?\"",
|
||||
"description": "Check design doc, handoff, learnings, brain context, mode preference"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf5mM3Tun23YDEmN81ui9",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf5mM2hkzzUZgfZMxVZ6c"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ad3610c0-de12-4059-8b34-ad8c78bbaa1e",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:19:40.968Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_015xWHmsaXv2mH7BpxdNZ6xB",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "SLUG=gstack-plan-count-dF6xgk BRANCH=main\nNo design doc found\nNO_HANDOFF\n--- LEARNINGS ---\nCROSS_PROJECT: false\n--- BRAIN ---\n### product\n(no product digest)\n### goals\n(no goals digest)\n### recent-decisions\n(no recent-decisions digest)\n### user-profile\n(no user-profile digest)\n--- DECISIONS ---\nno active decisions\n--- MODE PREF ---\nAUTO_DECIDE\nexit=0",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ad3610c0-de12-4059-8b34-ad8c78bbaa1e",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:20:22.127Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_012Lom6Th1EdwhgafSC5K7ms",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Write",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-e18ize81/gstack-paid-shard-9LVxvJ/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1008115-QjLIEw/with-skills/.claude/plans/keep-this-draft-plan-velvety-zebra.md",
|
||||
"content": "# Working plan: deterministic skill-list ordering\n\nSource: `PLAN.md` in `gstack-plan-count-dF6xgk` (branch `main`, base `main`).\nThis invocation of `/plan-ceo-review` covered Step 0 through mode selection only.\nOffice Hours, setup, and the 11-section review are deferred by the user.\n\n## Plan under review (verbatim)\n\nUsers compare skill listings in scripts and reviews. Make the existing listing\npath sort registered skill names deterministically before rendering them.\nKeep skill membership, aliases, metadata and text/JSON output formats unchanged.\nCover mixed-case names and differing directory enumeration order with tests.\n\n## Pre-review system audit\n\n- Repo is a two-file fixture (`CLAUDE.md`, `PLAN.md`); one commit `16ce1b3`.\n- No remote, no stash, no TODO/FIXME markers, no TODOS.md, no design doc, no handoff note.\n- The \"existing listing path\" the plan targets is not in this checkout; the\n substantive review must locate it in the real codebase.\n- Learnings: 0 (project-scoped). Brain digests: all cold. Active decisions: none.\n\n## Step 0 observations (evidence, not approvals)\n\n### 0A Premise\n- Problem is real and cheap to state: directory enumeration order is filesystem-\n dependent, so listing output varies between machines and runs. Users diffing\n listings in scripts or reviews get spurious churn.\n- Outcome is direct: a stable sort at the render boundary fixes the observable\n symptom with no proxy metric.\n- Doing nothing keeps the churn; pain is real for anyone comparing output.\n\n### 0B Existing code leverage\n- Sorting registered names before rendering reuses the existing listing path;\n no parallel flow is proposed. Nothing is being rebuilt.\n\n### 0C Dream state\n```\n CURRENT STATE THIS PLAN 12-MONTH IDEAL\n order = readdir order ---> sort names once at ---> every listing surface\n varies per FS/machine the render boundary (text, JSON, aliases)\n both formats unchanged stable and diffable\n```\nMoves toward the ideal; no regression risk to the target state.\n\n### 0D Alternatives\nNo pending approach decision: the plan names a single, viable approach\n(sort at the existing render step). Collation choice below is a design detail\nfor the substantive review, not a mode blocker.\n\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| L1 (user) | Review mode for this plan; `plan-ceo-review-mode` check \u2192 `AUTO_DECIDE` | none selected | HOLD SCOPE (bug-fix/refactor, ~2 planned files, est.) | approved (auto) | Auto-decided via /plan-tune preference; change with /plan-tune |\n| L2 (user) | Sort key / collation for mixed-case names (case-insensitive vs codepoint; tie-break) | unspecified in plan | pending | unresolved | To be decided in the substantive review |\n| L3 (user) | Where the sort lives (registry vs render boundary) so text and JSON share one ordering | plan says \"before rendering\" | pending | unresolved | To be decided in the substantive review |\n\n## Stated limits\n\n- Planned changed files: ~2 (listing source + tests), estimate; real count depends\n on the codebase the plan targets.\n- Scope invariants: membership, aliases, metadata, text/JSON formats unchanged.\n\n## Mode\n\nHOLD SCOPE, auto-decided. Substantive review (0G \u2192 0I \u2192 review sections) not yet run.\n"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf5mNaFrPfGBBkG2BGkGB",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf5mNZnp2VVsrP4mJKs8K"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ad3610c0-de12-4059-8b34-ad8c78bbaa1e",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:20:22.168Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_012Lom6Th1EdwhgafSC5K7ms",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "File created successfully at: /tmp/gstack-owned-display-e18ize81/gstack-paid-shard-9LVxvJ/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1008115-QjLIEw/with-skills/.claude/plans/keep-this-draft-plan-velvety-zebra.md (file state is current in your context \u2014 no need to Read it back)",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ad3610c0-de12-4059-8b34-ad8c78bbaa1e",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:20:33.109Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EFn4r8w9bNDRsAZz3Mgaid",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-question-log '{\"skill\":\"plan-ceo-review\",\"question_id\":\"plan-ceo-review-mode\",\"question_summary\":\"Select review mode for deterministic skill-list ordering plan\",\"category\":\"routing\",\"door_type\":\"two-way\",\"options_count\":4,\"user_choice\":\"HOLD SCOPE\",\"recommended\":\"HOLD SCOPE\",\"auto_decided\":true,\"session_id\":\"1044454-1789499934-d555792e\"}' 2>/dev/null || true\n~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-end --skill \"plan-ceo-review\" --outcome abort \\\n --session-id \"1044454-1789499934-d555792e\" --tel-start \"1789499934\" --used-browse no \\\n --error-message \"\" --failed-step \"\" 2>/dev/null || true\necho done",
|
||||
"description": "Log auto-decided mode question and skill-end telemetry"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf5mRcmzGf4wRc1dotYiE",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf5mRc5p178EyazSu7hnM"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ad3610c0-de12-4059-8b34-ad8c78bbaa1e",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:20:34.562Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EFn4r8w9bNDRsAZz3Mgaid",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "SKILL_END: recorded outcome=abort duration_s=100\ndone",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"options": {
|
||||
"skillName": "plan-ceo-review",
|
||||
"sessionId": "ad3610c0-de12-4059-8b34-ad8c78bbaa1e",
|
||||
"commandStartedAt": 1789499926268,
|
||||
"now": 1789500047754
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
+171
@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"source": "77fd0890ddfeaf2bdd6d78183a2d989d9a4e8d4c",
|
||||
"evidence": {
|
||||
"observationSha256": "94b95acf986b3db6b18d110549256a9f5077907c3f0a477bff381025cf02842d",
|
||||
"ancestrySha256": "69a7d4029d405122814139948b82502f639449bcf8e42821dd42d167cb25254f",
|
||||
"originalOutcome": "asked",
|
||||
"originalReason": "LLM judge: Agent finished the mode-selection-only pass and is idle, waiting for the user to give the next instruction (state=waiting after 127s)",
|
||||
"firstAttempt": "startup timeout retained separately; no native coverage established"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"options": {
|
||||
"skillName": "plan-ceo-review",
|
||||
"sessionId": "f7b758ed-0da8-440a-b312-5e744f1ae998",
|
||||
"commandStartedAt": 1789492904063,
|
||||
"now": 1789493025482
|
||||
},
|
||||
"transcript": {
|
||||
"status": "ready",
|
||||
"calls": [],
|
||||
"assistantMessages": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "f7b758ed-0da8-440a-b312-5e744f1ae998",
|
||||
"text": "Received. I have the draft plan (\"deterministic skill-list ordering\") in context as the review target, and I understand that for this invocation you want only the review-mode decision — no substantive review, no Office Hours, no setup. I'll wait for your slash command before doing anything.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:21:43.865Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "f7b758ed-0da8-440a-b312-5e744f1ae998",
|
||||
"text": "Running the `/plan-ceo-review` preamble first.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:21:52.584Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "f7b758ed-0da8-440a-b312-5e744f1ae998",
|
||||
"text": "Stopping here per your request; the review is paused after mode selection, not finished, so no review report, no ExitPlanMode, and no skill-end telemetry yet (telemetry is off in this install anyway).\n\n**STATUS: DONE** (mode decision only)\n\n- **Mode: HOLD SCOPE**, auto-decided from your stored `plan-ceo-review-mode` preference (change with `/plan-tune`). Recommendation basis: ~2–3 files, bug-fix/refactor shape, plan's own \"nothing else changes\" invariants.\n- Approved decisions: none beyond the mode itself. The mode grants no approach or scope approval.\n- Recorded in the plan file with the decision ledger and the resume route (0G → 0I → `sections/review-sections.md`).\n- Deferred at your direction: Office Hours offer, CLAUDE.md skill-routing onboarding (needs an edit + commit, blocked in plan mode; will re-fire next run).\n- No durable learnings this session.\n\nSend the next slash command or tell me to resume the substantive review when you're ready.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:23:28.370Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"tools": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "f7b758ed-0da8-440a-b312-5e744f1ae998",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:21:54.939Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01F7LT382e19BTfwZkz38trq",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "_SS=\"$HOME/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-start\"\n[ -x \"$_SS\" ] || _SS=\".claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-start\"\n\"$_SS\" --skill \"plan-ceo-review\" --model \"claude\" --parent-pid \"$PPID\" \\\n || echo \"SKILL_START: unavailable — stale install; run ./setup or /gstack-upgrade (preamble degraded, continue the user's task)\"",
|
||||
"description": "Run gstack skill-start preamble"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf5cNvUiy7d9rREaxEkp2",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf5cNukoqBsX7gmSWCjPp"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "f7b758ed-0da8-440a-b312-5e744f1ae998",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:21:56.906Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01F7LT382e19BTfwZkz38trq",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "SKILL_START_PROTO: 1\nBRANCH: main\nPROACTIVE: true\nPROACTIVE_PROMPTED: yes\nSKILL_PREFIX: false\nREPO_MODE: unknown\nSESSION_KIND: interactive\nCONDUCTOR_SESSION: true\nACTIVATED: yes\nFIRST_LOOP_SHOWN: yes\nFIRST_TASK: \nLAKE_INTRO: yes\nTELEMETRY: off\nTEL_PROMPTED: yes\nSESSION_ID: 653612-1789492916-856093da\nTEL_START: 1789492916\nEXPLAIN_LEVEL: default\nQUESTION_TUNING: true\nUPDATE_CHECK: false\nLEARNINGS: 0\nHAS_ROUTING: no\nROUTING_DECLINED: false\nVENDORED_GSTACK: no\nMODEL_OVERLAY: claude\nCHECKPOINT_MODE: explicit\nCHECKPOINT_PUSH: false\nGSTACK_PLAN_MODE: active\nARTIFACTS_SYNC: off\nGSTACK_INSTRUCTION_BEGIN: routing-injection 653612-1789492916-856093da\ngstack works best when the project CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. If no CLAUDE.md exists in the project root, create it. Use AskUserQuestion:\n\n> gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules.\n\nOptions: A) Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended) B) No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually\n\nIf A: append this section to the end of CLAUDE.md, then commit it (`git add CLAUDE.md && git commit -m \"chore: add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md\"`):\n\n## Skill routing\n\nWhen the user's request matches an available skill, invoke it via the Skill tool. When in doubt, invoke the skill.\n\nKey routing rules:\n- Product ideas/brainstorming → invoke /office-hours\n- Strategy/scope → invoke /plan-ceo-review\n- Architecture → invoke /plan-eng-review\n- Design system/plan review → invoke /design-consultation or /plan-design-review\n- Full review pipeline → invoke /autoplan\n- Bugs/errors → invoke /investigate\n- QA/testing site behavior → invoke /qa or /qa-only\n- Code review/diff check → invoke /review\n- Visual polish → invoke /design-review\n- Ship/deploy/PR → invoke /ship or /land-and-deploy\n- Save progress → invoke /context-save\n- Resume context → invoke /context-restore\n- Author a backlog-ready spec/issue → invoke /spec\n\nIf B: run `/tmp/gstack-owned-display-i_mn5usl/gstack-paid-shard-CHX9EP/tmp/gstack-hermetic-603756-1m4Xjj/skill-home-RHKM6I/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set routing_declined true` and say they can re-enable with `/tmp/gstack-owned-display-i_mn5usl/gstack-paid-shard-CHX9EP/tmp/gstack-hermetic-603756-1m4Xjj/skill-home-RHKM6I/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set routing_declined false`. This only happens once per project.\nGSTACK_INSTRUCTION_END",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "f7b758ed-0da8-440a-b312-5e744f1ae998",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:22:17.437Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_0168KoeXLz3NQGPNgB9StxBd",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "echo \"--- remote ---\"; git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null || echo \"no remote\"; echo \"--- files ---\"; git ls-files | head -50; echo \"--- log ---\"; git log --oneline -10; echo \"--- TODOS ---\"; ls TODOS.md docs/designs DESIGN.md 2>/dev/null || echo \"none\"",
|
||||
"description": "Detect remote, list tracked files and recent history"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf5cPrpjZon3XDLDwNoi3",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf5cPrW8NVGL2PdzEgqjj"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "f7b758ed-0da8-440a-b312-5e744f1ae998",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:22:19.053Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_0168KoeXLz3NQGPNgB9StxBd",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "--- remote ---\nno remote\n--- files ---\nCLAUDE.md\nPLAN.md\n--- log ---\nf4bd0c0 Seed review plan\n--- TODOS ---\nnone",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "f7b758ed-0da8-440a-b312-5e744f1ae998",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:22:24.730Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01KPub28YXnJH48PkMxppgk3",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-i_mn5usl/gstack-paid-shard-CHX9EP/tmp/gstack-plan-count-TV0JAL/PLAN.md"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf5cRVg4L9sJ8Bqja7KnR",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf5cRVB389gSgsEuHX9kh"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "f7b758ed-0da8-440a-b312-5e744f1ae998",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:22:24.753Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01KPub28YXnJH48PkMxppgk3",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "1\t# Draft: deterministic skill-list ordering\n2\t\n3\tUsers compare skill listings in scripts and reviews. Make the existing listing\n4\tpath sort registered skill names deterministically before rendering them.\n5\tKeep skill membership, aliases, metadata and text/JSON output formats unchanged.\n6\tCover mixed-case names and differing directory enumeration order with tests.\n7\t\n8\tThis draft is the review target, not the current branch. For this invocation,\n9\tI want only the review-mode decision; I will handle optional Office Hours and\n10\tsetup separately, and run the substantive review later. No review mode has\n11\tbeen selected.",
|
||||
"file": {
|
||||
"filePath": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-i_mn5usl/gstack-paid-shard-CHX9EP/tmp/gstack-plan-count-TV0JAL/PLAN.md",
|
||||
"content": "# Draft: deterministic skill-list ordering\n\nUsers compare skill listings in scripts and reviews. Make the existing listing\npath sort registered skill names deterministically before rendering them.\nKeep skill membership, aliases, metadata and text/JSON output formats unchanged.\nCover mixed-case names and differing directory enumeration order with tests.\n\nThis draft is the review target, not the current branch. For this invocation,\nI want only the review-mode decision; I will handle optional Office Hours and\nsetup separately, and run the substantive review later. No review mode has\nbeen selected.",
|
||||
"numLines": 11,
|
||||
"startLine": 1,
|
||||
"totalLines": 11
|
||||
},
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "f7b758ed-0da8-440a-b312-5e744f1ae998",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:22:35.826Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_012R3bDfd2N5ZgDD7qUZpDS2",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "printf '%s' \"Select plan-ceo-review scope mode (EXPANSION / SELECTIVE / HOLD / REDUCTION) for deterministic skill-list ordering plan\" | ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-question-preference --check \"plan-ceo-review-mode\" --summary-stdin; echo \"EXIT: $?\"",
|
||||
"description": "Check stored preference for the review-mode question"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf5cRvDBcrQdPi2Lt3mBz",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf5cRugBURYDiQRxbq32U"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "f7b758ed-0da8-440a-b312-5e744f1ae998",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:22:36.995Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_012R3bDfd2N5ZgDD7qUZpDS2",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "AUTO_DECIDE\nEXIT: 0",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "f7b758ed-0da8-440a-b312-5e744f1ae998",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:23:03.048Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01XGmQfqrq5rmsfNNuqGJj5q",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-question-log '{\"skill\":\"plan-ceo-review\",\"question_id\":\"plan-ceo-review-mode\",\"question_summary\":\"Select review scope mode for deterministic skill-list ordering plan\",\"category\":\"routing\",\"door_type\":\"two-way\",\"options_count\":4,\"user_choice\":\"HOLD_SCOPE\",\"recommended\":\"HOLD_SCOPE\",\"auto_decided\":true,\"session_id\":\"653612-1789492916-856093da\"}' 2>/dev/null && echo LOGGED || echo \"log unavailable (best-effort)\"",
|
||||
"description": "Log the auto-decided mode question"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf5cSpfq5w1VWVJPym6Ye",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf5cSp5cLPCj6gUcrf1kG"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "f7b758ed-0da8-440a-b312-5e744f1ae998",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:23:04.731Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01XGmQfqrq5rmsfNNuqGJj5q",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "LOGGED",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "f7b758ed-0da8-440a-b312-5e744f1ae998",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:23:19.743Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_0194rwvZSQV1KXtAaewPcRi6",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Write",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-i_mn5usl/gstack-paid-shard-CHX9EP/tmp/gstack-hermetic-603756-1m4Xjj/with-skills/.claude/plans/keep-this-draft-plan-eager-bird.md",
|
||||
"content": "# Working plan: deterministic skill-list ordering\n\nSource: PLAN.md at repo root (draft under review, matches the user's pasted draft verbatim).\n\n## Context\n\nUsers compare skill listings in scripts and reviews. Make the existing listing\npath sort registered skill names deterministically before rendering them.\nKeep skill membership, aliases, metadata and text/JSON output formats unchanged.\nCover mixed-case names and differing directory enumeration order with tests.\n\n## /plan-ceo-review — Step 0 state (2026-09-15)\n\nStatus: mode selected; substantive review (0G, 0I, Sections 1–11) NOT yet run.\nOffice Hours offer and onboarding setup deferred by user request.\n\n### Grounding\n- Repo is a fixture: only CLAUDE.md and PLAN.md are tracked; the listing path\n itself is not present here. Base branch: `main` (no remote).\n- Planned file count (estimate): 2–3 (1 listing source file, 1–2 test files).\n- Change class: bug fix / refactor of an existing path with explicit\n \"nothing else changes\" invariants.\n\n### Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| D1 (user) — review mode | 0E step 2 recommends HOLD SCOPE: ≤15 files, bug-fix/refactor shape, stated invariants (membership, aliases, metadata, text/JSON formats unchanged) | none selected | HOLD SCOPE | approved (auto) | `plan-ceo-review-mode` → AUTO_DECIDE (exit 0), session 653612-1789492916-856093da. Scope: review mode only; grants no approach or scope approval. |\n\n0D: no new approach decision was needed (single approach in draft; user asked\nfor mode decision only).\n\n### Next when the review resumes\nHOLD SCOPE route: 0G (complexity check, minimum change set, keep invariants)\n→ 0I (temporal interrogation) → Read `sections/review-sections.md` and run\nSections 1–11, required outputs, and the terminal `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT`.\n"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf5cUsWo2RCAKdWj2Beea",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf5cUrbDz4q8dT19SHpRA"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "f7b758ed-0da8-440a-b312-5e744f1ae998",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:23:19.798Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_0194rwvZSQV1KXtAaewPcRi6",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "File created successfully at: /tmp/gstack-owned-display-i_mn5usl/gstack-paid-shard-CHX9EP/tmp/gstack-hermetic-603756-1m4Xjj/with-skills/.claude/plans/keep-this-draft-plan-eager-bird.md (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
+257
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+33
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+129
@@ -0,0 +1,129 @@
|
||||
// Child-only free control: never launch a provider when discovered by Bun.
|
||||
import { afterAll, describe, expect, mock } from 'bun:test';
|
||||
import * as fs from 'node:fs';
|
||||
import * as path from 'node:path';
|
||||
import { execFileSync } from 'node:child_process';
|
||||
import { AUTOPLAN_CHAIN_BUDGET } from '../helpers/eval-budgets';
|
||||
import * as runner from '../helpers/claude-pty-runner';
|
||||
import * as nativeTranscript from '../helpers/plan-count-transcript';
|
||||
import * as methodAudit from '../helpers/autoplan-method-read-audit';
|
||||
import { ownedNativeReviewStateRoot } from '../helpers/plan-count-fixture';
|
||||
import phaseEntry from './autoplan-phase-entry-cf74.json';
|
||||
|
||||
if (process.env.AUTOPLAN_CALLER_SCENARIO) {
|
||||
const root = path.resolve(import.meta.dir, '../..');
|
||||
const runnerExports = { ...runner };
|
||||
const transcriptExports = { ...nativeTranscript };
|
||||
const methodAuditExports = { ...methodAudit };
|
||||
const mode = process.env.AUTOPLAN_CALLER_SCENARIO;
|
||||
const entryScenario = mode.startsWith('entry-');
|
||||
let fixtureCwd = '';
|
||||
const facts = { inputs: [] as string[], closed: false, startedAt: 0, elapsedMs: 0, approvalStartedAt: 0,
|
||||
captured: [] as Array<{ state: string; prematurePhaseEntry: unknown }> };
|
||||
let clock = 0;
|
||||
let complete = false;
|
||||
Date.now = () => clock;
|
||||
Bun.sleep = (async (ms: number) => {
|
||||
clock += ms;
|
||||
if (mode === 'deadline' && facts.startedAt) clock = facts.startedAt + AUTOPLAN_CHAIN_BUDGET.workMs;
|
||||
}) as typeof Bun.sleep;
|
||||
mock.module(path.join(root, 'test/helpers/e2e-gate.ts'), () => ({ describeE2ETier: () => describe }));
|
||||
mock.module(path.join(root, 'test/helpers/claude-pty-runner.ts'), () => ({
|
||||
...runnerExports,
|
||||
isPlanReadyVisible: () => false,
|
||||
isPermissionDialogVisible: (text: string) => text.includes('Permission'),
|
||||
isNumberedOptionListVisible: (text: string) => text.includes('1. Yes'),
|
||||
selectPtyNumberedOption: async (session: {send(input: string): void}, index: number) => session.send(`${index}\r`),
|
||||
launchClaudePty: async (opts: any) => {
|
||||
const cwd = fs.realpathSync(opts.cwd);
|
||||
fixtureCwd = cwd;
|
||||
if (mode === 'entry-alias' || mode === 'entry-foreign-alias') {
|
||||
const alias = path.join(cwd, '.native', 'skills', 'gstack', 'autoplan', 'sections', 'design-phase.md');
|
||||
fs.mkdirSync(path.dirname(alias), { recursive: true });
|
||||
let target = path.join(root, 'autoplan', 'sections', 'design-phase.md');
|
||||
if (mode === 'entry-foreign-alias') {
|
||||
const foreign = path.join(cwd, 'foreign-design-phase.md');
|
||||
fs.copyFileSync(target, foreign); target = foreign;
|
||||
}
|
||||
fs.symlinkSync(target, alias);
|
||||
}
|
||||
const git = (file: string) => execFileSync('git', ['show', `HEAD:${file}`], { cwd, encoding: 'utf8', timeout: 5000 });
|
||||
expect(git('.claude/plans/ui-heavy-feature.md')).toBe(fs.readFileSync(path.join(root, 'test/fixtures/plans/autoplan-dashboard.md'), 'utf8'));
|
||||
expect(git('CLAUDE.md')).toContain('## Skill routing');
|
||||
expect(git('docs/designs/dashboard-context.md')).toContain('## Existing product and application contracts');
|
||||
expect(opts).toMatchObject({ permissionMode: 'plan', timeoutMs: AUTOPLAN_CHAIN_BUDGET.sessionMs,
|
||||
seedSkills: true, observeScreen: true, observeSetupQuestions: true,
|
||||
observeAutoplanArtifacts: true, approveAutoplanArtifactEdits: true });
|
||||
return {
|
||||
hermeticConfigDir: path.join(cwd, '.native'),
|
||||
autoplanArtifactStateRoot: ownedNativeReviewStateRoot(opts.autoplanArtifactState, opts.env),
|
||||
mark: () => 0, exited: () => false, exitCode: () => null,
|
||||
rawOutput: () => '', visibleText: () => '', visibleSince: () => '',
|
||||
startAutoplanArtifactEditApproval: (at: number) => { facts.approvalStartedAt = at; },
|
||||
currentScreen: async () => {
|
||||
if (mode === 'deadline') return 'Permission\n1. Yes\n2. No';
|
||||
clock = facts.startedAt + (entryScenario ? 15000 : mode === 'progress' ? 900001 : AUTOPLAN_CHAIN_BUDGET.workMs);
|
||||
complete = true;
|
||||
return 'Four native reviews have completed.';
|
||||
},
|
||||
send: (input: string) => {
|
||||
facts.inputs.push(input);
|
||||
if (input === '/autoplan\r') facts.startedAt = clock;
|
||||
},
|
||||
close: async () => { facts.closed = true; facts.elapsedMs = clock - facts.startedAt; },
|
||||
};
|
||||
},
|
||||
}));
|
||||
mock.module(path.join(root, 'test/helpers/plan-count-transcript.ts'), () => ({
|
||||
...transcriptExports,
|
||||
readPlanCountTranscript: (config: string, cwd: string, onPublicToolEvent: (event: nativeTranscript.NativePublicToolEvent) => void) => {
|
||||
if (!entryScenario) return { status: 'ready', calls: [], assistantMessages: complete
|
||||
? [1, 2, 2.5, 3].map((phase, i) => ({sessionId: 'owned', timestamp: new Date(facts.startedAt + i + 1).toISOString(), text: `Phase ${phase} complete.`})) : [] };
|
||||
const entryAt = facts.startedAt + 14000;
|
||||
const sessionId = phaseEntry.events[0]!.sessionId;
|
||||
const canonical = path.join(root, 'autoplan', 'sections', 'design-phase.md');
|
||||
const readPath = mode === 'entry-foreign' ? path.join(fixtureCwd, 'foreign', 'design-phase.md')
|
||||
: mode === 'entry-alias' || mode === 'entry-foreign-alias'
|
||||
? path.join(config, 'skills', 'gstack', 'autoplan', 'sections', 'design-phase.md') : canonical;
|
||||
const content = fs.readFileSync(canonical, 'utf8');
|
||||
const use = phaseEntry.events[0]!, result = phaseEntry.events[1]!;
|
||||
const reportAt = entryAt + (mode === 'entry-valid' || mode === 'entry-alias' ? -1 : mode === 'entry-equal' ? 0 : 1);
|
||||
const message = (timestamp: number, text: string) => ({ cwd, sessionId, isSidechain: false,
|
||||
timestamp: new Date(timestamp).toISOString(), message: { role: 'assistant', content: [{ type: 'text', text }] } });
|
||||
const records: any[] = [message(entryAt - 5000, phaseEntry.assistantMessages.at(-1)!.text)];
|
||||
if (mode !== 'entry-omission') records.push({ ...message(reportAt, 'Phase 1 complete.'),
|
||||
...(mode === 'entry-foreign-report' ? { isSidechain: true } : {}) });
|
||||
records.push({ cwd, sessionId, isSidechain: mode === 'entry-child', timestamp: new Date(entryAt).toISOString(),
|
||||
message: { role: 'assistant', content: [{ type: 'tool_use', id: use.toolUseId, name: 'Read', input: { file_path: readPath } }] } });
|
||||
if (mode !== 'entry-missing-ack') records.push({ cwd, sessionId, isSidechain: mode === 'entry-child', timestamp: new Date(entryAt + 2).toISOString(),
|
||||
message: { role: 'user', content: [{ type: 'tool_result', tool_use_id: result.toolUseId,
|
||||
is_error: mode === 'entry-error', content: '' }] },
|
||||
toolUseResult: { file: { filePath: readPath, content, startLine: 1,
|
||||
numLines: content.split('\n').length, totalLines: content.split('\n').length } } });
|
||||
records.push(...[2, 2.5, 3].map((phase, i) => message(entryAt + 3 + i, `Phase ${phase} complete.`)));
|
||||
records.sort((a, b) => Date.parse(a.timestamp) - Date.parse(b.timestamp));
|
||||
const project = path.join(config, 'projects', 'fixture'); fs.mkdirSync(project, { recursive: true });
|
||||
fs.writeFileSync(path.join(project, `${sessionId}.jsonl`), records.map(row => JSON.stringify(row)).join('\n') + '\n');
|
||||
return transcriptExports.readPlanCountTranscript(config, cwd, onPublicToolEvent);
|
||||
},
|
||||
}));
|
||||
mock.module(path.join(root, 'test/helpers/plan-count-pending-question.ts'), () => ({
|
||||
readPendingQuestion: () => undefined, pendingQuestionRecorderStatus: () => ({status: 'idle'}),
|
||||
}));
|
||||
mock.module(path.join(root, 'test/helpers/autoplan-artifact-recorder.ts'), () => ({
|
||||
readPendingAutoplanArtifact: () => undefined, autoplanArtifactRecorderStatus: () => ({status: 'idle'}),
|
||||
autoplanArtifactApprovalBoundary: () => 'clear',
|
||||
}));
|
||||
// Method delivery has independent native positive/negative controls. Supply
|
||||
// successful delivery here so only the caller's deadline decides acceptance.
|
||||
mock.module(path.join(root, 'test/helpers/autoplan-method-read-audit.ts'), () => ({
|
||||
...methodAuditExports,
|
||||
auditAutoplanMethodReads: () => complete ? ['ceo', 'design', 'dx', 'eng'].map(phase => ({phase, passed: true})) : [],
|
||||
loadAutoplanMethodologyBinding: () => undefined,
|
||||
}));
|
||||
mock.module(path.join(root, 'test/helpers/plan-count-artifacts.ts'), () => ({createPlanCountSnapshotWriter: () => (input: any) => {
|
||||
facts.captured.push({ state: input.observation.state, prematurePhaseEntry: input.observation.prematurePhaseEntry }); return {};
|
||||
}}));
|
||||
afterAll(() => fs.writeFileSync(process.env.AUTOPLAN_CALLER_FACTS!, JSON.stringify(facts)));
|
||||
await import('../skill-e2e-autoplan-chain.test');
|
||||
}
|
||||
+521
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||
CREATE TABLE users (
|
||||
id TEXT PRIMARY KEY, email TEXT NOT NULL UNIQUE, password_hash TEXT NOT NULL
|
||||
);
|
||||
CREATE TABLE sessions (
|
||||
token_hash TEXT PRIMARY KEY, user_id TEXT NOT NULL REFERENCES users(id), expires_at BIGINT NOT NULL
|
||||
);
|
||||
CREATE TABLE activity (
|
||||
id TEXT PRIMARY KEY, user_id TEXT NOT NULL REFERENCES users(id),
|
||||
description TEXT NOT NULL, created_at BIGINT NOT NULL
|
||||
);
|
||||
CREATE TABLE notifications (
|
||||
id TEXT PRIMARY KEY, user_id TEXT NOT NULL REFERENCES users(id),
|
||||
message TEXT NOT NULL, created_at BIGINT NOT NULL, read_at BIGINT
|
||||
);
|
||||
CREATE INDEX activity_user_created ON activity(user_id, created_at);
|
||||
CREATE INDEX notifications_user_created ON notifications(user_id, created_at);
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
|
||||
<!doctype html>
|
||||
<html lang="en"><head><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"><title>Workspace</title><link rel="stylesheet" href="./public/styles.css"></head>
|
||||
<body><div id="root"></div><script type="module" src="./src/main.tsx"></script></body></html>
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "workspace-app-fixture", "private": true, "type": "module",
|
||||
"scripts": { "start": "bun src/server.ts", "css": "tailwindcss -i src/styles.css -o public/styles.css" },
|
||||
"dependencies": { "react": "19.1.1", "react-dom": "19.1.1" },
|
||||
"devDependencies": { "tailwindcss": "3.4.17" }
|
||||
}
|
||||
+15
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
|
||||
import { createHash } from 'node:crypto';
|
||||
|
||||
export type Session = { user_id: string; expires_at: number };
|
||||
export function tokenHash(token: string): string {
|
||||
return createHash('sha256').update(token).digest('hex');
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// Only the server-issued cookie identifies a session; never accept a user ID
|
||||
// supplied in the URL/body. Raw session tokens are not stored in the database.
|
||||
export async function sessionUser(request: Request, lookup: (hash: string) => Promise<Session | undefined>, now = Date.now()): Promise<string | null> {
|
||||
const token = /(?:^|;\s*)session=([a-f0-9]{64})(?:;|$)/.exec(request.headers.get('cookie') ?? '')?.[1];
|
||||
if (!token) return null;
|
||||
const session = await lookup(tokenHash(token));
|
||||
return session && session.expires_at > now ? session.user_id : null;
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
|
||||
import React, { useEffect, useState } from 'react';
|
||||
import { createRoot } from 'react-dom/client';
|
||||
import { Workspace } from './pages/Workspace';
|
||||
|
||||
function App() {
|
||||
const [state, setState] = useState<'loading' | 'login' | 'workspace' | 'error'>('loading');
|
||||
useEffect(() => { fetch('/api/session').then(response => setState(response.ok ? 'workspace' : response.status === 401 ? 'login' : 'error')).catch(() => setState('error')); }, []);
|
||||
if (state === 'loading') return <p role="status">Loading workspace…</p>;
|
||||
if (state === 'error') return <p role="alert">Workspace unavailable. Reload to retry.</p>;
|
||||
if (state === 'workspace') return <Workspace />;
|
||||
return <main className="mx-auto max-w-md p-6"><h1 className="text-2xl font-bold">Sign in</h1><form onSubmit={async event => {
|
||||
event.preventDefault(); const form = new FormData(event.currentTarget);
|
||||
const response = await fetch('/api/login', { method: 'POST', headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json' }, body: JSON.stringify({ email: form.get('email'), password: form.get('password') }) }).catch(() => null);
|
||||
if (response?.ok) location.assign('/workspace'); else setState('error');
|
||||
}}><label>Email<input className="block border focus-visible:outline" name="email" type="email" autoComplete="username" required /></label><label>Password<input className="block border focus-visible:outline" name="password" type="password" autoComplete="current-password" required /></label><button className="mt-4 rounded bg-blue-700 px-4 py-2 text-white focus-visible:outline" type="submit">Sign in</button></form></main>;
|
||||
}
|
||||
createRoot(document.getElementById('root')!).render(<App />);
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
|
||||
import React from 'react';
|
||||
|
||||
export function Workspace() {
|
||||
return <main className="mx-auto max-w-3xl p-6"><h1 className="text-2xl font-bold">Workspace</h1><p className="mt-4">Open a project to continue your work.</p><nav aria-label="Workspace"><a className="inline-block py-3 text-blue-700 underline focus-visible:outline" href="mailto:support@example.test">Contact support</a></nav></main>;
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
|
||||
import { SQL } from 'bun';
|
||||
import { randomBytes } from 'node:crypto';
|
||||
import index from '../index.html';
|
||||
import { sessionUser, tokenHash } from './auth';
|
||||
|
||||
const sql = new SQL(process.env.DATABASE_URL!);
|
||||
Bun.serve({
|
||||
routes: { '/': index, '/login': index, '/workspace': index },
|
||||
async fetch(request) {
|
||||
const url = new URL(request.url);
|
||||
if (url.pathname === '/api/login' && request.method === 'POST') {
|
||||
if (request.headers.get('origin') !== process.env.APP_ORIGIN) return new Response('Forbidden', { status: 403 });
|
||||
const input = await request.json().catch(() => null);
|
||||
if (typeof input?.email !== 'string' || typeof input?.password !== 'string') return new Response('Bad request', { status: 400 });
|
||||
const [user] = await sql`SELECT id, password_hash FROM users WHERE email = ${input.email}`;
|
||||
if (!user || !await Bun.password.verify(input.password, user.password_hash)) return new Response('Invalid credentials', { status: 401 });
|
||||
const token = randomBytes(32).toString('hex');
|
||||
await sql`INSERT INTO sessions (token_hash, user_id, expires_at) VALUES (${tokenHash(token)}, ${user.id}, ${Date.now() + 3600000})`;
|
||||
return Response.json({ redirect: '/workspace' }, { headers: { 'Set-Cookie': `session=${token}; HttpOnly; Secure; SameSite=Lax; Path=/; Max-Age=3600` } });
|
||||
}
|
||||
if (url.pathname === '/api/session' && request.method === 'GET') {
|
||||
const userId = await sessionUser(request, async hash => (await sql`SELECT user_id, expires_at FROM sessions WHERE token_hash = ${hash}`)[0]);
|
||||
return userId ? Response.json({ userId }) : new Response('Unauthorized', { status: 401 });
|
||||
}
|
||||
return new Response('Not found', { status: 404 });
|
||||
},
|
||||
});
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
|
||||
@tailwind base;
|
||||
@tailwind components;
|
||||
@tailwind utilities;
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
|
||||
module.exports = { content: ['./index.html', './src/**/*.tsx'], theme: { extend: {} }, plugins: [] };
|
||||
+219
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+73
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+186
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+209
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+198
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+109
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+39
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
|
||||
import { afterAll, beforeAll, expect, test } from 'bun:test';
|
||||
import { chromium, type Browser, type BrowserContext, type Page } from 'playwright';
|
||||
import * as path from 'node:path';
|
||||
|
||||
// Existing UI only. The HTTP responses below are test doubles, not an auth or
|
||||
// database test. React, the form and its submit handler are the actual source.
|
||||
const root = path.resolve(import.meta.dir, '..');
|
||||
let server: ReturnType<typeof Bun.serve> | undefined;
|
||||
let browser: Browser | undefined;
|
||||
let origin: string;
|
||||
|
||||
beforeAll(async () => {
|
||||
const build = await Bun.build({ entrypoints: [path.join(root, 'src/main.tsx')], target: 'browser' });
|
||||
expect(build.success, build.logs.map(String).join('\n')).toBe(true);
|
||||
expect(build.outputs).toHaveLength(1);
|
||||
const html = await Bun.file(path.join(root, 'index.html')).text();
|
||||
const css = Bun.file(path.join(root, 'public/styles.css'));
|
||||
expect(await css.exists()).toBe(true); // `bun run test` builds existing CSS first.
|
||||
server = Bun.serve({ hostname: '127.0.0.1', port: 0, fetch(request) {
|
||||
const route = new URL(request.url).pathname;
|
||||
if (route === '/' || route === '/workspace') return new Response(html, { headers: { 'Content-Type': 'text/html' } });
|
||||
if (route === '/src/main.tsx') return new Response(build.outputs[0], { headers: { 'Content-Type': 'text/javascript' } });
|
||||
if (route === '/public/styles.css') return new Response(css, { headers: { 'Content-Type': 'text/css' } });
|
||||
return new Response('Not found', { status: 404 });
|
||||
} });
|
||||
origin = `http://127.0.0.1:${server.port}`;
|
||||
browser = await chromium.launch({ headless: true, timeout: 10_000,
|
||||
...(process.env.GSTACK_CHROMIUM_PATH ? { executablePath: process.env.GSTACK_CHROMIUM_PATH } : {}) });
|
||||
}, 15_000);
|
||||
|
||||
afterAll(async () => {
|
||||
try { await browser?.close(); } finally { await server?.stop(true); }
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
async function withSignIn(loginStatus: 200 | 401, check: (page: Page) => Promise<void>) {
|
||||
const context: BrowserContext = await browser!.newContext({ serviceWorkers: 'block' });
|
||||
let authenticated = false;
|
||||
const unexpected: string[] = [];
|
||||
const pageErrors: string[] = [];
|
||||
try {
|
||||
await context.route('**/*', async route => {
|
||||
const request = route.request();
|
||||
const url = new URL(request.url());
|
||||
if (url.origin !== origin) { unexpected.push(url.origin); await route.abort(); return; }
|
||||
if (url.pathname === '/api/session' && request.method() === 'GET') {
|
||||
await route.fulfill(authenticated
|
||||
? { status: 200, contentType: 'application/json', body: '{"userId":"fixture-user"}' }
|
||||
: { status: 401, body: 'Unauthorized' });
|
||||
} else if (url.pathname === '/api/login' && request.method() === 'POST') {
|
||||
authenticated = loginStatus === 200;
|
||||
await route.fulfill(authenticated
|
||||
? { status: 200, contentType: 'application/json', body: '{"redirect":"/workspace"}' }
|
||||
: { status: 401, body: 'Invalid credentials' });
|
||||
} else if (url.pathname.startsWith('/api/')) {
|
||||
unexpected.push(request.method() + ' ' + url.pathname); await route.abort();
|
||||
} else await route.continue();
|
||||
});
|
||||
const page = await context.newPage();
|
||||
page.setDefaultTimeout(3_000);
|
||||
page.on('pageerror', error => pageErrors.push(error.message));
|
||||
await page.goto(origin);
|
||||
await page.getByRole('heading', { name: 'Sign in', exact: true }).waitFor();
|
||||
await check(page);
|
||||
expect(unexpected).toEqual([]);
|
||||
expect(pageErrors).toEqual([]);
|
||||
} finally { await context.close(); }
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
test('current sign-in masks its password and has no visibility control yet', async () => {
|
||||
await withSignIn(200, async page => {
|
||||
const password = page.getByLabel('Password', { exact: true });
|
||||
expect(await password.getAttribute('type')).toBe('password');
|
||||
expect(await password.getAttribute('name')).toBe('password');
|
||||
expect(await password.getAttribute('autocomplete')).toBe('current-password');
|
||||
expect(await password.getAttribute('required')).not.toBeNull();
|
||||
expect(await page.getByRole('button', { name: /show password|hide password/i }).count()).toBe(0);
|
||||
await password.fill('fixture-password');
|
||||
expect(await password.inputValue()).toBe('fixture-password');
|
||||
});
|
||||
}, 10_000);
|
||||
|
||||
test('Enter posts the typed credentials and a successful response navigates to the workspace', async () => {
|
||||
await withSignIn(200, async page => {
|
||||
await page.getByLabel('Email', { exact: true }).fill('alice@example.test');
|
||||
const password = page.getByLabel('Password', { exact: true });
|
||||
await password.fill('fixture-password');
|
||||
const responsePromise = page.waitForResponse(origin + '/api/login');
|
||||
await password.press('Enter');
|
||||
const response = await responsePromise;
|
||||
expect(response.request().method()).toBe('POST');
|
||||
expect(response.request().postDataJSON()).toEqual({ email: 'alice@example.test', password: 'fixture-password' });
|
||||
expect(response.status()).toBe(200);
|
||||
await page.waitForURL(origin + '/workspace');
|
||||
await page.getByRole('heading', { name: 'Workspace', exact: true }).waitFor();
|
||||
});
|
||||
}, 10_000);
|
||||
|
||||
test('a wrong-password response preserves the current generic error and unmounts the form', async () => {
|
||||
await withSignIn(401, async page => {
|
||||
await page.getByLabel('Email', { exact: true }).fill('alice@example.test');
|
||||
await page.getByLabel('Password', { exact: true }).fill('wrong-password');
|
||||
const responsePromise = page.waitForResponse(origin + '/api/login');
|
||||
await page.getByRole('button', { name: 'Sign in', exact: true }).click();
|
||||
const response = await responsePromise;
|
||||
expect(response.request().postDataJSON()).toEqual({ email: 'alice@example.test', password: 'wrong-password' });
|
||||
expect(response.status()).toBe(401);
|
||||
await page.getByRole('alert').waitFor();
|
||||
expect(await page.getByRole('alert').textContent()).toBe('Workspace unavailable. Reload to retry.');
|
||||
expect(await page.getByLabel('Password', { exact: true }).count()).toBe(0);
|
||||
expect(new URL(page.url()).pathname).toBe('/');
|
||||
});
|
||||
}, 10_000);
|
||||
+10
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"source": "Claude Code 2.1.263; retained Design permission timeout 2026-09-12; command is fixture data and is never executed",
|
||||
"nativeId": "toolu_01EtrxTNWtbjVKhMFzKAxuQA",
|
||||
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-cUYI5t/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-design-wf1pUC",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "D=\"/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-cUYI5t/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2009579-9Ir38t/with-skills/runtime/design/dist/design\"\n_DESIGN_DIR=\"$HOME/.gstack/projects/gstack-e2e-plan-design-wf1pUC/designs/settings-page-redesign-20260912\"\nls \"$_DESIGN_DIR\"; find \"$HOME/.gstack\" -name '*session*.json' 2>/dev/null | head\necho \"--- iterate help ---\"; \"$D\" iterate --help 2>&1 | head -30\necho \"--- evolve help ---\"; \"$D\" evolve --help 2>&1 | head -30",
|
||||
"description": "Check designer iterate/evolve options and session files"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"card": " 109 + \n 110 ## Typography\n 111 **Defect:** We use 14px, 16px, and 18px font sizes across the form labels. Two sizes would suffice and create stronger hierarchy.\n 112 \n \n● User answered Claude's questions:\n ⎿ · D18 — Regenerate the approved mockup to match the finished plan?\n Project/branch/task: main — Settings redesign plan, post-pass mockup update. Approved reference is Variant C.\n ELI10: The review changed a few things the approved picture still shows differently: no hairline divider between sections (10B), no lock icons or gray fill on read-only inputs, the heading is just 'Settings', the panel text is the \n save-failure message with an outline Retry (6A), error red is #991B1B on #FEF2F2 (9A), labels are 16px with two weights (8A), and the section gap is exactly 48px (7A). I can run one iteration of Variant C with that feedback so the \n implementer's visual reference matches the plan. This is a one-shot refinement, not another selection round.\n Stakes if we pick wrong: an implementer copies the divider or lock icons from the old picture, or we spend 90 seconds on a picture the plan already describes precisely.\n Recommendation: A because a reference that contradicts the plan in five visible details is worse than no reference, and the plan already lists exactly what to change.\n Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\n Net: one designer round for a matching reference vs. keep the approved image plus a written deviations list. → A) Yes, iterate Variant C once (recommended)\n \n Checking designer iterate/evolve options and session files\n ⎿ $ D=\"/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-cUYI5t/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2009579-9Ir38t/with-skills/runtime/design/dist/design\"\n _DESIGN_DIR=\"$HOME/.gstack/projects/gstack-e2e-plan-design-wf1pUC/designs/settings-page-redesign-20260912\"\n ls \"$_DESIGN_DIR\"; find \"$HOME/.gstack\" -name '*session*.json' 2>/dev/null | head\n …\n \n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n Bash command\n \n │ D=\"/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-cUYI5t/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2009579-9Ir38t/with-skills/runtime/design/dist/design\"\n │ _DESIGN_DIR=\"$HOME/.gstack/projects/gstack-e2e-plan-design-wf1pUC/designs/settings-page-redesign-20260912\"\n │ ls \"$_DESIGN_DIR\"; find \"$HOME/.gstack\" -name '*session*.json' 2>/dev/null | head\n │ echo \"--- iterate help ---\"; \"$D\" iterate --help 2>&1 | head -30\n │ echo \"--- evolve help ---\"; \"$D\" evolve --help 2>&1 | head -30\n Check designer iterate/evolve options and session files\n \n Contains simple_expansion\n\n Do you want to proceed?\n ❯ 1. Yes \n 2. Yes, allow reading from /home/vercel-sandbox/.gstack/projects/gstack-e2e-plan-design-wf1pUC/designs/settings-page-redesign-20260912 and /home/vercel-sandbox/.gstack from this project\n 3. No\n\n Esc to cancel · Tab to amend"
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
|
||||
# Counter repository
|
||||
|
||||
This private TypeScript workspace module serves the reconciliation CLI. Its
|
||||
developers are teammates writing small Bun batch jobs. There is no public package,
|
||||
HTTP API, tenant data, or browser UI. Bun is the CLI's existing runtime; SQLite is
|
||||
built in. No dependency install, credentials, or database server is needed.
|
||||
|
||||
## Try the current API
|
||||
|
||||
Run `bun run example.ts`. It writes a counter and prints `2 2 undefined`: two reads
|
||||
of the known key and one absent key. Both known-key reads currently query SQLite.
|
||||
|
||||
```ts
|
||||
import { Database } from 'bun:sqlite';
|
||||
import { CounterRepository } from './src/repository';
|
||||
const db = new Database(':memory:');
|
||||
const counters = new CounterRepository(db);
|
||||
counters.set('orders', 2);
|
||||
console.log(counters.get('orders'), counters.get('orders'), counters.get('missing'));
|
||||
db.close();
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Contract
|
||||
|
||||
`get(key)` returns a number or `undefined`. `set(key, value)` commits before
|
||||
returning. These synchronous methods are the only reads and writes of the table,
|
||||
owned by this one CLI process. Values are scalars; keys are explicit strings with
|
||||
no ambient user, tenant, or locale context. The repository has no list queries,
|
||||
external writers, or asynchronous transaction callbacks.
|
||||
|
||||
An empty or overlong key throws `TypeError: Counter key must contain 1-128
|
||||
characters`. A nonfinite value throws `TypeError: Counter value must be a finite
|
||||
number`. SQLite errors propagate to the caller, which fails the batch job; they
|
||||
are never represented as a missing counter. Always close the database after use.
|
||||
|
||||
The cache in PLAN.md is proposed work. The current module, example, runtime,
|
||||
calling convention and error contract above are the baseline to review against.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
|
||||
# Plan: ordered batch reads for the reconciliation CLI
|
||||
|
||||
## Context and scope
|
||||
|
||||
Read `README.md`, `src/repository.ts`, and `example.ts` for the existing private
|
||||
CounterRepository, its runtime, and its error contract. The CLI currently calls
|
||||
`get` separately for each counter. Add a convenient ordered batch-read method;
|
||||
this is an API convenience, not a database-load or latency optimization. The
|
||||
existing methods and runnable example must keep working.
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposed behavior — subject to this review
|
||||
|
||||
Add `getMany(keys: readonly string[]): Array<number | undefined>` to
|
||||
CounterRepository. This method is not implemented or approved. The proposed
|
||||
implementation calls the existing `get` once for each input key, in input order.
|
||||
Return one result per key in that same order, retaining duplicate keys and
|
||||
`undefined` results for absent counters. An empty input returns an empty array
|
||||
without querying SQLite.
|
||||
|
||||
Each nonempty read must use the existing key validation and SQLite read path.
|
||||
Propagate the first validation or database error unchanged; do not convert an
|
||||
error into `undefined` or return partial success. In particular, reading a key
|
||||
after the database closes must still fail. Do not cache values, copy the caller's
|
||||
write values, or change `get`/`set` behavior. This sequence of point reads does not
|
||||
promise an atomic snapshot or add a transaction.
|
||||
|
||||
The caller is this TypeScript CLI and supplies a dense `readonly string[]`.
|
||||
This change adds no runtime contract for a non-array argument or sparse arrays.
|
||||
Every supplied key still goes through `get`, including invalid keys; do not add
|
||||
a separate batch-level key validator or change the existing error messages.
|
||||
|
||||
The concrete implementation proposed for review is an empty result array and a
|
||||
`for...of` loop that pushes `this.get(key)` for each key, then returns the array.
|
||||
With no keys the loop performs no reads, including when the database is closed.
|
||||
Do not add a separate empty-input branch or a size cap. Review these steps for
|
||||
actual incompatibilities; they are specified proposals, not implementation that
|
||||
already exists or authority to overlook a defect.
|
||||
|
||||
The CLI integration is the existing `example.ts`: propose replacing its three
|
||||
point reads with `getMany(['orders', 'orders', 'missing'])` and printing the three
|
||||
returned elements. Its visible output remains `2 2 undefined`; no second CLI,
|
||||
package export, or new call site is needed.
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation and proof to plan
|
||||
|
||||
The plan author has selected the following test runner and acceptance recipe for this change. These are accepted requirements to review against, not an existing test suite, completed review, or claim that tests pass. Preserve this recipe; if the proposed implementation conflicts with it or a required proof is missing, surface the concrete issue through the normal decision procedure. The implementation itself remains proposed and unapproved.
|
||||
|
||||
The author delegates routine mechanics for this fixed implementation package to
|
||||
the reviewer: the proposed method, existing CLI call-site integration, the full
|
||||
acceptance recipe, and synchronization of existing contract documentation and
|
||||
examples that those changes would otherwise make false. Choose the smallest
|
||||
complete approach using this repository's existing conventions. Interchangeable
|
||||
code organization, test mechanics and documentation placement are delegated
|
||||
implementation details, not separate scope or approval questions. Record their
|
||||
concrete findings and disposition; carry the necessary code, tests and docs
|
||||
together without constructing alternative polish packages.
|
||||
|
||||
This authority covers requirements and routine planning choices only. It does
|
||||
not approve the proposed implementation, authorize implementation-file writes,
|
||||
or declare any review or test complete. Optional polish, duplicate contract
|
||||
surfaces, new instrumentation and independent proof projects remain excluded.
|
||||
A material contract change, missing required proof, or conflict with the author's
|
||||
authority still requires the normal decision procedure. The standing plan-author
|
||||
actor must select a complete permitted resolution or report the unresolved
|
||||
conflict; delegation cannot approve an incompatible alternative or erase a
|
||||
finding. Preserve every required review section, artifact and verification.
|
||||
|
||||
- Use Bun's existing built-in `bun test` runner and a new `src/repository.test.ts`. Each test opens an in-memory SQLite database and closes it during cleanup. No dependency, package.json or runner configuration is added.
|
||||
- Pin the existing regression contract: integer, float, zero and negative get/set round trips; overwrite; missing key yields `undefined`; invalid empty, overlong and non-string keys retain the exact existing TypeError message; NaN and either infinity retain the exact value TypeError message. A second repository over the same database observes the stored value. An integration test runs the existing `example.ts` under Bun and asserts exit 0 and exactly `2 2 undefined\n`. The intentional example change is its proposed `getMany` call; existing get/set and error behavior remain unchanged.
|
||||
- Pin `getMany` acceptance: empty input returns `[]` on open and closed databases without querying; mixed known/missing results preserve order and length; an uncast readonly tuple call returns the expected ordered results; adjacent and non-adjacent duplicates are retained; a stored zero differs from an absent key. Invalid keys in first, middle and last positions throw the existing error and return no array. A 128-character key succeeds and a 129-character key fails. A nonempty batch after database close throws; a missing table throws rather than returning `undefined` (do not pin an undocumented SQLite error message). The write-between-batches trace observes `[1]`, then after a write observes `[5, 5]`.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
The readonly tuple must also be accepted by the TypeScript signature. This is a
|
||||
required static proof during review, separate from runtime test execution:
|
||||
verify the proposed declaration is `getMany(keys: readonly string[]): Array<number | undefined>`
|
||||
and the uncast call `const keys = ['orders', 'missing'] as const; repo.getMany(keys)`.
|
||||
Explain why that readonly tuple is assignable to `readonly string[]`. Reject a
|
||||
mutable `string[]` parameter, a cast that removes readonly, or `any` that bypasses
|
||||
the required type contract. Keep the tuple call in `src/repository.test.ts` to
|
||||
assert `[2, undefined]` at runtime. `bun test` executes TypeScript without
|
||||
checking assignability; do not claim it proves the static signature or that a
|
||||
compiler ran. No checker dependency, config or future-checker promise replaces
|
||||
this required static proof. A genuine type incompatibility still requires the
|
||||
normal decision procedure; this clarification does not approve implementation.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Review the method's type and control flow, its call-site use in the CLI, and all
|
||||
acceptance requirements above. These are required tests to plan, not tests
|
||||
already implemented or passing.
|
||||
|
||||
The proposed implementation performs one SELECT per input key and allocates an
|
||||
output array proportional to the input length. Assess that cost and any relevant
|
||||
limits for this internal synchronous API; do not claim a measured speedup.
|
||||
Caching, shared invalidation state, SQL batching, new public packaging, and
|
||||
background processing are outside this change. Surface any real incompatibility
|
||||
with the requested method rather than assuming the baseline contract away.
|
||||
|
||||
This review plans the required proofs above; it does not add a benchmark project,
|
||||
an arbitrary large-batch acceptance target, or TODOs for the excluded features.
|
||||
Keep the review's complete architecture, code-quality, test and performance
|
||||
outcomes, required diagrams, test-plan artifact and final review report. The
|
||||
method remains unimplemented until the plan is approved and implemented.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
|
||||
import { Database } from 'bun:sqlite';
|
||||
import { CounterRepository } from './src/repository';
|
||||
const db = new Database(':memory:');
|
||||
const counters = new CounterRepository(db);
|
||||
counters.set('orders', 2);
|
||||
console.log(counters.get('orders'), counters.get('orders'), counters.get('missing'));
|
||||
db.close();
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
|
||||
import { Database } from 'bun:sqlite';
|
||||
|
||||
/** Private API used by the reconciliation CLI in this process. All access to
|
||||
* this SQLite table uses this repository; values are public numeric counters. */
|
||||
export class CounterRepository {
|
||||
constructor(private readonly db: Database) {
|
||||
db.exec('CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS counters (key TEXT PRIMARY KEY, value REAL NOT NULL)');
|
||||
}
|
||||
private key(key: string): void {
|
||||
if (typeof key !== 'string' || key.length === 0 || key.length > 128) throw new TypeError('Counter key must contain 1-128 characters');
|
||||
}
|
||||
get(key: string): number | undefined {
|
||||
this.key(key);
|
||||
return (this.db.query('SELECT value FROM counters WHERE key = ?').get(key) as { value: number } | null)?.value;
|
||||
}
|
||||
set(key: string, value: number): void {
|
||||
this.key(key);
|
||||
if (!Number.isFinite(value)) throw new TypeError('Counter value must be a finite number');
|
||||
this.db.query('INSERT INTO counters(key, value) VALUES (?, ?) ON CONFLICT(key) DO UPDATE SET value = excluded.value').run(key, value);
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
+295
@@ -0,0 +1,295 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"source": "90f099817ac7e56cddafbd6fdac4c12dfd70f4a4",
|
||||
"cliVersion": "2.1.251",
|
||||
"cases": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "five-baseline",
|
||||
"source": "90f099817ac7e56cddafbd6fdac4c12dfd70f4a4",
|
||||
"originalError": "Error: Unsupported current CEO decision; cannot exclude it from the 4–7 count: d9385c5f-da81-49d1-a475-a1ea1a87254b:toolu_01LGiCdruLLziwpCaS9h11ES",
|
||||
"call": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "d9385c5f-da81-49d1-a475-a1ea1a87254b",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01LGiCdruLLziwpCaS9h11ES",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D3 — Bind `userId` as a query parameter, or keep the raw SQL fragment?\nProject/branch/task: Payment Processing Integration plan on `main`, HOLD SCOPE review, ledger row D3.\nELI10: The user ID arrives from Stripe's event metadata. The signature proves Stripe sent it; it does not prove the string is harmless. Anyone who can set PaymentIntent metadata on your Stripe account (a merchant tool, a leaked API key) can put `'; DROP TABLE users; --` in it, and the plan's own contracts say IDs may contain any punctuation and nothing sanitizes them. Pasting that string into SQL text is classic SQL injection; handing it to the database as a bound parameter makes it inert.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Data exfiltration or destruction through a validly signed webhook, with no alert distinguishing it from a normal payment.\nRecommendation: A because binding costs one line and removes the whole vulnerability class; the plan's own contracts section already states a valid signature does not make the string safe for SQL.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=2/10\nNet: a one-line binding versus an injection hole reachable by anyone with metadata access.",
|
||||
"header": "SQL lookup",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Bound parameter / finder (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Quotes, semicolons, Unicode in `metadata.user_id` become plain data, never SQL\n✅ Uses the shared DB client the way it is designed; no format validation added, opaque TEXT contract intact\n❌ Requires one deliberate line instead of string interpolation"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Keep raw SQL fragment",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Matches the plan text as written; nothing to change\n✅ Marginally shorter code\n❌ SQL injection through any validly signed event whose metadata an attacker controls"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D3 — Bind `userId` as a query parameter, or keep the raw SQL fragment?\nProject/branch/task: Payment Processing Integration plan on `main`, HOLD SCOPE review, ledger row D3.\nELI10: The user ID arrives from Stripe's event metadata. The signature proves Stripe sent it; it does not prove the string is harmless. Anyone who can set PaymentIntent metadata on your Stripe account (a merchant tool, a leaked API key) can put `'; DROP TABLE users; --` in it, and the plan's own contracts say IDs may contain any punctuation and nothing sanitizes them. Pasting that string into SQL text is classic SQL injection; handing it to the database as a bound parameter makes it inert.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Data exfiltration or destruction through a validly signed webhook, with no alert distinguishing it from a normal payment.\nRecommendation: A because binding costs one line and removes the whole vulnerability class; the plan's own contracts section already states a valid signature does not make the string safe for SQL.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=2/10\nNet: a one-line binding versus an injection hole reachable by anyone with metadata access.": "Bound parameter / finder (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T16:00:48.951Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing Integration — CEO Review (HOLD SCOPE)\nReviewed by /plan-ceo-review on 2026-09-15. Branch: main. Mode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user choice).\nSource plan: PLAN.md (commit 22cc010). Review only; no code changes.\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| D3 (user) | Lookup query. PLAN.md Database access: `request.params.userId` \"directly into a raw SQL fragment\"; Contracts: adapter forwards nonempty string unchanged, no cast/escape, IDs are opaque TEXT incl. punctuation | prior handler's lookup (method unknown; mark unknown) | see options below | unresolved | — |\n\n### D3 — Lookup query (pending)\n\nCommitment grid:\n\n```\nCommitment | Source/approval or pending | Current | A: bound parameter | B: raw fragment\nIDs are opaque TEXT, any nonempty string | approved (contracts) | yes | yes | yes\nNo format validation added | approved (contracts) | yes | yes | yes\nuserId interpolated into SQL text | pending (D3) | unknown | no | yes\n```\n\n- **A) Bound parameter / finder** — `WHERE id = $1` with the string bound, or the\n existing model finder. Effort S, risk low. Pros: any punctuation/Unicode/quote in a\n signed-but-attacker-controlled `metadata.user_id` is inert; matches how the shared\n DB client is meant to be used. Cons: none beyond one line of care.\n- **B) Raw SQL fragment** (plan as written) — string interpolation. Effort S, risk\n high. Pros: none over A. Cons: a merchant-side actor who can set PaymentIntent\n metadata (or a stolen dashboard/API key) gets SQL injection through a validly signed\n event; the ownership guard compares identity, it does not sanitize; the contracts\n section itself says \"a valid signature does not make it safe for SQL.\"\n- No third viable option: escaping by hand is strictly worse than binding.\n",
|
||||
"provenance": {
|
||||
"originalReportSha256": "a09da73054aaccf86d2df113578c76e990609c7483b005408dd5e8205d832853",
|
||||
"requiredExcerptSha256": "e30fc2c26e544d03b40bd7991a3170372d884d511230ede318e10530be2b1303",
|
||||
"requestAt": "2026-09-15T16:00:47.200Z",
|
||||
"successfulPriorMutations": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Write",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01ExqMmTfCqudZ1WeWmLvuKJ",
|
||||
"requestedAt": "2026-09-15T16:00:08.956Z",
|
||||
"acknowledgedAt": "2026-09-15T16:00:09.906Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Edit",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01QttmFedjvjxKdVNgETC31N",
|
||||
"requestedAt": "2026-09-15T16:00:32.607Z",
|
||||
"acknowledgedAt": "2026-09-15T16:00:33.460Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"extraction": "Original source paragraph, original owned ledger row, complete original decision section; other sections omitted without rewriting."
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "paired-baseline",
|
||||
"source": "90f099817ac7e56cddafbd6fdac4c12dfd70f4a4",
|
||||
"originalError": "Error: Unsupported current CEO decision; cannot exclude it from the 4–7 count: 70635ea5-c9a1-4bfa-b32a-1ab8aa4ea0c0:toolu_01RPnSBqL1fLqyMhv5URGTsv",
|
||||
"call": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "70635ea5-c9a1-4bfa-b32a-1ab8aa4ea0c0",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01RPnSBqL1fLqyMhv5URGTsv",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"header": "D1 Test 1",
|
||||
"question": "D1 — How deep should the successful-charge test assert?\nProject/branch/task: main, HOLD SCOPE review of the processPayment test-coverage plan (ledger row D1).\nELI10: The plan says the receipt must be exactly { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }, but the planned test only checks that *something* came back. A receipt of {} or one with the wrong amount would still pass. The factory already exposes the Stripe call history and the sleeper record, so stronger assertions cost lines, not infrastructure.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a regression that drops currency or mis-copies the amount ships with a green suite, and the customer sees a wrong receipt.\nRecommendation: C because the plan's own stated goal is coverage of this contract, and C is three assertions using hooks the plan already names (human: ~10 min / CC: ~1 min).\nCompleteness: A=3/10, B=7/10, C=10/10\nNet: trading two extra assertion lines against a test that can actually fail when the receipt contract breaks.",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "C) Full: receipt + call + no backoff (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Deep-equal the receipt AND assert exactly one Stripe charge call with amount 1000 / USD AND an empty sleeper record. Covers the whole happy-path contract.\n❌ Three assertions instead of one; pins a 'no backoff on success' fact the plan implies but does not spell out."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B) Deep-equal receipt only",
|
||||
"description": "✅ One assertion covers all three receipt fields; a dropped or mis-copied field fails the test.\n❌ Says nothing about what was sent to Stripe or whether a backoff fired on the happy path."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A) Keep as planned: truthy only",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Matches PLAN.md verbatim; smallest possible diff.\n❌ Passes when the receipt is {} or carries the wrong amount; does not cover the contract the plan claims to cover."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D1 — How deep should the successful-charge test assert?\nProject/branch/task: main, HOLD SCOPE review of the processPayment test-coverage plan (ledger row D1).\nELI10: The plan says the receipt must be exactly { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }, but the planned test only checks that *something* came back. A receipt of {} or one with the wrong amount would still pass. The factory already exposes the Stripe call history and the sleeper record, so stronger assertions cost lines, not infrastructure.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a regression that drops currency or mis-copies the amount ships with a green suite, and the customer sees a wrong receipt.\nRecommendation: C because the plan's own stated goal is coverage of this contract, and C is three assertions using hooks the plan already names (human: ~10 min / CC: ~1 min).\nCompleteness: A=3/10, B=7/10, C=10/10\nNet: trading two extra assertion lines against a test that can actually fail when the receipt contract breaks.": "C) Full: receipt + call + no backoff (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T16:01:27.394Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing — Test Coverage (working plan, under /plan-ceo-review, HOLD SCOPE)\nSource: PLAN.md @ 434ca72 on `main`. Base branch: `main` (git-native fallback; no `origin` URL).\nReview mode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user instruction). Scope: two new unit tests in the existing processPayment suite. No production code changes.\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| D1 (user) — Test 1 assertion depth | Receipt = { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" } (PLAN.md \"Existing behavior retained\"). Factory exposes Stripe mock call history and sleeper record (plan-stated). | Assert only receipt is truthy (\"complete planned assertion\"). | A) truthy only. B) deep-equal receipt. C) deep-equal receipt + exactly one Stripe charge call with amount 1000 / USD + empty sleeper record. | unresolved | — |\n\n### D1 comparison\n| Commitment | Source / status | Current | A | B | C |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| Test lives in existing processPayment suite, uses factory | PLAN.md, fixed | yes | yes | yes | yes |\n| Mock returns id ch_paid; call with 1000 / USD | PLAN.md, fixed | yes | yes | yes | yes |\n| Receipt truthy | PLAN.md | yes | yes | implied | implied |\n| Receipt deep-equals { chargeId, amountCents, currency } | pending | no | no | yes | yes |\n| Exactly one Stripe charge call, with amount 1000 and currency USD | pending | no | no | no | yes |\n| Sleeper record empty (no backoff on success) | pending | no | no | no | yes |\n\n- A) As planned — effort S, risk low. Pros: matches PLAN.md verbatim; smallest diff. Cons: passes if the receipt is `{}` or has amountCents 100000; does not cover the contract the plan says it covers. Completeness 3/10.\n- B) Deep-equal receipt — effort S, risk low. Pros: one assertion covers all three fields in the stated contract; a dropped or mis-copied field fails. Cons: says nothing about what was sent to Stripe or whether a backoff fired. Completeness 7/10.\n- C) Deep-equal + outbound call + no backoff — effort S (3 assertions), risk low. Pros: covers the receipt contract and pins the happy path to exactly one charge with the requested amount/currency and zero recorded sleeps; uses only factory hooks the plan already names. Cons: three lines instead of one; asserts a \"no backoff on success\" fact the plan implies but does not spell out. Completeness 10/10.\n",
|
||||
"provenance": {
|
||||
"originalReportSha256": "8c7df213f2043d5e2e4f6a3c60e5605bb0c283a0a0d4d5193466c3054d3e1239",
|
||||
"requiredExcerptSha256": "b6e251d9091abfe79c95498f7bb8439ab75f8c7fd5be506669dc4db9120d84f8",
|
||||
"requestAt": "2026-09-15T16:01:26.177Z",
|
||||
"successfulPriorMutations": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Write",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_015CQo69r92n5P9pkaFiRu24",
|
||||
"requestedAt": "2026-09-15T16:01:07.639Z",
|
||||
"acknowledgedAt": "2026-09-15T16:01:09.907Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"extraction": "Original source paragraph, original owned ledger row, complete original decision section; other sections omitted without rewriting."
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "five-retry-incomplete",
|
||||
"source": "90f099817ac7e56cddafbd6fdac4c12dfd70f4a4",
|
||||
"originalError": "Unsupported current CEO decision; cannot exclude it from the 4–7 count: e0ce0ace-371b-4d72-8c03-5f65569d112f:toolu_01AK4Ko2EqUrSXZAW6Lf49VM",
|
||||
"call": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "e0ce0ace-371b-4d72-8c03-5f65569d112f",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01AK4Ko2EqUrSXZAW6Lf49VM",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D2 — How should the new lookup put request.params.userId into the query?\nProject/branch/task: main — Payment Processing Integration, HOLD SCOPE review, ledger row D2.\nELI10: The user ID arrives from Stripe metadata as any text at all, including quotes, semicolons and Unicode, and nothing upstream cleans it (PLAN.md:21-26). The plan pastes that text straight into a SQL string. A real user whose ID contains an apostrophe breaks the query every time, so their payment is never marked paid and Stripe keeps retrying for three days. If anyone can influence a stored user ID, the same paste becomes SQL injection with a valid Stripe signature on it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: stuck payments for legitimate IDs plus an injection surface on the payments path; both retryable forever, neither self-healing.\nRecommendation: A because a bound parameter keeps the \"every nonempty string is a valid identifier\" invariant by construction and has no charset edge cases.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=2/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Bound parameter or existing ORM finder (recommended)\n ✅ Injection impossible by construction; no charset or escape-mode edge cases to audit\n ✅ Same semantics as the existing lookup the plan says it retains (PLAN.md:24-26)\n ❌ Rewrites the Database access section; one regression test with quote/backslash/Unicode IDs comes with it\nB) Keep raw fragment, escape with the driver quote helper\n ✅ Smallest change to the plan text as written\n ✅ Blocks the obvious quote-break for common IDs\n ❌ Correctness depends on helper matching server charset and escape mode; hand-built SQL still needs re-audit on every edit\nC) Raw fragment as written\n ✅ Zero change to the plan\n ✅ Nothing else to say for it\n ❌ Breaks the stated invariant for IDs with quotes; 500 → 72h retry loop; injection surface on the payments path\nNet: one bind parameter versus owning an escape-correctness argument on the money path.",
|
||||
"header": "D2 lookup SQL",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A) Bound parameter (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Parameterized query or the existing ORM finder. Regression test for quote/backslash/Unicode IDs ships with it."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B) Escape helper",
|
||||
"description": "Keep raw fragment, quote via DB driver helper. Charset/escape-mode dependent."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "C) Raw fragment",
|
||||
"description": "Plan as written. Fails the opaque-TEXT invariant; injection surface."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D2 — How should the new lookup put request.params.userId into the query?\nProject/branch/task: main — Payment Processing Integration, HOLD SCOPE review, ledger row D2.\nELI10: The user ID arrives from Stripe metadata as any text at all, including quotes, semicolons and Unicode, and nothing upstream cleans it (PLAN.md:21-26). The plan pastes that text straight into a SQL string. A real user whose ID contains an apostrophe breaks the query every time, so their payment is never marked paid and Stripe keeps retrying for three days. If anyone can influence a stored user ID, the same paste becomes SQL injection with a valid Stripe signature on it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: stuck payments for legitimate IDs plus an injection surface on the payments path; both retryable forever, neither self-healing.\nRecommendation: A because a bound parameter keeps the \"every nonempty string is a valid identifier\" invariant by construction and has no charset edge cases.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=2/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Bound parameter or existing ORM finder (recommended)\n ✅ Injection impossible by construction; no charset or escape-mode edge cases to audit\n ✅ Same semantics as the existing lookup the plan says it retains (PLAN.md:24-26)\n ❌ Rewrites the Database access section; one regression test with quote/backslash/Unicode IDs comes with it\nB) Keep raw fragment, escape with the driver quote helper\n ✅ Smallest change to the plan text as written\n ✅ Blocks the obvious quote-break for common IDs\n ❌ Correctness depends on helper matching server charset and escape mode; hand-built SQL still needs re-audit on every edit\nC) Raw fragment as written\n ✅ Zero change to the plan\n ✅ Nothing else to say for it\n ❌ Breaks the stated invariant for IDs with quotes; 500 → 72h retry loop; injection surface on the payments path\nNet: one bind parameter versus owning an escape-correctness argument on the money path.": "A) Bound parameter (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T16:05:50.738Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing Integration — CEO Review (HOLD SCOPE)\nWorking plan for `/plan-ceo-review`. Source plan: `PLAN.md` on `main`.\nMode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user choice). Review only; no code changes.\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| D2 (user) — lookup query construction | PLAN.md:16-26, 110-112; IDs opaque TEXT, unsanitized | Existing lookup (no cast/format restriction) | Raw SQL fragment from `request.params.userId` | unresolved | — |\n\n### D2 — lookup query construction: options (pending)\n\nFacts (PLAN.md:16-31): `request.params.userId` is an external string\nforwarded unchanged; IDs are opaque TEXT with punctuation and Unicode; the\nownership guard is an identity comparison, not SQL validation. Interpolating\nthat string into a raw SQL fragment has two failure paths:\n\n1. **Correctness.** A legitimate ID containing `'`, `\\`, `;` or a\n multi-byte sequence breaks the fragment → DB exception → HTTP 500 →\n Stripe retries for 72h with the same string → same failure. That user's\n payment is never marked paid and the ingress alert fires every retry.\n2. **Security.** Any path that lets an external party influence a stored\n user-ID binding (signup-derived IDs, imports, support tooling) turns the\n fragment into SQL injection with a valid Stripe signature attached.\n\n| Commitment | Source/approval or pending | Current | A: Bind parameter | B: Escape/quote helper | C: Raw fragment (plan) |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| No cast / no format restriction | settled, PLAN.md:24-26 | yes | yes | yes | yes |\n| Every nonempty string is a valid identifier | settled, PLAN.md:25-26 | yes | yes | mostly (charset-dependent) | no |\n| Unknown user → 200, log, stop | settled, PLAN.md:43-44 | yes | yes | yes | yes |\n| Regression test: ID with quote/backslash/Unicode resolves the user | pending (D4 decides base suite; this test belongs to D2's fix) | none | yes | yes | n/a |\n\n- **A) Bind parameter** (`WHERE id = ?` / named bind, or the ORM finder the\n existing lookup already uses). Effort S (human ~1 hr / CC ~2 min). Risk\n low. Pros: no charset edge cases; identical semantics to the existing\n lookup; injection impossible by construction. Cons: none material.\n- **B) Escape via the DB driver's quote helper, keep the raw fragment.**\n Effort S. Risk medium. Pros: minimal edit to plan text. Cons: correctness\n depends on the helper matching server charset/`NO_BACKSLASH_ESCAPES`\n settings; still a hand-built fragment reviewers must re-audit.\n- **C) Raw fragment as written.** Effort S. Risk high. Fails invariant\n PLAN.md:25-26 for IDs containing quote characters; injection surface.\n\nRecommendation: A. Verification coverage: A gets a regression test with\nIDs containing `'`, `\\`, `;`, and a multi-byte string (kept with the fix\nper HOLD SCOPE); B needs the same plus charset-mode tests; C has none.\n\nLimits recorded: mail deadline 1s; DB+ingress 2s; webhook 10s; 1 new class;\nplanned file changes estimated 2-4 (handler, routing/flag wiring, lookup;\nplus tests if D4 approves). Estimates, no code to count.\n",
|
||||
"provenance": {
|
||||
"originalReportSha256": "96928e90ba245dc213318eee54ac5b36c7e4b0283e12e66720fc9d4745a7caf0",
|
||||
"requiredExcerptSha256": "dfbfaa5fd72e181061a4a4ae690b0d2b9c3001a86025d9974149bb187d3dda3f",
|
||||
"successfulPriorMutations": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UBr2CyTeZ7YWTTvxjQ9tFo",
|
||||
"name": "Write",
|
||||
"requestedAt": "2026-09-15T16:04:19.895Z",
|
||||
"acknowledgedAt": "2026-09-15T16:04:21.967Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_011MirWpdMG6NW8T3abvgSop",
|
||||
"name": "Edit",
|
||||
"requestedAt": "2026-09-15T16:04:39.658Z",
|
||||
"acknowledgedAt": "2026-09-15T16:04:41.542Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01VHQVCbNkynm74bitX2rzD9",
|
||||
"name": "Edit",
|
||||
"requestedAt": "2026-09-15T16:05:11.527Z",
|
||||
"acknowledgedAt": "2026-09-15T16:05:11.631Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_013Xi3tWb3tf7WxtSRJ1qFmk",
|
||||
"name": "Edit",
|
||||
"requestedAt": "2026-09-15T16:05:30.373Z",
|
||||
"acknowledgedAt": "2026-09-15T16:05:31.214Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"lastPublicCapture": "2026-09-15T16:05:32.972Z",
|
||||
"finalSnapshotAt": "2026-09-15T16:05:55.257Z",
|
||||
"limitation": "The complete acknowledged comparison was captured before this D2 call appeared. Native request and ACK are from the final durable observation. The public journal was cleaned before the final one-shot; later report writes cannot be ruled out from these retained events alone. No paid outcome is reclassified."
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "five-77-literal-current-proposal",
|
||||
"source": "77fd0890ddfeaf2bdd6d78183a2d989d9a4e8d4c",
|
||||
"originalError": "Error: Unsupported current CEO decision; cannot exclude it from the 4–7 count: e8ee44d3-cf25-4738-9faa-0a4717966328:toolu_01UjbSAKubReu8kqNohbM4Cj",
|
||||
"call": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "e8ee44d3-cf25-4738-9faa-0a4717966328",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UjbSAKubReu8kqNohbM4Cj",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D4 (row D-TESTS) — What automated tests ship with the new handler?\nProject/branch/task: main, Payment Processing Integration plan, HOLD SCOPE review.\nELI10: The plan ships a brand-new payment handler with zero automated tests and leans on a manual staging replay that the plan itself says is not regression coverage. Each decision we just made (dispatcher routing, parameterized lookup, commit-then-send with named rescues) is a promise; without a test, the next refactor can quietly break any of them and nobody finds out until a customer pays and nothing happens.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a payment path with no automated proof; regressions discovered by customers or on-call instead of CI.\nRecommendation: A because ~10 focused tests cost minutes with CC and turn every decision above into something CI enforces.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=1/10, C=6/10\nNet: the cost of tests here is trivially small next to the cost of a silent payment regression.",
|
||||
"header": "D4 Tests",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A) Handler unit tests + routing test + one replay fixture (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Covers happy path, unknown user, missing address skip, mail raise, DB raise, id edge cases, zero/N orders\n✅ Every D1-D3 decision gets a test that fails if someone undoes it; next handler copies a tested template\n❌ About ten test cases to write and keep green\nEffort: M (human ~1 day / CC ~20 min)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B) None planned (plan as written)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Zero test-writing time before the staging replay\n✅ Manual checklist still verifies the happy path once before broad rollout\n❌ No automated proof for SQL safety, email failure handling or ordering; the plan already admits the checklist is not regression coverage\nEffort: none"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "C) One integration replay test only",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Cheap end-to-end proof that the wiring and happy path work\n✅ Reuses the recorded event fixture the staging checklist already needs\n❌ Every failure path (mail raise, DB raise, unknown user, injection-shaped id) stays untested\nEffort: S (human ~2 hr / CC ~5 min)"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D4 (row D-TESTS) — What automated tests ship with the new handler?\nProject/branch/task: main, Payment Processing Integration plan, HOLD SCOPE review.\nELI10: The plan ships a brand-new payment handler with zero automated tests and leans on a manual staging replay that the plan itself says is not regression coverage. Each decision we just made (dispatcher routing, parameterized lookup, commit-then-send with named rescues) is a promise; without a test, the next refactor can quietly break any of them and nobody finds out until a customer pays and nothing happens.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a payment path with no automated proof; regressions discovered by customers or on-call instead of CI.\nRecommendation: A because ~10 focused tests cost minutes with CC and turn every decision above into something CI enforces.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=1/10, C=6/10\nNet: the cost of tests here is trivially small next to the cost of a silent payment regression.": "A) Handler unit tests + routing test + one replay fixture (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:18:18.959Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"seed": "## Tests\nNone planned. We'll rely on the existing integration suite catching regressions.",
|
||||
"savedPlan": "# CEO Review Working Plan: Payment Processing Integration\n\nGenerated by /plan-ceo-review on 2026-09-15\nBranch: main | Mode: HOLD SCOPE (user-selected) | Base branch: main | Platform: unknown (no remote)\nPlan under review: PLAN.md (repo root)\n\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| D-TESTS (user) | PLAN.md L76-80: staging replay checklist is \"manual deployment verification, not automated handler regression coverage\". Engineering prefs: well-tested is non-negotiable. | Existing integration suite (coverage of this handler unknown). | \"None planned.\" | unresolved | pending |\n\n### D-TESTS: automated coverage for the new handler\n\nThe plan itself says the staging replay checklist is \"not automated handler regression coverage\" (L79-80) and then plans no tests. \"The existing integration suite\" cannot cover a class that does not exist yet unless it already drives the ingress end-to-end with the feature flag on, which the plan does not claim. The D1-D3 answers each named tests that prove them; those tests belong to this row.\n\n| Option | Summary | Effort | Risk | Pros | Cons | Reuse / verification |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| A. Handler unit tests + routing test + one replay fixture | Unit tests on `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` for: happy path; unknown/deleted user (200, no update, no send); nil/empty email (skip record, counter, no send); mail raises `MailTimeout` and provider error (update committed, 200, structured error logged); DB raises (500, no send attempted); quote/`--`/Unicode user ids treated as literal ids; zero orders (one receipt, empty summary); N orders (one query, one receipt). One dispatcher routing test (event type -> handler). One integration test replaying a recorded `payment_intent.succeeded` fixture through the ingress with the feature flag on. | M (human ~1 day / CC ~20 min) | low | Every D1-D3 decision has a test that fails if someone undoes it; the next handler copies a tested template; the staging checklist becomes confirmation, not discovery. | ~10 test cases to write and keep green. | Reuses existing test harness and mail/DB client fakes if present; verification is the suite itself. |\n| B. None planned (plan as written) | Rely on the integration suite + manual staging replay. | none | high | Zero test-writing time. | SQL, email and ordering behavior unprotected; the plan's own text says the checklist is not regression coverage; a payment path ships with no automated proof. | None. |\n| C. One integration replay test only | Single end-to-end test: recorded event through ingress, flag on, assert user row + one send. | S (human ~2 hr / CC ~5 min) | medium | Cheap; proves the happy path wiring. | Misses every failure path (mail raise, DB raise, unknown user, injection-shaped id); a green happy path hides a broken error map. | Reuses harness; verifies happy path only. |\n\nCommitment grid:\n\n```text\nCommitment | Source/approval or pending | Current | A | B | C\nManual staging replay checklist | approved (PLAN L76-78) | yes | yes | yes | yes\nAutomated happy-path coverage | pending | none | yes | no | yes\nAutomated failure-path coverage (mail, DB, | pending | none | yes | no | no\n unknown user, skip-address, id edge cases) | | | | |\nRouting test (dispatcher -> handler, per D1) | pending | none | yes | no | no\n```\n\nRecommendation: A. Completeness: A=10/10, B=1/10, C=6/10.\n",
|
||||
"provenance": {
|
||||
"originalReportSha256": "2255af9096e9460243639cae322e4723bddba1865577106fecf5bf14b13e190f",
|
||||
"requiredExcerptSha256": "b8acec467704812b2314c6a7a78b027dc77050890c69acf2abf3d9e33f1fbb08",
|
||||
"sourceExcerptSha256": "16260b0adea29b71014bdfee9544afc63a82f4ecff8edb171c50a932961e1f31",
|
||||
"completeActualSeedSha256": "a4793293acc53cffeba6acb2ec6ac8148e82746db2a7e3eb8d6e6c75a1681ea7",
|
||||
"actualBuilderSha256": "a3de97b14e141dce64140f5ed3f2700062ce8d4dcf68da40921d2bc09a4396b7",
|
||||
"requestAt": "2026-09-15T17:18:17.278Z",
|
||||
"successfulPriorMutations": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Edit",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01336GyeGSWguZsZsccdp5FQ",
|
||||
"requestedAt": "2026-09-15T17:18:01.228Z",
|
||||
"acknowledgedAt": "2026-09-15T17:18:01.440Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"capturedBeforeAnswer": "2026-09-15T17:18:01.527Z",
|
||||
"extraction": "Exact original source paragraph, source metadata, owned ledger row and complete option comparison; unrelated report sections omitted without rewriting.",
|
||||
"limitation": "The original attempt failed at this acknowledged call. This is its exact pre-answer snapshot, not a completed final review or passing paid outcome."
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "five-77-retry-effort-risk-tuple",
|
||||
"source": "77fd0890ddfeaf2bdd6d78183a2d989d9a4e8d4c",
|
||||
"originalError": "Error: Unsupported current CEO decision; cannot exclude it from the 4–7 count: 8a8790dc-0c42-4eb9-90bc-925593624e41:toolu_01BrtpqYTGWJNoDNKxAArayt",
|
||||
"call": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "8a8790dc-0c42-4eb9-90bc-925593624e41",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BrtpqYTGWJNoDNKxAArayt",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D4 (ledger R2) — How should the handler build the user lookup query from `request.params.userId`?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count on main; CEO review of the Stripe payment handler plan, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan pastes the user ID string straight into SQL text. Your own contract says IDs are opaque text that can contain quotes, semicolons and Unicode, and that nothing upstream sanitizes them. Pasting means a user whose ID has a quote in it breaks the query, gets a 500, and Stripe retries their payment for days without ever marking it paid. Passing the ID as a bound parameter makes the database treat it as a value, never as SQL, whichever shape you pick.\nStakes if we pick wrong: legit punctuation IDs never get payment_status=paid via webhook, and if ID minting is ever user-influenced this is SQL injection through a validly signed request. Keeping the raw fragment is not offered; it contradicts PLAN.md lines 21-26.\nRecommendation: A because it removes SQL text from the handler entirely, so nobody can regress it into interpolation later.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=9/10\nNet: no SQL text in the handler vs keeping raw SQL shape with binds; both are safe today, only A stays safe by construction.",
|
||||
"header": "SQL lookup",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A) ORM finder, bound param (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ `find_by(id: user_id)`-style call; driver binds the value, TEXT equality, no cast, Unicode preserved. ✅ Zero SQL text in the handler, so a future edit cannot reintroduce interpolation. ❌ If the lookup ever needs an unusual join, you revisit this. (human: ~30 min / CC: ~1 min)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B) Raw SQL with bind params",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Keeps the raw-SQL shape via `sanitize_sql_array` / `$1` binds; equally safe today. ✅ Room for a custom projection if the lookup needs one. ❌ SQL text stays in the handler; a later edit can slide back to interpolation and needs the same regression test."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D4 (ledger R2) — How should the handler build the user lookup query from `request.params.userId`?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count on main; CEO review of the Stripe payment handler plan, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan pastes the user ID string straight into SQL text. Your own contract says IDs are opaque text that can contain quotes, semicolons and Unicode, and that nothing upstream sanitizes them. Pasting means a user whose ID has a quote in it breaks the query, gets a 500, and Stripe retries their payment for days without ever marking it paid. Passing the ID as a bound parameter makes the database treat it as a value, never as SQL, whichever shape you pick.\nStakes if we pick wrong: legit punctuation IDs never get payment_status=paid via webhook, and if ID minting is ever user-influenced this is SQL injection through a validly signed request. Keeping the raw fragment is not offered; it contradicts PLAN.md lines 21-26.\nRecommendation: A because it removes SQL text from the handler entirely, so nobody can regress it into interpolation later.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=9/10\nNet: no SQL text in the handler vs keeping raw SQL shape with binds; both are safe today, only A stays safe by construction.": "A) ORM finder, bound param (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:25:00.107Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"seed": "## Database access\nThe new endpoint reads `request.params.userId` directly into a raw SQL\nfragment for the lookup query.",
|
||||
"savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing Integration (CEO review, HOLD SCOPE)\n\nReviewed plan: `PLAN.md` on `main` (base branch: `main`, git-native fallback; no remote).\nReview: `/plan-ceo-review`, mode HOLD SCOPE (user-selected). Session `639480-1789492725-cdecb9e8`.\nDate: 2026-09-15.\n\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| R2 (user): user lookup query construction | PLAN.md:16-26, 110-112: `userId` is an unchanged external string, opaque TEXT incl. punctuation/Unicode, no SQL-format validation; \"a valid signature does not make it safe for SQL.\" | Plan text: `request.params.userId` read directly into a raw SQL fragment. | Pending: bind parameter via ORM finder vs raw SQL with bind params. Keeping the raw fragment violates the plan's own stated contract. | unresolved | pending |\n\n#### R2 comparison: user lookup query construction\n\n| Commitment | Source/approval or pending | Current | A) ORM finder with bound param | B) Raw SQL with bind params |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| `userId` reaches the query as data, never as SQL syntax | settled invariant (PLAN.md:21-26) | violated by plan text | yes (driver binds) | yes (driver binds) |\n| Opaque TEXT incl. punctuation/Unicode, no format cast | settled (PLAN.md:24-26) | preserved | preserved (equality on TEXT column) | preserved |\n| Unknown user -> existing lookup-result guard (200, log, stop) | settled (PLAN.md:43-44) | preserved | `nil` result feeds the guard unchanged | `nil`/empty result feeds the guard unchanged |\n| Lookup returns the fields the update and receipt need (id, email, payment_status) | settled by contract | same | same | same |\n| DB exception -> 500 -> Stripe retry | settled (PLAN.md:70-73) | same | same | same |\n\n- **A) ORM finder with a bound parameter**, e.g. `User.find_by(id: user_id)`\n (S effort, low risk). Reuse: full (rung 2, the ORM is the standard\n library here). Verification: one test that a `userId` containing quotes,\n semicolons and Unicode is looked up literally and either found or\n routed to the unknown-user guard. Pros: no SQL text in the handler at all;\n impossible to regress into interpolation; the equality on a TEXT column\n needs no cast. Cons: none material.\n- **B) Raw SQL with bind parameters** (`sanitize_sql_array` / `exec_params`\n `$1`) (S effort, low risk). Pros: keeps the \"raw SQL\" shape the plan\n author may have wanted for an unusual query. Cons: SQL text lives in the\n handler; a later edit can reintroduce interpolation; needs the same test as A.\n\nKeeping the raw fragment is not offered as an option: it contradicts the\nplan's own retained contract (PLAN.md:21-23). Two live consequences: (1) a\nlegitimate opaque ID containing a quote, semicolon or backslash (PLAN.md:24-26\nsays these are valid) breaks the query, raises, returns 500, and Stripe\nretries that user's payment until it gives up, so that user never gets\n`payment_status=paid` via webhook; (2) if user-ID minting is ever\nuser-influenced, this is SQL injection through a signed request. The\nownership guard (PLAN.md:27-31) narrows (2) to IDs that match a stored\nbinding; it does not fix (1) and the plan says not to lean on it for SQL safety.\n\nRecommendation for the question: A. Completeness: A=10/10, B=9/10.\n",
|
||||
"provenance": {
|
||||
"originalReportSha256": "62ea39b20464946e981306d7c34986cc100c1cf1e0b724d070308873e87357ee",
|
||||
"requiredExcerptSha256": "bbb07536f19f0ce6eb11004960d95f2f16c9ffaf84bfe93400ea9fee8507f5cd",
|
||||
"sourceExcerptSha256": "e81f1656cf9e28384c474958721c0ddc130ded3cf2c415a38419567287107368",
|
||||
"completeActualSeedSha256": "f497b47a50dbc5f0cf03f0dbc7b2804e392d51f4324144ed625944fb6aa27287",
|
||||
"actualBuilderSha256": "a3de97b14e141dce64140f5ed3f2700062ce8d4dcf68da40921d2bc09a4396b7",
|
||||
"requestAt": "2026-09-15T17:24:58.592Z",
|
||||
"successfulPriorMutations": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Edit",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01RVBt2XVEDdyZKTuroi1jYR",
|
||||
"requestedAt": "2026-09-15T17:24:42.468Z",
|
||||
"acknowledgedAt": "2026-09-15T17:24:44.582Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"capturedBeforeAnswer": "2026-09-15T17:24:45.496Z",
|
||||
"extraction": "Exact source paragraph, source metadata, owned R2 ledger row and full R2 comparison; unrelated report sections omitted without rewriting.",
|
||||
"limitation": "The original configured retry failed at this acknowledged call. Free replay is diagnostic only; it cannot grant paid outcome credit."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+401
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+97
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+58
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
|
||||
# Existing payment integration baseline
|
||||
|
||||
This small synthetic application models an integration after Stripe has settled a
|
||||
payment. It does not charge a card. The existing ingress adapter verifies the raw
|
||||
Stripe signature and signing account and supplies the event context. Its userId
|
||||
metadata remains untrusted. The local user status is a projection of settled
|
||||
payments; the financial ledger and credentials are unchanged outside this model.
|
||||
|
||||
`src/platform.ts` contains the existing transaction boundary and WebhookDispatcher.
|
||||
The dispatcher only registers and invokes a handler: it supplies no lookup,
|
||||
notification or order-reading policy. `applyPaidProjection` owns early receipt
|
||||
deduplication, account/customer checks, account/user-scoped order readers and the
|
||||
atomic status/receipt/audit commit. A missing order or database exception rolls
|
||||
back this transaction; ordinary request-error handling stays outside the handler.
|
||||
It orders the distinct requested line items by ID for the existing mail template.
|
||||
Notifications run after commit, with no catch, outbox or retry provided by the
|
||||
facade. A notification failure cannot undo the database commit.
|
||||
The existing invoice tests exercise atomicity by aborting the audit insert after
|
||||
the user-status update and receipt insert, then checking that all three writes
|
||||
rolled back. This covers the shared transaction, not the proposed handler.
|
||||
|
||||
`src/existing-invoice-handler.ts` registers only the current `invoice.paid` path. That
|
||||
path updates the local projection and audit without sending notification mail.
|
||||
It uses `createBoundUserLookup` and `readOrdersInBatch` from `src/platform.ts`.
|
||||
These callbacks are independently reusable; choosing one does not choose the other,
|
||||
and neither dispatcher registration nor the facade selects them for a handler.
|
||||
`src/application.ts` materializes the application composition API and request
|
||||
adaptation described by this fixture: handlers can access `services.db`, `mail`,
|
||||
`logger` and `metrics`, and register with this application's existing dispatcher.
|
||||
It accepts already-admitted requests without changing userId. It passes committed,
|
||||
duplicate, unknown-user and forbidden outcomes through; exceptions produce scoped
|
||||
logs/metrics and a 503. Every request metric and failure log includes the supplied
|
||||
event type, so existing telemetry distinguishes registered and unregistered routes.
|
||||
The signature verifier, provider I/O, database statement
|
||||
deadline and production telemetry sinks remain external dependencies.
|
||||
|
||||
The shared callbacks and request event-type telemetry above are **NEW executable
|
||||
synthetic baseline contracts**, not approvals of their use in the proposed handler.
|
||||
The following synthetic baseline contracts also remain in place:
|
||||
- An unregistered event returns a visible 503 without projection or mail work.
|
||||
This does not specify external Stripe retry behavior or preapprove registration.
|
||||
- `src/application-services.ts` observes the already-bounded confirmation client
|
||||
independently of a handler's catch. Each send records sent/timeout/rejected/failed;
|
||||
failures are logged and the exact original error is rethrown. Telemetry is best
|
||||
effort and cannot change the transport outcome. The supplied transport retains
|
||||
its existing template, recipient and five-second timeout; there is no retry,
|
||||
outbox, handler recovery policy, alert threshold or dashboard in this contract.
|
||||
|
||||
The proposed PaymentService for `payment_intent.succeeded` is absent. Its proposed
|
||||
raw user lookup, inline uncaught email, per-order read loop, dispatcher bypass and
|
||||
missing new-path tests remain the review target in `review-input.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
There is no new schema, migration, quarantine service or handler-specific routing
|
||||
flag to build in this proposal. Deploy and rollback use the application's existing
|
||||
release procedure. Review actual problems in the proposed handler and baseline;
|
||||
these fixture assumptions do not preapprove any remedy or exempt a review section.
|
||||
|
||||
Run the existing invoice and shared-boundary checks with `bun test contract.test.ts`.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
|
||||
import type { Order, User } from './platform';
|
||||
|
||||
export interface ApplicationLogger {
|
||||
warn(message: string, fields: { accountId: string; eventId?: string; eventType?: string; outcome: string; errorName?: string }): void;
|
||||
}
|
||||
export interface ApplicationMetrics {
|
||||
increment(name: 'webhook_requests_total' | 'confirmation_mail_total', labels: { outcome: string; eventType?: string }): void;
|
||||
}
|
||||
export type Telemetry = { logger: ApplicationLogger; metrics: ApplicationMetrics };
|
||||
export class MailTimeoutError extends Error { override name = 'MailTimeoutError'; }
|
||||
export class MailDeliveryError extends Error { override name = 'MailDeliveryError'; }
|
||||
|
||||
// The supplied transport already uses the current template/recipient and aborts
|
||||
// after five seconds. Provider I/O and that timeout are outside this local model.
|
||||
export interface ConfirmationClient {
|
||||
send(user: User, orders: readonly Order[]): Promise<void>;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// NEW synthetic baseline contract: observe the bounded client itself, before a
|
||||
// handler can catch its error. This supplies no handler recovery, retry or outbox.
|
||||
// Telemetry is best effort; a sink failure must not change the transport outcome.
|
||||
export function observedConfirmationClient(client: ConfirmationClient, telemetry: Telemetry): ConfirmationClient {
|
||||
const record = (user: User, outcome: string, error?: unknown) => {
|
||||
try { telemetry.metrics.increment('confirmation_mail_total', { outcome }); } catch {}
|
||||
if (outcome !== 'sent') {
|
||||
try { telemetry.logger.warn('Confirmation mail failed', { accountId: user.account_id, outcome,
|
||||
errorName: error instanceof Error ? error.name : 'UnknownError' }); } catch {}
|
||||
}
|
||||
};
|
||||
return { async send(user, orders) {
|
||||
try { await client.send(user, orders); }
|
||||
catch (error) {
|
||||
record(user, error instanceof MailTimeoutError ? 'timeout'
|
||||
: error instanceof MailDeliveryError ? 'rejected' : 'failed', error);
|
||||
throw error;
|
||||
}
|
||||
record(user, 'sent');
|
||||
} };
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
|
||||
import type { Database } from 'bun:sqlite';
|
||||
import { existingDispatcher } from './existing-invoice-handler';
|
||||
import { observedConfirmationClient, type ConfirmationClient, type Telemetry } from './application-services';
|
||||
import type { Outcome, PaymentRequest } from './platform';
|
||||
|
||||
export type ApplicationDependencies = Telemetry & { db: Database; confirmationClient: ConfirmationClient };
|
||||
export type RequestOutcome = Outcome | { status: 503; kind: 'failed' | 'unregistered-event' };
|
||||
|
||||
// Composition API for the current application. New handlers may consume these
|
||||
// dependencies, but this factory registers only the unchanged invoice handler.
|
||||
export function createWebhookApplication(dependencies: ApplicationDependencies) {
|
||||
const { db, logger, metrics } = dependencies;
|
||||
const services = { db, logger, metrics, mail: observedConfirmationClient(dependencies.confirmationClient, dependencies) };
|
||||
const dispatcher = existingDispatcher(db);
|
||||
return { services, dispatcher,
|
||||
// Called after the existing signature/account admission boundary. userId is
|
||||
// forwarded unchanged; this adapter neither authorizes it nor makes it SQL-safe.
|
||||
async receive(eventType: string, request: PaymentRequest): Promise<RequestOutcome> {
|
||||
let outcome: RequestOutcome, error: unknown;
|
||||
try {
|
||||
// NEW synthetic assumption: an unregistered event is a visible 503 with
|
||||
// no projection/mail work, not an acknowledgement or Stripe retry promise.
|
||||
outcome = await dispatcher.dispatch(eventType, request) ?? { status: 503, kind: 'unregistered-event' };
|
||||
} catch (caught) { error = caught; outcome = { status: 503, kind: 'failed' }; }
|
||||
try { metrics.increment('webhook_requests_total', { outcome: outcome.kind, eventType }); } catch {}
|
||||
if (outcome.status !== 200) {
|
||||
try { logger.warn('Webhook request failed', { accountId: request.accountId, eventId: request.eventId, eventType,
|
||||
outcome: outcome.kind, ...(error === undefined ? {} : {
|
||||
errorName: error instanceof Error ? error.name : 'UnknownError',
|
||||
}) }); } catch {}
|
||||
}
|
||||
return outcome;
|
||||
},
|
||||
};
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
|
||||
import { expect, test } from 'bun:test';
|
||||
import { Database } from 'bun:sqlite';
|
||||
import { readFileSync } from 'node:fs';
|
||||
import { existingDispatcher } from './src/existing-invoice-handler';
|
||||
import { MissingOrder, type PaymentRequest } from './src/platform';
|
||||
|
||||
function database(): Database {
|
||||
const db = new Database(':memory:');
|
||||
db.exec(readFileSync(new URL('./schema.sql', import.meta.url), 'utf8'));
|
||||
db.exec("INSERT INTO users VALUES ('acct','user','customer','unpaid'), ('acct','other','different','unpaid')");
|
||||
db.exec("INSERT INTO orders VALUES ('acct','order','user','Invoice',100), ('acct','foreign','other','Other',200)");
|
||||
return db;
|
||||
}
|
||||
const request = (): PaymentRequest => ({ accountId: 'acct', eventId: 'invoice-event',
|
||||
customerId: 'customer', orderIds: ['order'], params: { userId: 'user' } });
|
||||
|
||||
test('the current invoice route commits once and replays without mutable lookup data', async () => {
|
||||
const db = database();
|
||||
try {
|
||||
const dispatcher = existingDispatcher(db);
|
||||
expect(await dispatcher.dispatch('invoice.paid', request())).toEqual({ status: 200, kind: 'committed' });
|
||||
expect(db.query('SELECT payment_status FROM users WHERE id = ?').get('user')).toEqual({ payment_status: 'paid' });
|
||||
expect(db.query('SELECT * FROM payment_audit').all()).toEqual([
|
||||
{ account_id: 'acct', event_id: 'invoice-event', user_id: 'user', payment_status: 'paid' },
|
||||
]);
|
||||
db.exec('DELETE FROM users; DELETE FROM orders');
|
||||
expect(await dispatcher.dispatch('invoice.paid', request())).toEqual({ status: 200, kind: 'duplicate' });
|
||||
expect(db.query('SELECT COUNT(*) AS n FROM event_receipts').get()).toEqual({ n: 1 });
|
||||
expect(await dispatcher.dispatch('payment_intent.succeeded', request())).toBeUndefined();
|
||||
} finally { db.close(); }
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('the current invoice route rejects mismatched customers and foreign orders before any commit', async () => {
|
||||
const db = database();
|
||||
try {
|
||||
const dispatcher = existingDispatcher(db);
|
||||
expect(await dispatcher.dispatch('invoice.paid', { ...request(), customerId: 'different' }))
|
||||
.toEqual({ status: 403, kind: 'forbidden' });
|
||||
await expect(dispatcher.dispatch('invoice.paid', { ...request(), orderIds: ['foreign'] })).rejects.toBeInstanceOf(MissingOrder);
|
||||
expect(db.query('SELECT COUNT(*) AS n FROM event_receipts').get()).toEqual({ n: 0 });
|
||||
expect(db.query('SELECT COUNT(*) AS n FROM payment_audit').get()).toEqual({ n: 0 });
|
||||
expect(db.query("SELECT COUNT(*) AS n FROM users WHERE payment_status = 'paid'").get()).toEqual({ n: 0 });
|
||||
} finally { db.close(); }
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('the current invoice route rolls back already-written status and receipt when the audit insert fails', async () => {
|
||||
const db = database();
|
||||
try {
|
||||
// This is the third write: pre-write validation cannot prove atomicity.
|
||||
db.exec(`CREATE TRIGGER fail_invoice_audit BEFORE INSERT ON payment_audit
|
||||
BEGIN SELECT RAISE(ABORT, 'fixture audit failure'); END`);
|
||||
await expect(existingDispatcher(db).dispatch('invoice.paid', request()))
|
||||
.rejects.toThrow('fixture audit failure');
|
||||
expect(db.query('SELECT payment_status FROM users WHERE id = ?').get('user'))
|
||||
.toEqual({ payment_status: 'unpaid' });
|
||||
expect(db.query('SELECT COUNT(*) AS n FROM event_receipts').get()).toEqual({ n: 0 });
|
||||
expect(db.query('SELECT COUNT(*) AS n FROM payment_audit').get()).toEqual({ n: 0 });
|
||||
} finally { db.close(); }
|
||||
});
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
|
||||
import { Database } from 'bun:sqlite';
|
||||
import { applyPaidProjection, createBoundUserLookup, readOrdersInBatch, WebhookDispatcher } from './platform';
|
||||
|
||||
// The current invoice.paid path updates the local projection and audit only.
|
||||
// The proposed payment_intent.succeeded PaymentService and email path do not exist.
|
||||
export function existingDispatcher(db: Database): WebhookDispatcher {
|
||||
const dispatcher = new WebhookDispatcher();
|
||||
dispatcher.register('invoice.paid', request => applyPaidProjection(db, request, {
|
||||
lookupUser: createBoundUserLookup(db, request.accountId),
|
||||
readOrders: readOrdersInBatch,
|
||||
afterCommit: async () => {},
|
||||
}));
|
||||
return dispatcher;
|
||||
}
|
||||
+89
@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
|
||||
import { Database } from 'bun:sqlite';
|
||||
|
||||
// Created by the existing signature/account adapter for a settled Stripe payment.
|
||||
// The adapter's authentication and the financial ledger are outside this fixture.
|
||||
export type PaymentRequest = {
|
||||
accountId: string; eventId: string; customerId: string; orderIds: readonly string[];
|
||||
params: { userId: string }; // Untrusted event metadata, not SQL-safe text.
|
||||
};
|
||||
export type User = { account_id: string; id: string; stripe_customer_id: string; payment_status: string };
|
||||
export type Order = { account_id: string; id: string; user_id: string; label: string; amount_cents: number };
|
||||
export type Outcome = { status: 200 | 403; kind: 'committed' | 'duplicate' | 'unknown-user' | 'forbidden' };
|
||||
export type OrderReader = { one(id: string): Order | undefined; list(ids: readonly string[]): Order[] };
|
||||
export type DataSteps = {
|
||||
lookupUser(userId: string): User | undefined;
|
||||
readOrders(ids: readonly string[], reader: OrderReader): Order[];
|
||||
afterCommit(user: User, orders: readonly Order[]): Promise<void>;
|
||||
};
|
||||
export class MissingOrder extends Error { override name = 'MissingOrder'; }
|
||||
|
||||
// Independently reusable callbacks already used by the invoice handler. Neither
|
||||
// the dispatcher nor the facade selects these policies for another handler.
|
||||
export function createBoundUserLookup(db: Database, accountId: string): DataSteps['lookupUser'] {
|
||||
return userId => db.query<User, string[]>('SELECT * FROM users WHERE account_id = ? AND id = ?')
|
||||
.get(accountId, userId) ?? undefined;
|
||||
}
|
||||
export const readOrdersInBatch: DataSteps['readOrders'] = (ids, reader) => reader.list(ids);
|
||||
|
||||
// Existing shared boundary; neither registration nor dispatch chooses DataSteps.
|
||||
// All reads and projection writes are synchronous inside one SQLite transaction.
|
||||
export async function applyPaidProjection(db: Database, request: PaymentRequest, steps: DataSteps): Promise<Outcome> {
|
||||
request = structuredClone(request);
|
||||
Object.freeze(request.orderIds);
|
||||
if (!request.accountId || !request.eventId || !request.customerId
|
||||
|| request.orderIds.length > 100 || new Set(request.orderIds).size !== request.orderIds.length) {
|
||||
throw new TypeError('Invalid admitted payment context');
|
||||
}
|
||||
const outcome = db.transaction((): Outcome & { notification?: { user: User; orders: Order[] } } => {
|
||||
// A replay needs no user/order data. The committed receipt is authoritative.
|
||||
if (db.query('SELECT 1 FROM event_receipts WHERE account_id = ? AND event_id = ?')
|
||||
.get(request.accountId, request.eventId)) return { status: 200, kind: 'duplicate' };
|
||||
const selected = steps.lookupUser(request.params.userId);
|
||||
if (!selected) return { status: 200, kind: 'unknown-user' };
|
||||
const user = { ...selected };
|
||||
if (user.account_id !== request.accountId || user.stripe_customer_id !== request.customerId) {
|
||||
return { status: 403, kind: 'forbidden' };
|
||||
}
|
||||
const reader: OrderReader = {
|
||||
one: id => db.query<Order, string[]>('SELECT * FROM orders WHERE account_id = ? AND user_id = ? AND id = ?')
|
||||
.get(request.accountId, user.id, id) ?? undefined,
|
||||
list: ids => ids.length ? db.query<Order, string[]>(
|
||||
`SELECT * FROM orders WHERE account_id = ? AND user_id = ? AND id IN (${ids.map(() => '?').join(',')})`)
|
||||
.all(request.accountId, user.id, ...ids) : [],
|
||||
};
|
||||
const orders = steps.readOrders(request.orderIds, reader);
|
||||
const byId = new Map(orders.map(order => [order.id, order]));
|
||||
if (orders.length !== request.orderIds.length || byId.size !== orders.length
|
||||
|| request.orderIds.some(id => !byId.has(id))
|
||||
|| orders.some(order => order.account_id !== request.accountId || order.user_id !== user.id)) {
|
||||
throw new MissingOrder('An admitted order is unavailable to this user');
|
||||
}
|
||||
// The existing email renderer consumes a set in this fixed order, independent
|
||||
// of query return order. Admitted event order IDs are distinct.
|
||||
const ordered = [...orders].sort((a, b) => a.id < b.id ? -1 : a.id > b.id ? 1 : 0);
|
||||
db.query("UPDATE users SET payment_status = 'paid' WHERE account_id = ? AND id = ?")
|
||||
.run(request.accountId, user.id);
|
||||
db.query('INSERT INTO event_receipts (account_id, event_id) VALUES (?, ?)')
|
||||
.run(request.accountId, request.eventId);
|
||||
db.query("INSERT INTO payment_audit (account_id, event_id, user_id, payment_status) VALUES (?, ?, ?, 'paid')")
|
||||
.run(request.accountId, request.eventId, user.id);
|
||||
return { status: 200, kind: 'committed',
|
||||
notification: { user: { ...user, payment_status: 'paid' }, orders: ordered } };
|
||||
})();
|
||||
// No catch, outbox or retry is supplied here. Handler notification policy is
|
||||
// separate from the settled database transaction and remains the handler's job.
|
||||
if (outcome.notification) await steps.afterCommit(outcome.notification.user, outcome.notification.orders);
|
||||
return { status: outcome.status, kind: outcome.kind };
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
export class WebhookDispatcher {
|
||||
private handlers = new Map<string, (request: PaymentRequest) => Promise<Outcome>>();
|
||||
register(eventType: string, handler: (request: PaymentRequest) => Promise<Outcome>): void {
|
||||
if (this.handlers.has(eventType)) throw new Error('Duplicate handler registration');
|
||||
this.handlers.set(eventType, handler);
|
||||
}
|
||||
dispatch(eventType: string, request: PaymentRequest): Promise<Outcome | undefined> {
|
||||
const handler = this.handlers.get(eventType);
|
||||
return handler ? handler(request) : Promise.resolve(undefined);
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
+15
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
|
||||
CREATE TABLE users (
|
||||
account_id TEXT NOT NULL, id TEXT NOT NULL, stripe_customer_id TEXT NOT NULL,
|
||||
payment_status TEXT NOT NULL DEFAULT 'unpaid', PRIMARY KEY (account_id, id)
|
||||
);
|
||||
CREATE TABLE orders (
|
||||
account_id TEXT NOT NULL, id TEXT NOT NULL, user_id TEXT NOT NULL,
|
||||
label TEXT NOT NULL, amount_cents INTEGER NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (account_id, id)
|
||||
);
|
||||
CREATE TABLE event_receipts (
|
||||
account_id TEXT NOT NULL, event_id TEXT NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (account_id, event_id)
|
||||
);
|
||||
CREATE TABLE payment_audit (
|
||||
account_id TEXT NOT NULL, event_id TEXT NOT NULL, user_id TEXT NOT NULL,
|
||||
payment_status TEXT NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (account_id, event_id)
|
||||
);
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,226 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sourceCommit": "6f6730f478e20235b3266d56253d097d02dcdf46",
|
||||
"originalOutcome": "First mode attempt hit unchanged240000ms posture deadline after pacing consumed its one substantive continuation; configured retry later passed via standalone prose.",
|
||||
"selectedAt": 1789484949289,
|
||||
"mode": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "ae9647e7-5cee-4d16-8c6e-c510e9a17989",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_012sNY1HmtuSG19pruoLhJZt",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"header": "Review mode",
|
||||
"question": "D4 — Which review mode should govern the rest of this plan review?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-xeGnfv on main, saved project views plan (~12 estimated files, enhancement to an existing task list).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the remaining 11 review sections. Expansion modes look for adjacent features worth adding (default views, pinning, cross-project views) and ask you about each one. Hold Scope keeps exactly what is planned and hunts failure paths, edge cases and tests instead. Scope Reduction strips to the smallest thing that fixes the pain. The plan is a modest enhancement with one approved schema decision (D2), so it sits naturally in the middle.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too expansive and a two-week feature grows a backlog before it ships; too tight and you ship a private-only-feeling view picker that misses cheap wins like \"set as default\".\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because the plan is an enhancement under 15 files: bulletproof the agreed scope, then let you cherry-pick a short list of adjacent additions one by one.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nA) SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)\n ✅ Runs the full Hold Scope rigor on the agreed plan, then offers each adjacent idea separately as add / defer / skip\n ✅ You decide scope item by item; rejected ideas land in NOT in scope, nothing sneaks in\n ❌ More questions than Hold Scope; each cherry-pick is a decision you have to make\nB) SCOPE EXPANSION\n ✅ Dreams big: 10x version, platonic ideal, delight scan, recommended enthusiastically\n ✅ Best when the feature is greenfield and the team wants a cathedral\n ❌ This is a filter-persistence enhancement; cathedral energy risks a backlog before the first view is saved\nC) HOLD SCOPE\n ✅ Maximum rigor on exactly what is planned: every error path, edge case, test and log\n ✅ Fewest decisions; fastest route to an implementable plan\n ❌ Never surfaces cheap adjacent wins like default view or rename; you would find those in the pilot\nD) SCOPE REDUCTION\n ✅ Strips to the minimum core (save, list, apply) and defers the rest with your approval\n ✅ Right when the plan is bloated or over 15 files\n ❌ This plan is already small; reduction mostly re-cuts what D2 just approved\nNet: how many adjacent ideas you want to hear about versus how fast you want a locked, rigorous plan.",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Hold scope rigor plus one-by-one cherry-pick of adjacent additions."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
|
||||
"description": "Dream big: 10x vision, platonic ideal, delight scan."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
|
||||
"description": "Preserve scope; maximum rigor on failure paths, edge cases, tests."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
|
||||
"description": "Strip to the minimum viable core; cut the rest with approval."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D4 — Which review mode should govern the rest of this plan review?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-xeGnfv on main, saved project views plan (~12 estimated files, enhancement to an existing task list).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the remaining 11 review sections. Expansion modes look for adjacent features worth adding (default views, pinning, cross-project views) and ask you about each one. Hold Scope keeps exactly what is planned and hunts failure paths, edge cases and tests instead. Scope Reduction strips to the smallest thing that fixes the pain. The plan is a modest enhancement with one approved schema decision (D2), so it sits naturally in the middle.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too expansive and a two-week feature grows a backlog before it ships; too tight and you ship a private-only-feeling view picker that misses cheap wins like \"set as default\".\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because the plan is an enhancement under 15 files: bulletproof the agreed scope, then let you cherry-pick a short list of adjacent additions one by one.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nA) SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)\n ✅ Runs the full Hold Scope rigor on the agreed plan, then offers each adjacent idea separately as add / defer / skip\n ✅ You decide scope item by item; rejected ideas land in NOT in scope, nothing sneaks in\n ❌ More questions than Hold Scope; each cherry-pick is a decision you have to make\nB) SCOPE EXPANSION\n ✅ Dreams big: 10x version, platonic ideal, delight scan, recommended enthusiastically\n ✅ Best when the feature is greenfield and the team wants a cathedral\n ❌ This is a filter-persistence enhancement; cathedral energy risks a backlog before the first view is saved\nC) HOLD SCOPE\n ✅ Maximum rigor on exactly what is planned: every error path, edge case, test and log\n ✅ Fewest decisions; fastest route to an implementable plan\n ❌ Never surfaces cheap adjacent wins like default view or rename; you would find those in the pilot\nD) SCOPE REDUCTION\n ✅ Strips to the minimum core (save, list, apply) and defers the rest with your approval\n ✅ Right when the plan is bloated or over 15 files\n ❌ This plan is already small; reduction mostly re-cuts what D2 just approved\nNet: how many adjacent ideas you want to hear about versus how fast you want a locked, rigorous plan.": "SCOPE EXPANSION"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T15:09:09.325Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"pacing": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "ae9647e7-5cee-4d16-8c6e-c510e9a17989",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_017uVNs4CqTUFCa6T3jwkNL2",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"header": "Expansion",
|
||||
"question": "D6.0 — I have 7 expansion candidates for the saved views plan. How do you want to decide them?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-xeGnfv on main, SCOPE EXPANSION ceremony for saved project views.\nELI10: The delight scan produced 7 adjacent improvements: E1 default view per member, E2 view id in URL, E3 dirty-state indicator with Update / Save as new / Revert, E4 rename / duplicate / delete-with-undo, E5 graceful handling of stale filter references, E6 starter views on an empty picker, E7 cross-project views. The rule is one add / defer / skip question per item so nothing gets cut silently. Seven questions is a lot, so you choose the pace first. Dependencies: E3 works best with E2 (a URL to revert to) but does not require it; E7 is the only large item and changes the data model (no project FK).\nStakes if we pick wrong: Full split costs you 7 quick answers; narrowing first risks me pre-judging an item you would have wanted.\nRecommendation: A because the items are independent and each is a real scope call; 7 short answers beats me guessing.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nA) Proceed with the full split, one question per item (recommended)\n ✅ You see every candidate with its own effort and my honest recommendation\n ✅ Rejected items are recorded in NOT in scope, so the trail is complete\n ❌ Seven sequential questions before the rigor sections start\nB) Narrow first: I propose a smaller set, you confirm, then split that\n ✅ Fewer questions; I would propose E1, E2, E3, E5 and defer E4, E6, E7\n ✅ Still ends with per-item confirmation on the proposed set\n ❌ You lose the chance to weigh E4, E6, E7 individually before they are parked\nC) Batch into two groups of up to 4 and pick from each\n ✅ Two questions instead of seven\n ✅ Works if you mostly want the top few and are fine parking the rest\n ❌ Independent scope items do not really compete with each other; batching hides that\nNet: decision completeness vs. the number of prompts before the deep review begins.",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A: Full split, 7 questions (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "One add / defer / skip / hold question per candidate, E1 through E7."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B: Narrow first",
|
||||
"description": "I propose a smaller set (E1, E2, E3, E5), you confirm, then per-item questions on that set."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "C: Batch into groups",
|
||||
"description": "Two grouped questions covering all seven."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D6.0 — I have 7 expansion candidates for the saved views plan. How do you want to decide them?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-xeGnfv on main, SCOPE EXPANSION ceremony for saved project views.\nELI10: The delight scan produced 7 adjacent improvements: E1 default view per member, E2 view id in URL, E3 dirty-state indicator with Update / Save as new / Revert, E4 rename / duplicate / delete-with-undo, E5 graceful handling of stale filter references, E6 starter views on an empty picker, E7 cross-project views. The rule is one add / defer / skip question per item so nothing gets cut silently. Seven questions is a lot, so you choose the pace first. Dependencies: E3 works best with E2 (a URL to revert to) but does not require it; E7 is the only large item and changes the data model (no project FK).\nStakes if we pick wrong: Full split costs you 7 quick answers; narrowing first risks me pre-judging an item you would have wanted.\nRecommendation: A because the items are independent and each is a real scope call; 7 short answers beats me guessing.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nA) Proceed with the full split, one question per item (recommended)\n ✅ You see every candidate with its own effort and my honest recommendation\n ✅ Rejected items are recorded in NOT in scope, so the trail is complete\n ❌ Seven sequential questions before the rigor sections start\nB) Narrow first: I propose a smaller set, you confirm, then split that\n ✅ Fewer questions; I would propose E1, E2, E3, E5 and defer E4, E6, E7\n ✅ Still ends with per-item confirmation on the proposed set\n ❌ You lose the chance to weigh E4, E6, E7 individually before they are parked\nC) Batch into two groups of up to 4 and pick from each\n ✅ Two questions instead of seven\n ✅ Works if you mostly want the top few and are fine parking the rest\n ❌ Independent scope items do not really compete with each other; batching hides that\nNet: decision completeness vs. the number of prompts before the deep review begins.": "A: Full split, 7 questions (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T15:10:27.522Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"pending": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "ae9647e7-5cee-4d16-8c6e-c510e9a17989",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Fg8mtumrMeZwcX7o3UBvqg",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"header": "E1 default",
|
||||
"question": "D6.1 — E1: Default view per member per project. Add, defer, skip or hold?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-xeGnfv on main, saved views expansion item 1 of 7.\nELI10: Each member can mark one saved view (private or project) as their default for a project. Opening the project loads that view instead of the unfiltered list. Implementation: a `default_saved_view_id` on the project membership row (or a small member_project_prefs table), one \"set as default\" action in the picker, and a fallback to the plain list when the default view is deleted or no longer visible. This is the single biggest lever on the stated pain: the filter is rebuilt zero times, not once.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without it, members still click into the picker every session; the feature is an option rather than the way the list works.\nRecommendation: Add because it turns \"saved\" into \"already there\" for ~20 minutes of CC work (human ~half day).\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nA) Add to this plan's scope (recommended)\n ✅ Members land on their list on project open; zero clicks to reach a saved filter\n ✅ Small: one nullable FK, one picker action, one fallback path, three tests\n ❌ Adds a dangling-reference case when the default view is deleted or made private by its creator\nB) Defer to TODOS.md\n ✅ Keeps the first release to pure save / pick / apply\n ✅ Pilot data can show whether members even reopen views before you build auto-load\n ❌ Pilot \"reuse\" numbers will understate value because reopening costs a click\nC) Skip entirely\n ✅ No membership-table change at all\n ✅ Simplest mental model: the list always opens unfiltered\n ❌ Leaves the largest win on the table\nD) Hold: stop the chain and discuss\n ✅ No cons — this is a hard-stop choice\nNet: one nullable FK now vs. a picker click every session forever.",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A: Add (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Default view per member per project, with fallback when the default is deleted or hidden."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B: Defer to TODOS",
|
||||
"description": "Record with context; revisit after the pilot."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "C: Skip",
|
||||
"description": "Drop the idea; record in NOT in scope."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "D: Hold",
|
||||
"description": "Stop the chain and discuss this item first."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": false,
|
||||
"failed": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
"publicEvents": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"sessionId": "ae9647e7-5cee-4d16-8c6e-c510e9a17989",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T15:09:08.911Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_012sNY1HmtuSG19pruoLhJZt",
|
||||
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"header": "Review mode",
|
||||
"question": "D4 — Which review mode should govern the rest of this plan review?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-xeGnfv on main, saved project views plan (~12 estimated files, enhancement to an existing task list).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the remaining 11 review sections. Expansion modes look for adjacent features worth adding (default views, pinning, cross-project views) and ask you about each one. Hold Scope keeps exactly what is planned and hunts failure paths, edge cases and tests instead. Scope Reduction strips to the smallest thing that fixes the pain. The plan is a modest enhancement with one approved schema decision (D2), so it sits naturally in the middle.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too expansive and a two-week feature grows a backlog before it ships; too tight and you ship a private-only-feeling view picker that misses cheap wins like \"set as default\".\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because the plan is an enhancement under 15 files: bulletproof the agreed scope, then let you cherry-pick a short list of adjacent additions one by one.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nA) SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)\n ✅ Runs the full Hold Scope rigor on the agreed plan, then offers each adjacent idea separately as add / defer / skip\n ✅ You decide scope item by item; rejected ideas land in NOT in scope, nothing sneaks in\n ❌ More questions than Hold Scope; each cherry-pick is a decision you have to make\nB) SCOPE EXPANSION\n ✅ Dreams big: 10x version, platonic ideal, delight scan, recommended enthusiastically\n ✅ Best when the feature is greenfield and the team wants a cathedral\n ❌ This is a filter-persistence enhancement; cathedral energy risks a backlog before the first view is saved\nC) HOLD SCOPE\n ✅ Maximum rigor on exactly what is planned: every error path, edge case, test and log\n ✅ Fewest decisions; fastest route to an implementable plan\n ❌ Never surfaces cheap adjacent wins like default view or rename; you would find those in the pilot\nD) SCOPE REDUCTION\n ✅ Strips to the minimum core (save, list, apply) and defers the rest with your approval\n ✅ Right when the plan is bloated or over 15 files\n ❌ This plan is already small; reduction mostly re-cuts what D2 just approved\nNet: how many adjacent ideas you want to hear about versus how fast you want a locked, rigorous plan.",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Hold scope rigor plus one-by-one cherry-pick of adjacent additions."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
|
||||
"description": "Dream big: 10x vision, platonic ideal, delight scan."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
|
||||
"description": "Preserve scope; maximum rigor on failure paths, edge cases, tests."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
|
||||
"description": "Strip to the minimum viable core; cut the rest with approval."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"sessionId": "ae9647e7-5cee-4d16-8c6e-c510e9a17989",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T15:09:09.325Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_012sNY1HmtuSG19pruoLhJZt",
|
||||
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D4 — Which review mode should govern the rest of this plan review?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-xeGnfv on main, saved project views plan (~12 estimated files, enhancement to an existing task list).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the remaining 11 review sections. Expansion modes look for adjacent features worth adding (default views, pinning, cross-project views) and ask you about each one. Hold Scope keeps exactly what is planned and hunts failure paths, edge cases and tests instead. Scope Reduction strips to the smallest thing that fixes the pain. The plan is a modest enhancement with one approved schema decision (D2), so it sits naturally in the middle.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too expansive and a two-week feature grows a backlog before it ships; too tight and you ship a private-only-feeling view picker that misses cheap wins like \"set as default\".\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because the plan is an enhancement under 15 files: bulletproof the agreed scope, then let you cherry-pick a short list of adjacent additions one by one.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nA) SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)\n ✅ Runs the full Hold Scope rigor on the agreed plan, then offers each adjacent idea separately as add / defer / skip\n ✅ You decide scope item by item; rejected ideas land in NOT in scope, nothing sneaks in\n ❌ More questions than Hold Scope; each cherry-pick is a decision you have to make\nB) SCOPE EXPANSION\n ✅ Dreams big: 10x version, platonic ideal, delight scan, recommended enthusiastically\n ✅ Best when the feature is greenfield and the team wants a cathedral\n ❌ This is a filter-persistence enhancement; cathedral energy risks a backlog before the first view is saved\nC) HOLD SCOPE\n ✅ Maximum rigor on exactly what is planned: every error path, edge case, test and log\n ✅ Fewest decisions; fastest route to an implementable plan\n ❌ Never surfaces cheap adjacent wins like default view or rename; you would find those in the pilot\nD) SCOPE REDUCTION\n ✅ Strips to the minimum core (save, list, apply) and defers the rest with your approval\n ✅ Right when the plan is bloated or over 15 files\n ❌ This plan is already small; reduction mostly re-cuts what D2 just approved\nNet: how many adjacent ideas you want to hear about versus how fast you want a locked, rigorous plan.\"=\"SCOPE EXPANSION\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"sessionId": "ae9647e7-5cee-4d16-8c6e-c510e9a17989",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T15:10:26.306Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_017uVNs4CqTUFCa6T3jwkNL2",
|
||||
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"header": "Expansion",
|
||||
"question": "D6.0 — I have 7 expansion candidates for the saved views plan. How do you want to decide them?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-xeGnfv on main, SCOPE EXPANSION ceremony for saved project views.\nELI10: The delight scan produced 7 adjacent improvements: E1 default view per member, E2 view id in URL, E3 dirty-state indicator with Update / Save as new / Revert, E4 rename / duplicate / delete-with-undo, E5 graceful handling of stale filter references, E6 starter views on an empty picker, E7 cross-project views. The rule is one add / defer / skip question per item so nothing gets cut silently. Seven questions is a lot, so you choose the pace first. Dependencies: E3 works best with E2 (a URL to revert to) but does not require it; E7 is the only large item and changes the data model (no project FK).\nStakes if we pick wrong: Full split costs you 7 quick answers; narrowing first risks me pre-judging an item you would have wanted.\nRecommendation: A because the items are independent and each is a real scope call; 7 short answers beats me guessing.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nA) Proceed with the full split, one question per item (recommended)\n ✅ You see every candidate with its own effort and my honest recommendation\n ✅ Rejected items are recorded in NOT in scope, so the trail is complete\n ❌ Seven sequential questions before the rigor sections start\nB) Narrow first: I propose a smaller set, you confirm, then split that\n ✅ Fewer questions; I would propose E1, E2, E3, E5 and defer E4, E6, E7\n ✅ Still ends with per-item confirmation on the proposed set\n ❌ You lose the chance to weigh E4, E6, E7 individually before they are parked\nC) Batch into two groups of up to 4 and pick from each\n ✅ Two questions instead of seven\n ✅ Works if you mostly want the top few and are fine parking the rest\n ❌ Independent scope items do not really compete with each other; batching hides that\nNet: decision completeness vs. the number of prompts before the deep review begins.",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A: Full split, 7 questions (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "One add / defer / skip / hold question per candidate, E1 through E7."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B: Narrow first",
|
||||
"description": "I propose a smaller set (E1, E2, E3, E5), you confirm, then per-item questions on that set."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "C: Batch into groups",
|
||||
"description": "Two grouped questions covering all seven."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"sessionId": "ae9647e7-5cee-4d16-8c6e-c510e9a17989",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T15:10:27.522Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_017uVNs4CqTUFCa6T3jwkNL2",
|
||||
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D6.0 — I have 7 expansion candidates for the saved views plan. How do you want to decide them?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-xeGnfv on main, SCOPE EXPANSION ceremony for saved project views.\nELI10: The delight scan produced 7 adjacent improvements: E1 default view per member, E2 view id in URL, E3 dirty-state indicator with Update / Save as new / Revert, E4 rename / duplicate / delete-with-undo, E5 graceful handling of stale filter references, E6 starter views on an empty picker, E7 cross-project views. The rule is one add / defer / skip question per item so nothing gets cut silently. Seven questions is a lot, so you choose the pace first. Dependencies: E3 works best with E2 (a URL to revert to) but does not require it; E7 is the only large item and changes the data model (no project FK).\nStakes if we pick wrong: Full split costs you 7 quick answers; narrowing first risks me pre-judging an item you would have wanted.\nRecommendation: A because the items are independent and each is a real scope call; 7 short answers beats me guessing.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nA) Proceed with the full split, one question per item (recommended)\n ✅ You see every candidate with its own effort and my honest recommendation\n ✅ Rejected items are recorded in NOT in scope, so the trail is complete\n ❌ Seven sequential questions before the rigor sections start\nB) Narrow first: I propose a smaller set, you confirm, then split that\n ✅ Fewer questions; I would propose E1, E2, E3, E5 and defer E4, E6, E7\n ✅ Still ends with per-item confirmation on the proposed set\n ❌ You lose the chance to weigh E4, E6, E7 individually before they are parked\nC) Batch into two groups of up to 4 and pick from each\n ✅ Two questions instead of seven\n ✅ Works if you mostly want the top few and are fine parking the rest\n ❌ Independent scope items do not really compete with each other; batching hides that\nNet: decision completeness vs. the number of prompts before the deep review begins.\"=\"A: Full split, 7 questions (recommended)\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"sessionId": "ae9647e7-5cee-4d16-8c6e-c510e9a17989",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T15:10:43.737Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Fg8mtumrMeZwcX7o3UBvqg",
|
||||
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"header": "E1 default",
|
||||
"question": "D6.1 — E1: Default view per member per project. Add, defer, skip or hold?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-xeGnfv on main, saved views expansion item 1 of 7.\nELI10: Each member can mark one saved view (private or project) as their default for a project. Opening the project loads that view instead of the unfiltered list. Implementation: a `default_saved_view_id` on the project membership row (or a small member_project_prefs table), one \"set as default\" action in the picker, and a fallback to the plain list when the default view is deleted or no longer visible. This is the single biggest lever on the stated pain: the filter is rebuilt zero times, not once.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without it, members still click into the picker every session; the feature is an option rather than the way the list works.\nRecommendation: Add because it turns \"saved\" into \"already there\" for ~20 minutes of CC work (human ~half day).\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nA) Add to this plan's scope (recommended)\n ✅ Members land on their list on project open; zero clicks to reach a saved filter\n ✅ Small: one nullable FK, one picker action, one fallback path, three tests\n ❌ Adds a dangling-reference case when the default view is deleted or made private by its creator\nB) Defer to TODOS.md\n ✅ Keeps the first release to pure save / pick / apply\n ✅ Pilot data can show whether members even reopen views before you build auto-load\n ❌ Pilot \"reuse\" numbers will understate value because reopening costs a click\nC) Skip entirely\n ✅ No membership-table change at all\n ✅ Simplest mental model: the list always opens unfiltered\n ❌ Leaves the largest win on the table\nD) Hold: stop the chain and discuss\n ✅ No cons — this is a hard-stop choice\nNet: one nullable FK now vs. a picker click every session forever.",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A: Add (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Default view per member per project, with fallback when the default is deleted or hidden."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B: Defer to TODOS",
|
||||
"description": "Record with context; revisit after the pilot."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "C: Skip",
|
||||
"description": "Drop the idea; record in NOT in scope."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "D: Hold",
|
||||
"description": "Stop the chain and discuss this item first."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"requestOrderProvenance": "The public retainer sorted JSON keys. Structural equality was verified, then request questions recovered the original property order from the native final observation (the reader retains block.input.questions). No values, timestamps, results or answers changed.",
|
||||
"viewport": " ☐ Expansion \n\n│ D6.0 — I have 7 expansion candidates for the saved views plan. How do you want to decide them?\n│ Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-xeGnfv on main, SCOPE EXPANSION ceremony for saved project views.\n│ ELI10: The delight scan produced 7 adjacent improvements: E1 default view per member, E2 view id in URL, E3 \n│ dirty-state indicator with Update / Save as new / Revert, E4 rename / duplicate / delete-with-undo, E5 graceful\n│ handling of stale filter references, E6 starter views on an empty picker, E7 cross-project views. The rule is one add\n│ / defer / skip question per item so nothing gets cut silently. Seven questions is a lot, so you choose the pace first.\n│ Dependencies: E3 works best with E2 (a URL to revert to) but does not require it; E7 is the only large item and\n│ changes the data model (no project FK).\n│ Stakes if we pick wrong: Full split costs you 7 quick answers; narrowing first risks me pre-judging an item you would\n│ have wanted.\n│ Recommendation: A because the items are independent and each is a real scope call; 7 short answers beats me guessing.\n│ Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\n│ A) Proceed with the full split, one question per item (recommended)\n│ ✅ You see every candidate with its own effort and my honest recommendation\n│ ✅ Rejected items are recorded in NOT in scope, so the trail is complete\n│ ❌ Seven sequential questions before the rigor sections start\n│ B) Narrow first: I propose a smaller set, you confirm, then split that\n│ ✅ Fewer questions; I would propose E1, E2, E3, E5 and defer E4, E6, E7\n│ ✅ Still ends with per-item confirmation on the proposed set\n│ ❌ You lose the chance to weigh E4, E6, E7 individually before they are parked\n│ C) Batch into two groups of up to 4 and pick from each\n│ ✅ Two questions instead of seven\n│ ✅ Works if you mostly want the top few and are fine parking the rest\n│ ❌ Independent scope items do not really compete with each other; batching hides that\n│ Net: decision completeness vs. the number of prompts befor…\n\n❯ 1. A: Full split, 7 questions (recommended)\n One add / defer / skip / hold question per candidate, E1 through E7.\n 2. B: Narrow first\n I propose a smaller set (E1, E2, E3, E5), you confirm, then per-item questions on that set.\n 3. C: Batch into groups\n Two grouped questions covering all seven.\n 4. Type something.\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n 5. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · Esc to cancel\n",
|
||||
"nextViewport": "│ Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-xeGnfv on main, saved views expansion item 1 of 7.\n│ ELI10: Each member can mark one saved view (private or project) as their default for a project. Opening the project\n│ loads that view instead of the unfiltered list. Implementation: a `default_saved_view_id` on the project membership\n│ row (or a small member_project_prefs table), one \"set as default\" action in the picker, and a fallback to the plain\n│ list when the default view is deleted or no longer visible. This is the single biggest lever on the stated pain: the\n│ filter is rebuilt zero times, not once.\n│ Stakes if we pick wrong: Without it, members still click into the picker every session; the feature is an option\n│ rather than the way the list works.\n│ Recommendation: Add because it turns \"saved\" into \"already there\" for ~20 minutes of CC work (human ~half day).\n│ Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\n│ A) Add to this plan's scope (recommended)\n│ ✅ Members land on their list on project open; zero clicks to reach a saved filter\n│ ✅ Small: one nullable FK, one picker action, one fallback path, three tests\n│ ❌ Adds a dangling-reference case when the default view is deleted or made private by its creator\n│ B) Defer to TODOS.md\n│ ✅ Keeps the first release to pure save / pick / apply\n│ ✅ Pilot data can show whether members even reopen views before you build auto-load\n│ ❌ Pilot \"reuse\" numbers will understate value because reopening costs a click\n│ C) Skip entirely\n│ ✅ No membership-table change at all\n│ ✅ Simplest mental model: the list always opens unfiltered\n│ ❌ Leaves the largest win on the table\n│ D) Hold: stop the chain and discuss\n│ ✅ No cons — this is a hard-stop choice\n│ Net: one nullable FK now vs. a picker click every session forever.\n\n❯ 1. A: Add (recommended)\n Default view per member per project, with fallback when the default is deleted or hidden.\n 2. B: Defer to TODOS\n Record with context; revisit after the pilot.\n 3. C: Skip\n Drop the idea; record in NOT in scope.\n 4. D: Hold\n Stop the chain and discuss this item first.\n 5. Type something.\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n 6. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · Esc to cancel\n",
|
||||
"rawTerminalSha256": "3e5d35c91bce333bc6ac941e4c2bc5f3be176bc9f737de64682393b1c9f135f9",
|
||||
"viewportRawOffset": 225817,
|
||||
"provenance": "Native questions, actual successful pacing answer, pending E1, and original CLI viewport retained from source6f first timeout. No completed E1 answer or posture is added."
|
||||
}
|
||||
+372
@@ -0,0 +1,372 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"source": "77fd0890ddfeaf2bdd6d78183a2d989d9a4e8d4c",
|
||||
"selectionStartedAt": 1789492460129,
|
||||
"selected": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "10bb7da8-3065-4a5d-8a8f-41f156b3cca5",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_011LRMEtwDvfFastSfoYTxEG",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D1 — Which review mode should I apply to the saved project views plan?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rTDHRG on main, reviewing PLAN.md (saved views for the project task list).\nELI10: The review can push this plan in four directions: dream bigger, keep the plan but offer a few add-ons you can pick from, keep the plan exactly and hunt for every way it breaks, or shrink it to the bare minimum. The plan is an enhancement to an existing task list with an estimated 8-12 changed files, one new table, and new UI. There is also a real premise question (per-member views vs project-shared views) that a mode with room for cherry-picking can put in front of you without forcing it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too ambitious and the pilot slips or grows a sharing model nobody asked for; too narrow and the team keeps recreating the same filters because views can't be shared.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement under the 15-file threshold with one strong expansion candidate (shared views) that deserves a yes/no from you, not a default.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how much appetite you have for adding scope vs hardening exactly what's written.",
|
||||
"header": "Review mode",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Hold the current scope and make it bulletproof, then offer 5-6 individually selectable add-ons (shared views, default view, deep links) with effort and risk. ✅ You decide each one; rejected items land in NOT in scope. ❌ Slightly longer review because each add-on is its own question."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Maximum rigor on exactly the four approach bullets: every error path, edge case, test, and observability gap. ✅ Fastest path to an implementable plan for the two-week pilot. ❌ The shared-views premise question gets noted but not offered, so the team-level pain may stay unsolved."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Envision the 10x version: views as first-class shareable objects, defaults, deep links, digests. ✅ Best 12-month architecture up front. ❌ Highest risk of over-building before the pilot proves anyone reuses views at all."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Strip to the minimum that proves reuse: maybe create + list + apply only, no update endpoint. ✅ Shortest pilot lead time. ❌ Plan is already small; cuts here risk shipping something too thin to measure."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D1 — Which review mode should I apply to the saved project views plan?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rTDHRG on main, reviewing PLAN.md (saved views for the project task list).\nELI10: The review can push this plan in four directions: dream bigger, keep the plan but offer a few add-ons you can pick from, keep the plan exactly and hunt for every way it breaks, or shrink it to the bare minimum. The plan is an enhancement to an existing task list with an estimated 8-12 changed files, one new table, and new UI. There is also a real premise question (per-member views vs project-shared views) that a mode with room for cherry-picking can put in front of you without forcing it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too ambitious and the pilot slips or grows a sharing model nobody asked for; too narrow and the team keeps recreating the same filters because views can't be shared.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement under the 15-file threshold with one strong expansion candidate (shared views) that deserves a yes/no from you, not a default.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how much appetite you have for adding scope vs hardening exactly what's written.": "SCOPE EXPANSION"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:14:20.164Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"proposal": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "10bb7da8-3065-4a5d-8a8f-41f156b3cca5",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UExNnc9avZ81S39cVANhzn",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D2.1 — P1: Project-shared views. Add, defer, or skip?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rTDHRG on main, expanding the saved views plan (SCOPE EXPANSION, D1).\nELI10: Right now a saved view belongs to one member, so if five people want \"Blocked this sprint\" all five build it. P1 adds a visibility switch (private or project) so one person saves it and the whole project sees it in the picker. Only the owner (and project admins, if that role exists) can edit or delete a shared view. Members still only see tasks they already have access to; sharing a view never widens task visibility. This is the change that turns the feature from a personal convenience into the thing that actually ends the team recreating filters.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skip it and the stated pain (\"team members repeatedly recreate filters\") is solved once per member instead of once per team; add it carelessly and you get an authorization surface where someone edits or deletes a teammate's view.\nRecommendation: A) Add because the plan's own goal is team-level, the cost is one enum column plus one authz branch (human ~2 days / CC ~45 min), and doing it now avoids a migration and backfill later.\nCompleteness: A=10/10 (solves the team pain, owner-only mutation, access rules preserved), B=6/10 (personal views ship, team pain remains until a later migration), C=5/10 (permanently per-member).\nNet: a medium-effort authz surface now vs solving the stated problem only one member at a time.",
|
||||
"header": "P1 shared",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A) Add to this plan (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ One save removes the filter-rebuilding work for every project member, not just the saver. ✅ Picker groups private then project views with creator shown; owner-only update/delete. ❌ Adds an authorization branch that needs its own tests (non-owner update, non-member read, admin override)."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B) Defer to TODOS.md",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Keeps the pilot to the smallest surface and lets reuse data justify sharing later. ✅ Still worth adding the nullable visibility column now to avoid a later backfill. ❌ Team-level pain persists through the pilot, so the reuse metric may look weak for the wrong reason."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "C) Skip entirely",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Simplest data model and no sharing authz at all. ✅ Fastest path to shipping exactly what PLAN.md says. ❌ Locks the table into per-member ownership; adding sharing later means a migration plus backfill."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D2.1 — P1: Project-shared views. Add, defer, or skip?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rTDHRG on main, expanding the saved views plan (SCOPE EXPANSION, D1).\nELI10: Right now a saved view belongs to one member, so if five people want \"Blocked this sprint\" all five build it. P1 adds a visibility switch (private or project) so one person saves it and the whole project sees it in the picker. Only the owner (and project admins, if that role exists) can edit or delete a shared view. Members still only see tasks they already have access to; sharing a view never widens task visibility. This is the change that turns the feature from a personal convenience into the thing that actually ends the team recreating filters.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skip it and the stated pain (\"team members repeatedly recreate filters\") is solved once per member instead of once per team; add it carelessly and you get an authorization surface where someone edits or deletes a teammate's view.\nRecommendation: A) Add because the plan's own goal is team-level, the cost is one enum column plus one authz branch (human ~2 days / CC ~45 min), and doing it now avoids a migration and backfill later.\nCompleteness: A=10/10 (solves the team pain, owner-only mutation, access rules preserved), B=6/10 (personal views ship, team pain remains until a later migration), C=5/10 (permanently per-member).\nNet: a medium-effort authz surface now vs solving the stated problem only one member at a time.": "A) Add to this plan (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:16:00.396Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"eventTimes": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_011LRMEtwDvfFastSfoYTxEG",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:14:18.988Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_011LRMEtwDvfFastSfoYTxEG",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:14:20.164Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UExNnc9avZ81S39cVANhzn",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:15:58.212Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UExNnc9avZ81S39cVANhzn",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:16:00.396Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"provenance": {
|
||||
"projection": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/sep15-ship-consolidation/remaining-paid-90f-repairs/executions/77fd0890ddfeaf2bdd6d78183a2d989d9a4e8d4c/all/run/public-retention/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-mode-routing/plan-ceo-review-mode-1789492297772-BPfUry/latest-public-transcript.json",
|
||||
"sha256": "4367d27895f46a03d47f5b3cc7360db01e07ff83287f51e7838e98f6bc3ca533",
|
||||
"case": "mode \"SCOPE EXPANSION\" routes to its distinctive posture",
|
||||
"firstAttemptStatus": "failed",
|
||||
"actualPassCredit": 0
|
||||
},
|
||||
"resultContentById": {
|
||||
"toolu_011LRMEtwDvfFastSfoYTxEG": "Your questions have been answered: \"D1 — Which review mode should I apply to the saved project views plan?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rTDHRG on main, reviewing PLAN.md (saved views for the project task list).\nELI10: The review can push this plan in four directions: dream bigger, keep the plan but offer a few add-ons you can pick from, keep the plan exactly and hunt for every way it breaks, or shrink it to the bare minimum. The plan is an enhancement to an existing task list with an estimated 8-12 changed files, one new table, and new UI. There is also a real premise question (per-member views vs project-shared views) that a mode with room for cherry-picking can put in front of you without forcing it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too ambitious and the pilot slips or grows a sharing model nobody asked for; too narrow and the team keeps recreating the same filters because views can't be shared.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement under the 15-file threshold with one strong expansion candidate (shared views) that deserves a yes/no from you, not a default.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how much appetite you have for adding scope vs hardening exactly what's written.\"=\"SCOPE EXPANSION\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
|
||||
"toolu_01UExNnc9avZ81S39cVANhzn": "Your questions have been answered: \"D2.1 — P1: Project-shared views. Add, defer, or skip?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rTDHRG on main, expanding the saved views plan (SCOPE EXPANSION, D1).\nELI10: Right now a saved view belongs to one member, so if five people want \"Blocked this sprint\" all five build it. P1 adds a visibility switch (private or project) so one person saves it and the whole project sees it in the picker. Only the owner (and project admins, if that role exists) can edit or delete a shared view. Members still only see tasks they already have access to; sharing a view never widens task visibility. This is the change that turns the feature from a personal convenience into the thing that actually ends the team recreating filters.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skip it and the stated pain (\"team members repeatedly recreate filters\") is solved once per member instead of once per team; add it carelessly and you get an authorization surface where someone edits or deletes a teammate's view.\nRecommendation: A) Add because the plan's own goal is team-level, the cost is one enum column plus one authz branch (human ~2 days / CC ~45 min), and doing it now avoids a migration and backfill later.\nCompleteness: A=10/10 (solves the team pain, owner-only mutation, access rules preserved), B=6/10 (personal views ship, team pain remains until a later migration), C=5/10 (permanently per-member).\nNet: a medium-effort authz surface now vs solving the stated problem only one member at a time.\"=\"A) Add to this plan (recommended)\". You can now continue with these answers in mind."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"namedAddProposal": {
|
||||
"source": "cab3edc8b24f873b55f6edc6d98b60981eda52cb",
|
||||
"attempt": "plan-ceo-review-mode-1789499702475-lfIixD",
|
||||
"originalState": "failed",
|
||||
"selectionStartedAt": 1789499860892,
|
||||
"selected": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "ab0dfbcd-239f-4b21-bb63-84a728b50460",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Tpz9fBgWazaEXoSH2tgGs7",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D2 — Which review mode for the saved project views plan?\nProject/branch/task: fixture repo on main; reviewing PLAN.md (saved_views table, CRUD endpoints, picker + save action).\nELI10: The plan is a solid, small enhancement: let each member save a named filter+sort combo and reopen it. The mode decides how hard I push on scope. Expansion dreams big (shared views, default view, deep links). Selective keeps your scope but offers each addition as a separate yes/no. Hold keeps scope exactly and goes deep on failure paths, tests, and observability. Reduction strips to the smallest thing that stops the filter-rebuilding pain.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too big and a two-week pilot ships late with features nobody tested; too small and the team-wide pain (everyone rebuilding the same filter) is only half solved and the schema needs a migration later.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement, ~10-13 files (estimate), and one real premise question (per-member vs shared views) deserves an explicit yes/no rather than a silent assumption.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: you are choosing how much I am allowed to tempt you with scope, not what ships; every addition still needs your explicit opt-in.",
|
||||
"header": "Review mode",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Current scope gets the full failure-path and test rigor of HOLD first. ✅ Each expansion (shared views, default view, deep links, stale-filter handling) is offered separately with effort and risk; you pick. ❌ More questions than HOLD; a few extra minutes of decisions."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
|
||||
"description": "✅ I build the 10x vision (private + shared views, defaults, deep links, usage metrics) and recommend enthusiastically. ✅ Best chance of avoiding a schema migration when shared views arrive. ❌ Risk of overshooting a two-week pilot; more surface to test before anyone has used it."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Scope stays exactly as PLAN.md; maximum rigor on errors, edge cases, tests, observability. ✅ Fastest path to the pilot with no new decisions about features. ❌ The team-wide vs per-member premise question goes unasked; shared views later means a migration."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Strips to the minimum that stops filter rebuilding (possibly URL-encoded filters + a save button, no update endpoint). ✅ Smallest diff, fastest pilot signal. ❌ Plan is already small; cuts may remove things (update, delete) users expect on day one."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D2 — Which review mode for the saved project views plan?\nProject/branch/task: fixture repo on main; reviewing PLAN.md (saved_views table, CRUD endpoints, picker + save action).\nELI10: The plan is a solid, small enhancement: let each member save a named filter+sort combo and reopen it. The mode decides how hard I push on scope. Expansion dreams big (shared views, default view, deep links). Selective keeps your scope but offers each addition as a separate yes/no. Hold keeps scope exactly and goes deep on failure paths, tests, and observability. Reduction strips to the smallest thing that stops the filter-rebuilding pain.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too big and a two-week pilot ships late with features nobody tested; too small and the team-wide pain (everyone rebuilding the same filter) is only half solved and the schema needs a migration later.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement, ~10-13 files (estimate), and one real premise question (per-member vs shared views) deserves an explicit yes/no rather than a silent assumption.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: you are choosing how much I am allowed to tempt you with scope, not what ships; every addition still needs your explicit opt-in.": "SCOPE EXPANSION"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T19:17:40.926Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"proposal": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "ab0dfbcd-239f-4b21-bb63-84a728b50460",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_015hyeFUu842NHRPeUfpsesB",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D3 — E1: Add project-shared views alongside private views?\nProject/branch/task: main; saved project views plan, ledger row L1 (ownership scope).\nELI10: Right now the plan saves a view for one member only. Shared views let the person who builds \"Blocked on design, by priority\" publish it to the whole project, so nobody else rebuilds it. Same table, one `visibility` column (private | project), creator owns edits, every project member can open it. This is what Linear, Jira, and GitLab all do.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip it and the stated team-wide pain is only solved per person; adding it later means a schema migration and a permissions retrofit. Add it and you take on a real permissions surface (who can edit/delete a shared view) before the pilot.\nRecommendation: A because the goal sentence is about the team, and a nullable-owner or visibility column costs almost nothing now and a migration later. (human: ~2 days / CC: ~20 min)\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=6/10\nNet: one column and one permission rule now vs. a half-solved pain and a migration in six months.",
|
||||
"header": "E1 shared",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Add to this plan's scope (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Solves the team-wide pain directly: one person builds a view, everyone reuses it. ✅ Schema is right from day one; no migration when sharing is requested. ❌ Adds an edit/delete permission rule and its tests to the pilot scope."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Defer to TODOS.md",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Pilot ships with the smaller per-member scope and a written follow-up. ✅ Two-week pilot data can confirm whether sharing is actually requested. ❌ Schema stays member-only; adding sharing later is a migration plus backfill."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Skip",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Smallest possible scope; no permissions surface beyond project membership. ✅ Zero new decisions about who can edit whose view. ❌ Every member rebuilds the same shared filters; the plan's goal is only partially met."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D3 — E1: Add project-shared views alongside private views?\nProject/branch/task: main; saved project views plan, ledger row L1 (ownership scope).\nELI10: Right now the plan saves a view for one member only. Shared views let the person who builds \"Blocked on design, by priority\" publish it to the whole project, so nobody else rebuilds it. Same table, one `visibility` column (private | project), creator owns edits, every project member can open it. This is what Linear, Jira, and GitLab all do.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip it and the stated team-wide pain is only solved per person; adding it later means a schema migration and a permissions retrofit. Add it and you take on a real permissions surface (who can edit/delete a shared view) before the pilot.\nRecommendation: A because the goal sentence is about the team, and a nullable-owner or visibility column costs almost nothing now and a migration later. (human: ~2 days / CC: ~20 min)\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=6/10\nNet: one column and one permission rule now vs. a half-solved pain and a migration in six months.": "Add to this plan's scope (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T19:18:33.573Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"events": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ab0dfbcd-239f-4b21-bb63-84a728b50460",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:17:39.645Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Tpz9fBgWazaEXoSH2tgGs7",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D2 — Which review mode for the saved project views plan?\nProject/branch/task: fixture repo on main; reviewing PLAN.md (saved_views table, CRUD endpoints, picker + save action).\nELI10: The plan is a solid, small enhancement: let each member save a named filter+sort combo and reopen it. The mode decides how hard I push on scope. Expansion dreams big (shared views, default view, deep links). Selective keeps your scope but offers each addition as a separate yes/no. Hold keeps scope exactly and goes deep on failure paths, tests, and observability. Reduction strips to the smallest thing that stops the filter-rebuilding pain.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too big and a two-week pilot ships late with features nobody tested; too small and the team-wide pain (everyone rebuilding the same filter) is only half solved and the schema needs a migration later.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement, ~10-13 files (estimate), and one real premise question (per-member vs shared views) deserves an explicit yes/no rather than a silent assumption.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: you are choosing how much I am allowed to tempt you with scope, not what ships; every addition still needs your explicit opt-in.",
|
||||
"header": "Review mode",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Current scope gets the full failure-path and test rigor of HOLD first. ✅ Each expansion (shared views, default view, deep links, stale-filter handling) is offered separately with effort and risk; you pick. ❌ More questions than HOLD; a few extra minutes of decisions."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
|
||||
"description": "✅ I build the 10x vision (private + shared views, defaults, deep links, usage metrics) and recommend enthusiastically. ✅ Best chance of avoiding a schema migration when shared views arrive. ❌ Risk of overshooting a two-week pilot; more surface to test before anyone has used it."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Scope stays exactly as PLAN.md; maximum rigor on errors, edge cases, tests, observability. ✅ Fastest path to the pilot with no new decisions about features. ❌ The team-wide vs per-member premise question goes unasked; shared views later means a migration."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Strips to the minimum that stops filter rebuilding (possibly URL-encoded filters + a save button, no update endpoint). ✅ Smallest diff, fastest pilot signal. ❌ Plan is already small; cuts may remove things (update, delete) users expect on day one."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf5mCN84sf7ELVtp8nbXZ",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf5mCMbow4YmTFkVPDTcg"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ab0dfbcd-239f-4b21-bb63-84a728b50460",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:17:40.926Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Tpz9fBgWazaEXoSH2tgGs7",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D2 — Which review mode for the saved project views plan?\nProject/branch/task: fixture repo on main; reviewing PLAN.md (saved_views table, CRUD endpoints, picker + save action).\nELI10: The plan is a solid, small enhancement: let each member save a named filter+sort combo and reopen it. The mode decides how hard I push on scope. Expansion dreams big (shared views, default view, deep links). Selective keeps your scope but offers each addition as a separate yes/no. Hold keeps scope exactly and goes deep on failure paths, tests, and observability. Reduction strips to the smallest thing that stops the filter-rebuilding pain.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too big and a two-week pilot ships late with features nobody tested; too small and the team-wide pain (everyone rebuilding the same filter) is only half solved and the schema needs a migration later.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement, ~10-13 files (estimate), and one real premise question (per-member vs shared views) deserves an explicit yes/no rather than a silent assumption.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: you are choosing how much I am allowed to tempt you with scope, not what ships; every addition still needs your explicit opt-in.\"=\"SCOPE EXPANSION\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ab0dfbcd-239f-4b21-bb63-84a728b50460",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:18:31.739Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_015hyeFUu842NHRPeUfpsesB",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D3 — E1: Add project-shared views alongside private views?\nProject/branch/task: main; saved project views plan, ledger row L1 (ownership scope).\nELI10: Right now the plan saves a view for one member only. Shared views let the person who builds \"Blocked on design, by priority\" publish it to the whole project, so nobody else rebuilds it. Same table, one `visibility` column (private | project), creator owns edits, every project member can open it. This is what Linear, Jira, and GitLab all do.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip it and the stated team-wide pain is only solved per person; adding it later means a schema migration and a permissions retrofit. Add it and you take on a real permissions surface (who can edit/delete a shared view) before the pilot.\nRecommendation: A because the goal sentence is about the team, and a nullable-owner or visibility column costs almost nothing now and a migration later. (human: ~2 days / CC: ~20 min)\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=6/10\nNet: one column and one permission rule now vs. a half-solved pain and a migration in six months.",
|
||||
"header": "E1 shared",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Add to this plan's scope (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Solves the team-wide pain directly: one person builds a view, everyone reuses it. ✅ Schema is right from day one; no migration when sharing is requested. ❌ Adds an edit/delete permission rule and its tests to the pilot scope."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Defer to TODOS.md",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Pilot ships with the smaller per-member scope and a written follow-up. ✅ Two-week pilot data can confirm whether sharing is actually requested. ❌ Schema stays member-only; adding sharing later is a migration plus backfill."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Skip",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Smallest possible scope; no permissions surface beyond project membership. ✅ Zero new decisions about who can edit whose view. ❌ Every member rebuilds the same shared filters; the plan's goal is only partially met."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf5mGK5NQx14bRTChqi7x",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf5mGJSfaYZRNyxdAMscQ"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ab0dfbcd-239f-4b21-bb63-84a728b50460",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:18:33.573Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_015hyeFUu842NHRPeUfpsesB",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D3 — E1: Add project-shared views alongside private views?\nProject/branch/task: main; saved project views plan, ledger row L1 (ownership scope).\nELI10: Right now the plan saves a view for one member only. Shared views let the person who builds \"Blocked on design, by priority\" publish it to the whole project, so nobody else rebuilds it. Same table, one `visibility` column (private | project), creator owns edits, every project member can open it. This is what Linear, Jira, and GitLab all do.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip it and the stated team-wide pain is only solved per person; adding it later means a schema migration and a permissions retrofit. Add it and you take on a real permissions surface (who can edit/delete a shared view) before the pilot.\nRecommendation: A because the goal sentence is about the team, and a nullable-owner or visibility column costs almost nothing now and a migration later. (human: ~2 days / CC: ~20 min)\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=6/10\nNet: one column and one permission rule now vs. a half-solved pain and a migration in six months.\"=\"Add to this plan's scope (recommended)\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"captureSha256": "a986662612e62a5b41d0c41f1d2201dbcf02ba776ef3370f2bb9dfd3964e82f5",
|
||||
"limitation": "Original paid retry remains failed; only the exact selected mode and completed E1 decision are retained here."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"proceduralPauseB0ca": {
|
||||
"source": "b0ca3b361f8c738fcb75192535efbe922b224989",
|
||||
"inputSha256": "7dfcec4814b83857d09a4e148decf63d25e228432cfc441e560c926f118b022b",
|
||||
"originalOutcome": "failed",
|
||||
"originalAssertion": "no posture match; continuedQuestion=true",
|
||||
"selectionBoundary": "Use one millisecond before actual mode ACK solely to authenticate the same selected mode. This is not an asserted send timestamp.",
|
||||
"selected": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "caaed41c-3102-4b87-b04c-90ffa28cc56d",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Ew41JC9sghZLd2iRUQcaHU",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D3 — Which review mode should govern the rest of this plan review?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\", approach C approved in D2 (~12 files estimated).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for everything after this. Expansion modes go hunting for adjacent wins (shared views, default views, view URLs in notifications) and ask you about each one. Hold scope keeps exactly what is planned and spends the rigor on failure paths, tests and observability. Reduction strips the plan to the smallest core. This is an enhancement to an existing screen with a modest file count, which is the textbook case for holding scope while cherry-picking a few expansions.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too expansive and the pilot ships late with features nobody asked for; too narrow and we miss cheap wins the schema (D2) was deliberately prepared for.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because the plan is a mid-size enhancement and D2 already opened doors worth a neutral look, one at a time.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how much I tempt you with adjacent scope vs. how hard I lean on the plan as written.",
|
||||
"header": "Review mode",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Hold current scope and make it bulletproof; separately offer each adjacent expansion with neutral effort and risk, you accept or reject one by one. ✅ Rigor on the planned scope plus a look at cheap wins D2 set up. ✅ Every scope change is an explicit yes from you. ❌ More questions than HOLD SCOPE."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
|
||||
"description": "Dream big: 10x vision, platonic ideal, enthusiastic recommendations for adjacent features. ✅ Best if you want saved views to become a platform feature now. ✅ Surfaces the most ambitious version. ❌ Risks a two-week pilot turning into a quarter of work."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
|
||||
"description": "Preserve scope exactly; maximum rigor on failure paths, edge cases, tests, observability. ✅ Fewest questions, fastest to a shippable plan. ✅ Nothing gets added that the goal did not ask for. ❌ Cheap adjacent wins are not even considered."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
|
||||
"description": "Propose the minimum viable core and cut the rest with approval. ✅ Fastest possible pilot if the premise is uncertain. ✅ Forces the team to prove demand first. ❌ The plan is already small; cutting further likely drops the named-views goal."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D3 — Which review mode should govern the rest of this plan review?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\", approach C approved in D2 (~12 files estimated).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for everything after this. Expansion modes go hunting for adjacent wins (shared views, default views, view URLs in notifications) and ask you about each one. Hold scope keeps exactly what is planned and spends the rigor on failure paths, tests and observability. Reduction strips the plan to the smallest core. This is an enhancement to an existing screen with a modest file count, which is the textbook case for holding scope while cherry-picking a few expansions.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too expansive and the pilot ships late with features nobody asked for; too narrow and we miss cheap wins the schema (D2) was deliberately prepared for.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because the plan is a mid-size enhancement and D2 already opened doors worth a neutral look, one at a time.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how much I tempt you with adjacent scope vs. how hard I lean on the plan as written.": "SCOPE EXPANSION"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T21:40:01.614Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"proposal": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "caaed41c-3102-4b87-b04c-90ffa28cc56d",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01DRxhi7FkFSDaknwywHYiBb",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D4.1 — E1: Shared project views. Add to this plan's scope?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md saved views, SCOPE EXPANSION, D2 schema approved (visibility column exists).\nELI10: Today's plan gives each member private views. E1 lets a member publish a view to the whole project (\"Blocked\", \"This sprint\"), so the team stops describing filter recipes in chat and starts naming views. Project admins can edit or delete shared views; regular members can only apply them. The schema is already there from D2, so this is endpoints, permissions and a picker section, not a migration. Human ~1.5 days / CC ~45 min. Runs in parallel with the pilot build, does not block it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skipping it leaves the 10x version on the table; adding it brings real permission logic (who may edit a view others rely on) into the first release.\nRecommendation: Add because it is the single biggest value multiplier and D2 made it cheap; E2 (default view) depends on it.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: team-level value and one permission model now vs. a smaller, purely personal first release.",
|
||||
"header": "E1 shared",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Add to scope (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Team members share views by name; the feature becomes a team tool, not a preference. ✅ Unlocks E2 project default view. ❌ Adds an admin-vs-member permission model and its tests to the first release."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Defer to TODOS.md",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Ship personal views first, learn from the pilot, add sharing next. ✅ Schema is ready so the deferral costs no migration. ❌ E2 must also be deferred; team vocabulary benefit waits."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Skip",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Smallest release; no permission logic beyond ownership. ✅ Nothing to maintain for shared state. ❌ Contradicts the 10x direction and leaves the visibility column unused indefinitely."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Hold (stop chain, discuss)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Pause the ceremony to talk through the permission model first. ✅ No proposal is decided under time pressure. ❌ Remaining proposals wait until we resume."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D4.1 — E1: Shared project views. Add to this plan's scope?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md saved views, SCOPE EXPANSION, D2 schema approved (visibility column exists).\nELI10: Today's plan gives each member private views. E1 lets a member publish a view to the whole project (\"Blocked\", \"This sprint\"), so the team stops describing filter recipes in chat and starts naming views. Project admins can edit or delete shared views; regular members can only apply them. The schema is already there from D2, so this is endpoints, permissions and a picker section, not a migration. Human ~1.5 days / CC ~45 min. Runs in parallel with the pilot build, does not block it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skipping it leaves the 10x version on the table; adding it brings real permission logic (who may edit a view others rely on) into the first release.\nRecommendation: Add because it is the single biggest value multiplier and D2 made it cheap; E2 (default view) depends on it.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: team-level value and one permission model now vs. a smaller, purely personal first release.": "Add to scope (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T21:41:19.255Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"eventTimes": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Ew41JC9sghZLd2iRUQcaHU",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T21:40:00.551Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Ew41JC9sghZLd2iRUQcaHU",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T21:40:01.614Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01DRxhi7FkFSDaknwywHYiBb",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T21:41:18.860Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01DRxhi7FkFSDaknwywHYiBb",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T21:41:19.255Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"resultContentById": {
|
||||
"toolu_01Ew41JC9sghZLd2iRUQcaHU": "Your questions have been answered: \"D3 — Which review mode should govern the rest of this plan review?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\", approach C approved in D2 (~12 files estimated).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for everything after this. Expansion modes go hunting for adjacent wins (shared views, default views, view URLs in notifications) and ask you about each one. Hold scope keeps exactly what is planned and spends the rigor on failure paths, tests and observability. Reduction strips the plan to the smallest core. This is an enhancement to an existing screen with a modest file count, which is the textbook case for holding scope while cherry-picking a few expansions.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too expansive and the pilot ships late with features nobody asked for; too narrow and we miss cheap wins the schema (D2) was deliberately prepared for.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because the plan is a mid-size enhancement and D2 already opened doors worth a neutral look, one at a time.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how much I tempt you with adjacent scope vs. how hard I lean on the plan as written.\"=\"SCOPE EXPANSION\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
|
||||
"toolu_01DRxhi7FkFSDaknwywHYiBb": "Your questions have been answered: \"D4.1 — E1: Shared project views. Add to this plan's scope?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md saved views, SCOPE EXPANSION, D2 schema approved (visibility column exists).\nELI10: Today's plan gives each member private views. E1 lets a member publish a view to the whole project (\"Blocked\", \"This sprint\"), so the team stops describing filter recipes in chat and starts naming views. Project admins can edit or delete shared views; regular members can only apply them. The schema is already there from D2, so this is endpoints, permissions and a picker section, not a migration. Human ~1.5 days / CC ~45 min. Runs in parallel with the pilot build, does not block it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skipping it leaves the 10x version on the table; adding it brings real permission logic (who may edit a view others rely on) into the first release.\nRecommendation: Add because it is the single biggest value multiplier and D2 made it cheap; E2 (default view) depends on it.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: team-level value and one permission model now vs. a smaller, purely personal first release.\"=\"Add to scope (recommended)\". You can now continue with these answers in mind."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
+622
@@ -0,0 +1,622 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"source": "77fd0890ddfeaf2bdd6d78183a2d989d9a4e8d4c",
|
||||
"attempt": "plan-ceo-review-mode-1789492711069-hLrAD9",
|
||||
"originalOutcome": "failed: Unsupported or repeated CEO pacing menu; no additional answer authorized",
|
||||
"selectionStartedAt": 1789492981938,
|
||||
"transcript": {
|
||||
"status": "ready",
|
||||
"calls": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "6b4474a6-9952-4b20-9b72-0d23c45ee2a1",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BXwcHiJ7FnTpRaA2ZRwAGu",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: plan-review fixture on `main`, reviewing PLAN.md (saved project views).\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so future requests like \"review this diff\" or \"ship it\" auto-route to the right skill. This is a one-time setup prompt. Note: we are in plan mode, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after this review finishes and plan mode exits, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Low either way. Without routing you invoke skills by name; with it, a short section is appended to CLAUDE.md and committed.\nRecommendation: A because it is a two-way door and removes friction on every future request.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience on every future session vs. keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.",
|
||||
"header": "Routing",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Future requests auto-route to the matching gstack skill without you naming it. ✅ One small appended section, committed once, easy to revert. ❌ Touches and commits CLAUDE.md in this repo (deferred until plan mode exits)."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "No thanks, invoke manually",
|
||||
"description": "✅ CLAUDE.md stays exactly as it is, nothing committed. ✅ You keep full control over when skills run. ❌ You must type the skill name each time; this prompt will not reappear for this project."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: plan-review fixture on `main`, reviewing PLAN.md (saved project views).\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so future requests like \"review this diff\" or \"ship it\" auto-route to the right skill. This is a one-time setup prompt. Note: we are in plan mode, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after this review finishes and plan mode exits, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Low either way. Without routing you invoke skills by name; with it, a short section is appended to CLAUDE.md and committed.\nRecommendation: A because it is a two-way door and removes friction on every future request.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience on every future session vs. keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.": "Add routing rules (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:19:01.205Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "6b4474a6-9952-4b20-9b72-0d23c45ee2a1",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01XG8ge3mQAmSETCnspg2D4F",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D2 — How should a saved view be represented and applied?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md on `main`: saved project views (filters + sort) per member.\nELI10: The plan says \"add a saved_views table\" but not what goes in a row. If a view stores a snapshot of whatever the filter UI holds today, it breaks the day someone adds or renames a filter. If filter state is first made addressable (a URL you can copy), a saved view is just a name pointing at that same string, and links, bookmarks, and \"reopen later\" all use one code path. This decides the data model, so it comes before scope.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Stored views silently return wrong results after the next filter change, or members get a feature with no way to share a filtered list.\nRecommendation: C because one serializer serves URL, saved view, and reopen-after-changes, and it removes the stale-view bug class for ~10 extra minutes of CC time.\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=3/10, C=9/10\nNet: A is the smallest diff today; C is the smallest diff over the next six months; B alone does not deliver named views.",
|
||||
"header": "View model",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "C: URL-addressable + table (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "One canonical, versioned serialization of filters + sort. Task list reads it from the URL; saved_views stores name + the same string. Human ~4 days / CC ~40 min. ✅ One parse path for URL, picker, and reopen. ✅ Shareable links and bookmarks fall out for free. ❌ Touches filter state management even if filters live only in memory today."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A: Table + JSON snapshot (as written)",
|
||||
"description": "Store name + a JSON blob of current UI filter state per project+member. Human ~3 days / CC ~30 min. ✅ Matches the plan text exactly, smallest conceptual change. ✅ Reuses filter UI state as-is with no serializer work. ❌ Blob is coupled to today's UI; adding a filter silently breaks stored views. ❌ No link sharing; reopen needs its own apply path."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B: URL-addressable state only",
|
||||
"description": "Serialize filters + sort into the query string, add copy-link, members use browser bookmarks. No table, endpoints, or picker. Human ~1 day / CC ~10 min. ✅ Zero backend surface, shareable links immediately. ✅ Foundation any later saved-view feature needs. ❌ No naming or in-app picker; bookmarks are per browser and device. ❌ Pilot reuse metric needs client analytics."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D2 — How should a saved view be represented and applied?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md on `main`: saved project views (filters + sort) per member.\nELI10: The plan says \"add a saved_views table\" but not what goes in a row. If a view stores a snapshot of whatever the filter UI holds today, it breaks the day someone adds or renames a filter. If filter state is first made addressable (a URL you can copy), a saved view is just a name pointing at that same string, and links, bookmarks, and \"reopen later\" all use one code path. This decides the data model, so it comes before scope.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Stored views silently return wrong results after the next filter change, or members get a feature with no way to share a filtered list.\nRecommendation: C because one serializer serves URL, saved view, and reopen-after-changes, and it removes the stale-view bug class for ~10 extra minutes of CC time.\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=3/10, C=9/10\nNet: A is the smallest diff today; C is the smallest diff over the next six months; B alone does not deliver named views.": "C: URL-addressable + table (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:22:13.795Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "6b4474a6-9952-4b20-9b72-0d23c45ee2a1",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EEQuKCsDHDWuufxk8QXFDs",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D3 — Which review mode should govern the rest of this plan review?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md on `main`: saved project views, approach C approved (URL-addressable definition + saved_views table).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the next hour. Expansion means I pitch the cathedral version and you opt in per item. Selective means I harden what is written and offer each addition neutrally, one at a time. Hold means no additions, maximum rigor on failure paths and tests. Reduction means I propose cuts to the smallest useful core. Estimated ~12-15 changed files (estimate; no code in this repo to count), and this enhances an existing task list rather than building greenfield.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Expansion on a small feature bloats it; Hold on a feature with obvious adjacent wins (shared views, default view) leaves value on the table you may not get back to.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because the core is small and well-defined, but two or three adjacent items (shared views, default view, view-applied telemetry) are cheap enough to deserve a yes/no each.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how much of the 12-month view (shared, default, linkable views) you want decided in this plan versus later.",
|
||||
"header": "Review mode",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Hold the written scope and make it bulletproof, then offer each expansion candidate separately with effort and risk; you pick. ✅ Core stays tight while you see every cheap adjacent win. ✅ Rejected items land in NOT in scope, so nothing is lost. ❌ More questions than Hold; each candidate costs you one decision."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
|
||||
"description": "Dream big: 10x vision, platonic ideal, delight scan, enthusiastic recommendations per item. ✅ Best shot at the full 12-month view (shared, default, dashboards) in one plan. ✅ Surfaces differentiation you may not have considered. ❌ Risk of bloating a feature whose pain is a small daily tax."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
|
||||
"description": "No additions. Trace every failure, edge case, error path, test, and observability gap in the written scope. ✅ Fastest path to a shippable, well-tested core. ✅ Fewest decisions for you. ❌ Adjacent wins (shared views, default view) wait for a later plan."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
|
||||
"description": "Strip to the minimum core (for example serialization + save/list/apply, defer update and delete) with per-cut approval. ✅ Smallest first ship; validates the pilot metric sooner. ✅ Each cut is explicit and recorded. ❌ Members may hit a half-feature (cannot rename or remove views) during the pilot."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D3 — Which review mode should govern the rest of this plan review?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md on `main`: saved project views, approach C approved (URL-addressable definition + saved_views table).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the next hour. Expansion means I pitch the cathedral version and you opt in per item. Selective means I harden what is written and offer each addition neutrally, one at a time. Hold means no additions, maximum rigor on failure paths and tests. Reduction means I propose cuts to the smallest useful core. Estimated ~12-15 changed files (estimate; no code in this repo to count), and this enhances an existing task list rather than building greenfield.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Expansion on a small feature bloats it; Hold on a feature with obvious adjacent wins (shared views, default view) leaves value on the table you may not get back to.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because the core is small and well-defined, but two or three adjacent items (shared views, default view, view-applied telemetry) are cheap enough to deserve a yes/no each.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how much of the 12-month view (shared, default, linkable views) you want decided in this plan versus later.": "SCOPE EXPANSION"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:23:01.967Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "6b4474a6-9952-4b20-9b72-0d23c45ee2a1",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01QeXbajhSwSL9wNZCSWTdxR",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D4.0 — Eight expansion proposals are on the table. How do you want to decide them?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md on `main`, SCOPE EXPANSION mode, approach C approved.\nELI10: The delight scan and 10x check produced eight candidates: E1 shared project views, E2 default view per member, E3 copy link, E4 last-used filters auto-restore, E5 modified badge with Update/Save-as-new/Reset, E6 picker management (rename, duplicate, reorder, delete-undo), E7 pilot dashboard + error alert, E8 views feeding digests/dashboards. The question tool caps at four options per call, so with more than six items I ask you how to run the decisions before running them. Each item is independent enough to get its own yes/no, but E2 and E8 lean on E1.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Batching unlike items into one question hides real choices; a full chain costs you eight quick answers.\nRecommendation: A because every item is independently selectable and in Expansion mode you should see each one with its own effort and risk.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: eight short decisions with full control vs. fewer prompts with less granularity.",
|
||||
"header": "Chain shape",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A: Full split, one per item (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Eight sequential questions D4.1 to D4.8, each with Add / Defer / Skip / Hold, then a D4.final to confirm the assembled set. ✅ Every proposal gets its own effort, risk, and dependency framing. ✅ Nothing is dropped or merged on your behalf. ❌ Eight prompts before the deep review sections start."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B: Narrow first, I propose a smaller set",
|
||||
"description": "I pick the top 4-5 by value-per-effort (likely E1, E2, E3, E4, E5) and ask only those; the rest go straight to a Deferred list you can reopen. ✅ Fewer prompts. ✅ Still per-item control on the ones asked. ❌ Some items are deferred without you weighing each one."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "C: Batch into groups of 4",
|
||||
"description": "Two multi-select questions (E1-E4, E5-E8) where you tick what to add; unticked items are deferred. ✅ Two prompts total. ✅ You still see all eight. ❌ Loses the per-item Skip vs Defer distinction and the Hold-to-discuss option."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": false,
|
||||
"failed": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"assistantMessages": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "6b4474a6-9952-4b20-9b72-0d23c45ee2a1",
|
||||
"text": "I'll start with the skill preamble.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:18:34.207Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"viewport": " \n \n● Updated plan\n ⎿ /plan to preview\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\nPlanning: /tmp/gstack-owned-display-i_mn5usl/gstack-paid-shard-m1zFjn/tmp/gstack-hermetic-603913-EbLT1W/with-skills/.cla\nude/plans/fluffy-snuggling-sprout.md\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n ☐ Chain shape \n\n│ D4.0 — Eight expansion proposals are on the table. How do you want to decide them?\n│ Project/branch/task: PLAN.md on `main`, SCOPE EXPANSION mode, approach C approved.\n│ ELI10: The delight scan and 10x check produced eight candidates: E1 shared project views, E2 default view per member, \n│ E3 copy link, E4 last-used filters auto-restore, E5 modified badge with Update/Save-as-new/Reset, E6 picker management\n│ (rename, duplicate, reorder, delete-undo), E7 pilot dashboard + error alert, E8 views feeding digests/dashboards. The\n│ question tool caps at four options per call, so with more than six items I ask you how to run the decisions before \n│ running them. Each item is independent enough to get its own yes/no, but E2 and E8 lean on E1.\n│ Stakes if we pick wrong: Batching unlike items into one question hides real choices; a full chain costs you eight \n│ quick answers.\n│ Recommendation: A because every item is independently selectable and in Expansion mode you should see each one with \n│ its own effort and risk.\n│ Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\n│ Net: eight short decisions with full control vs. fewer prompts with less granularity.\n \n❯ 1. A: Full split, one per item (recommended)\n Eight sequential questions D4.1 to D4.8, each with Add / Defer / Skip / Hold, then a D4.final to confirm the \n assembled set. ✅ Every proposal gets its own effort, risk, and dependency framing. ✅ Nothing is dropped or merged\n on your behalf. ❌ Eight prompts before the deep review sections start.\n 2. B: Narrow first, I propose a smaller set\n I pick the top 4-5 by value-per-effort (likely E1, E2, E3, E4, E5) and ask only those; the rest go straight to a \n Deferred list you can reopen. ✅ Fewer prompts. ✅ Still per-item control on the ones asked. ❌ Some items are \n deferred without you weighing each one.\n 3. C: Batch into groups of 4\n Two multi-select questions (E1-E4, E5-E8) where you tick what to add; unticked items are deferred. ✅ Two prompts \n total. ✅ You still see all eight. ❌ Loses the per-item Skip vs Defer distinction and the Hold-to-discuss option.\n 4. Type something. \n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n 5. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · Esc to cancel",
|
||||
"events": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "6b4474a6-9952-4b20-9b72-0d23c45ee2a1",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:19:00.447Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BXwcHiJ7FnTpRaA2ZRwAGu",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: plan-review fixture on `main`, reviewing PLAN.md (saved project views).\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so future requests like \"review this diff\" or \"ship it\" auto-route to the right skill. This is a one-time setup prompt. Note: we are in plan mode, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after this review finishes and plan mode exits, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Low either way. Without routing you invoke skills by name; with it, a short section is appended to CLAUDE.md and committed.\nRecommendation: A because it is a two-way door and removes friction on every future request.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience on every future session vs. keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.",
|
||||
"header": "Routing",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Future requests auto-route to the matching gstack skill without you naming it. ✅ One small appended section, committed once, easy to revert. ❌ Touches and commits CLAUDE.md in this repo (deferred until plan mode exits)."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "No thanks, invoke manually",
|
||||
"description": "✅ CLAUDE.md stays exactly as it is, nothing committed. ✅ You keep full control over when skills run. ❌ You must type the skill name each time; this prompt will not reappear for this project."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf5c9ET4yLP7JhHBrmuSP",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf5c9DV2C3paq96DoR92q"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "6b4474a6-9952-4b20-9b72-0d23c45ee2a1",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:19:01.205Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BXwcHiJ7FnTpRaA2ZRwAGu",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: plan-review fixture on `main`, reviewing PLAN.md (saved project views).\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so future requests like \"review this diff\" or \"ship it\" auto-route to the right skill. This is a one-time setup prompt. Note: we are in plan mode, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after this review finishes and plan mode exits, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Low either way. Without routing you invoke skills by name; with it, a short section is appended to CLAUDE.md and committed.\nRecommendation: A because it is a two-way door and removes friction on every future request.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience on every future session vs. keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.\"=\"Add routing rules (recommended)\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "6b4474a6-9952-4b20-9b72-0d23c45ee2a1",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:22:12.238Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01XG8ge3mQAmSETCnspg2D4F",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D2 — How should a saved view be represented and applied?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md on `main`: saved project views (filters + sort) per member.\nELI10: The plan says \"add a saved_views table\" but not what goes in a row. If a view stores a snapshot of whatever the filter UI holds today, it breaks the day someone adds or renames a filter. If filter state is first made addressable (a URL you can copy), a saved view is just a name pointing at that same string, and links, bookmarks, and \"reopen later\" all use one code path. This decides the data model, so it comes before scope.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Stored views silently return wrong results after the next filter change, or members get a feature with no way to share a filtered list.\nRecommendation: C because one serializer serves URL, saved view, and reopen-after-changes, and it removes the stale-view bug class for ~10 extra minutes of CC time.\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=3/10, C=9/10\nNet: A is the smallest diff today; C is the smallest diff over the next six months; B alone does not deliver named views.",
|
||||
"header": "View model",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "C: URL-addressable + table (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "One canonical, versioned serialization of filters + sort. Task list reads it from the URL; saved_views stores name + the same string. Human ~4 days / CC ~40 min. ✅ One parse path for URL, picker, and reopen. ✅ Shareable links and bookmarks fall out for free. ❌ Touches filter state management even if filters live only in memory today."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A: Table + JSON snapshot (as written)",
|
||||
"description": "Store name + a JSON blob of current UI filter state per project+member. Human ~3 days / CC ~30 min. ✅ Matches the plan text exactly, smallest conceptual change. ✅ Reuses filter UI state as-is with no serializer work. ❌ Blob is coupled to today's UI; adding a filter silently breaks stored views. ❌ No link sharing; reopen needs its own apply path."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B: URL-addressable state only",
|
||||
"description": "Serialize filters + sort into the query string, add copy-link, members use browser bookmarks. No table, endpoints, or picker. Human ~1 day / CC ~10 min. ✅ Zero backend surface, shareable links immediately. ✅ Foundation any later saved-view feature needs. ❌ No naming or in-app picker; bookmarks are per browser and device. ❌ Pilot reuse metric needs client analytics."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf5cPoBxUEAPX2ZzV3mdY",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf5cPncULscXrR3nYFNx2"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "6b4474a6-9952-4b20-9b72-0d23c45ee2a1",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:22:13.795Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01XG8ge3mQAmSETCnspg2D4F",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D2 — How should a saved view be represented and applied?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md on `main`: saved project views (filters + sort) per member.\nELI10: The plan says \"add a saved_views table\" but not what goes in a row. If a view stores a snapshot of whatever the filter UI holds today, it breaks the day someone adds or renames a filter. If filter state is first made addressable (a URL you can copy), a saved view is just a name pointing at that same string, and links, bookmarks, and \"reopen later\" all use one code path. This decides the data model, so it comes before scope.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Stored views silently return wrong results after the next filter change, or members get a feature with no way to share a filtered list.\nRecommendation: C because one serializer serves URL, saved view, and reopen-after-changes, and it removes the stale-view bug class for ~10 extra minutes of CC time.\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=3/10, C=9/10\nNet: A is the smallest diff today; C is the smallest diff over the next six months; B alone does not deliver named views.\"=\"C: URL-addressable + table (recommended)\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "6b4474a6-9952-4b20-9b72-0d23c45ee2a1",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:23:01.633Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EEQuKCsDHDWuufxk8QXFDs",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D3 — Which review mode should govern the rest of this plan review?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md on `main`: saved project views, approach C approved (URL-addressable definition + saved_views table).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the next hour. Expansion means I pitch the cathedral version and you opt in per item. Selective means I harden what is written and offer each addition neutrally, one at a time. Hold means no additions, maximum rigor on failure paths and tests. Reduction means I propose cuts to the smallest useful core. Estimated ~12-15 changed files (estimate; no code in this repo to count), and this enhances an existing task list rather than building greenfield.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Expansion on a small feature bloats it; Hold on a feature with obvious adjacent wins (shared views, default view) leaves value on the table you may not get back to.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because the core is small and well-defined, but two or three adjacent items (shared views, default view, view-applied telemetry) are cheap enough to deserve a yes/no each.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how much of the 12-month view (shared, default, linkable views) you want decided in this plan versus later.",
|
||||
"header": "Review mode",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Hold the written scope and make it bulletproof, then offer each expansion candidate separately with effort and risk; you pick. ✅ Core stays tight while you see every cheap adjacent win. ✅ Rejected items land in NOT in scope, so nothing is lost. ❌ More questions than Hold; each candidate costs you one decision."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
|
||||
"description": "Dream big: 10x vision, platonic ideal, delight scan, enthusiastic recommendations per item. ✅ Best shot at the full 12-month view (shared, default, dashboards) in one plan. ✅ Surfaces differentiation you may not have considered. ❌ Risk of bloating a feature whose pain is a small daily tax."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
|
||||
"description": "No additions. Trace every failure, edge case, error path, test, and observability gap in the written scope. ✅ Fastest path to a shippable, well-tested core. ✅ Fewest decisions for you. ❌ Adjacent wins (shared views, default view) wait for a later plan."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
|
||||
"description": "Strip to the minimum core (for example serialization + save/list/apply, defer update and delete) with per-cut approval. ✅ Smallest first ship; validates the pilot metric sooner. ✅ Each cut is explicit and recorded. ❌ Members may hit a half-feature (cannot rename or remove views) during the pilot."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf5cSWwySK25qrE4AaaYe",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf5cSWZQNyJ1VN1qktmWg"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "6b4474a6-9952-4b20-9b72-0d23c45ee2a1",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:23:01.967Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EEQuKCsDHDWuufxk8QXFDs",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D3 — Which review mode should govern the rest of this plan review?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md on `main`: saved project views, approach C approved (URL-addressable definition + saved_views table).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the next hour. Expansion means I pitch the cathedral version and you opt in per item. Selective means I harden what is written and offer each addition neutrally, one at a time. Hold means no additions, maximum rigor on failure paths and tests. Reduction means I propose cuts to the smallest useful core. Estimated ~12-15 changed files (estimate; no code in this repo to count), and this enhances an existing task list rather than building greenfield.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Expansion on a small feature bloats it; Hold on a feature with obvious adjacent wins (shared views, default view) leaves value on the table you may not get back to.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because the core is small and well-defined, but two or three adjacent items (shared views, default view, view-applied telemetry) are cheap enough to deserve a yes/no each.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how much of the 12-month view (shared, default, linkable views) you want decided in this plan versus later.\"=\"SCOPE EXPANSION\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "6b4474a6-9952-4b20-9b72-0d23c45ee2a1",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:24:41.260Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01QeXbajhSwSL9wNZCSWTdxR",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D4.0 — Eight expansion proposals are on the table. How do you want to decide them?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md on `main`, SCOPE EXPANSION mode, approach C approved.\nELI10: The delight scan and 10x check produced eight candidates: E1 shared project views, E2 default view per member, E3 copy link, E4 last-used filters auto-restore, E5 modified badge with Update/Save-as-new/Reset, E6 picker management (rename, duplicate, reorder, delete-undo), E7 pilot dashboard + error alert, E8 views feeding digests/dashboards. The question tool caps at four options per call, so with more than six items I ask you how to run the decisions before running them. Each item is independent enough to get its own yes/no, but E2 and E8 lean on E1.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Batching unlike items into one question hides real choices; a full chain costs you eight quick answers.\nRecommendation: A because every item is independently selectable and in Expansion mode you should see each one with its own effort and risk.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: eight short decisions with full control vs. fewer prompts with less granularity.",
|
||||
"header": "Chain shape",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A: Full split, one per item (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Eight sequential questions D4.1 to D4.8, each with Add / Defer / Skip / Hold, then a D4.final to confirm the assembled set. ✅ Every proposal gets its own effort, risk, and dependency framing. ✅ Nothing is dropped or merged on your behalf. ❌ Eight prompts before the deep review sections start."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B: Narrow first, I propose a smaller set",
|
||||
"description": "I pick the top 4-5 by value-per-effort (likely E1, E2, E3, E4, E5) and ask only those; the rest go straight to a Deferred list you can reopen. ✅ Fewer prompts. ✅ Still per-item control on the ones asked. ❌ Some items are deferred without you weighing each one."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "C: Batch into groups of 4",
|
||||
"description": "Two multi-select questions (E1-E4, E5-E8) where you tick what to add; unticked items are deferred. ✅ Two prompts total. ✅ You still see all eight. ❌ Loses the per-item Skip vs Defer distinction and the Hold-to-discuss option."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf5caguUqSCX5vZVBqAbo",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf5cagLVtG27rMz1BG3br"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"provenance": {
|
||||
"observation": {
|
||||
"source": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/sep15-ship-consolidation/remaining-paid-90f-repairs/executions/77fd0890ddfeaf2bdd6d78183a2d989d9a4e8d4c/all/run/phases/periodic-independent/shards/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-mode-routing/pty-count/ship-all-77fd0890-cdb7e686-73a5-41f0-86dc-e5ad4a5bf9be/plan-ceo-review-mode-1789492711069-hLrAD9/observation.json",
|
||||
"path": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/sep15-ship-consolidation/final77-ceo-monitor/objects/5449d3705fecab12cc73b1ede5e9d16a710600e9776d6d9723d1a096776c2d64.json",
|
||||
"sha256": "5449d3705fecab12cc73b1ede5e9d16a710600e9776d6d9723d1a096776c2d64",
|
||||
"bytes": 16003
|
||||
},
|
||||
"completePublicProjection": {
|
||||
"source": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/sep15-ship-consolidation/remaining-paid-90f-repairs/executions/77fd0890ddfeaf2bdd6d78183a2d989d9a4e8d4c/all/run/public-retention/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-mode-routing/plan-ceo-review-mode-1789492711069-hLrAD9/latest-public-transcript.json",
|
||||
"path": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/sep15-ship-consolidation/final77-ceo-monitor/objects/3bf1065b40836a036c8e7b9da9cd2c98a430a0d400cf878987f8652893037561.json",
|
||||
"sha256": "3bf1065b40836a036c8e7b9da9cd2c98a430a0d400cf878987f8652893037561",
|
||||
"bytes": 89559
|
||||
},
|
||||
"completePublicAncestry": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"path": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/sep15-ship-consolidation/remaining-paid-90f-repairs/executions/77fd0890ddfeaf2bdd6d78183a2d989d9a4e8d4c/all/run/public-retention/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-mode-routing/plan-ceo-review-mode-1789492711069-hLrAD9/objects/ancestry-9f299c50dbd7c0241a82a383bc4ca17af0c1a0e3a4903206ded8b9cd61121fca.json",
|
||||
"sha256": "9f299c50dbd7c0241a82a383bc4ca17af0c1a0e3a4903206ded8b9cd61121fca",
|
||||
"records": 98,
|
||||
"completeBytes": 327619
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"viewport": {
|
||||
"path": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/sep15-ship-consolidation/remaining-paid-90f-repairs/executions/77fd0890ddfeaf2bdd6d78183a2d989d9a4e8d4c/all/run/public-retention/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-mode-routing/plan-ceo-review-mode-1789492711069-hLrAD9/objects/c16d858fad1d0af815e7187f0a93653fe3c75f8dbb2068d66512df2838e55990.log",
|
||||
"sha256": "c16d858fad1d0af815e7187f0a93653fe3c75f8dbb2068d66512df2838e55990"
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
"completePerProposal": {
|
||||
"source": "cab3edc8b24f873b55f6edc6d98b60981eda52cb",
|
||||
"attempt": "plan-ceo-review-mode-1789499322772-ANwLys",
|
||||
"originalFailure": "Unsupported or repeated CEO pacing menu; no additional answer authorized",
|
||||
"publicCaptureSha256": "13b9f4665cdc11e3242494497f71878b243c3e9f610b1b38bf2e562c29762a32",
|
||||
"selectionStartedAt": 1789499561262,
|
||||
"viewport": "\n Read 1 file (ctrl+o to expand)\n\n● Updated plan\n ⎿ /plan to preview\n\n Read 1 file (ctrl+o to expand)\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\nPlanning: /tmp/gstack-owned-display-e18ize81/gstack-paid-shard-0h5CjO/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1008273-BnczFM/with-skills/.cl\naude/plans/joyful-toasting-shore.md\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n ☐ Chain shape \n\n│ D4.0 — Seven expansion proposals are on the table. How do you want to decide them?\n│ Project/branch/task: main; SCOPE EXPANSION on \"Add saved project views\". \n│ ELI10: I have 7 independent expansions (P1 shared views, P2 deep links, P3 project default view, P4 display settings\n│ in the view, P5 personal default + last-opened memory, P6 dirty indicator + Update vs Save-as-new, P7 quick switcher +\n│ inline rename). Each is a separate yes/no, so the honest way is one question per item. That's 7 questions plus a\n│ final confirmation. Dependencies: P3 needs P1.\n│ Stakes if we pick wrong: batching lets an item you'd have wanted get lost in a group; splitting costs you eight\n│ answers.\n│ Recommendation: A because every item is independently shippable and the mode you chose is about weighing each one.\n│ Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\n│ Net: decision fidelity per item vs. fewer prompts.\n\n❯ 1. A) Proceed with the full split, one question per proposal (recommended)\n ✅ Every proposal gets its own Add / Defer / Skip / Hold with effort and dependency spelled out�✅ No item is\n silently merged or dropped to fit a 4-option cap�❌ Eight prompts before the deep review sections start\n 2. B) Narrow first: I propose a smaller top set, then ask per item\n ✅ Fewer prompts; I lead with the 3–4 highest-value items and list the rest as deferred candidates�✅ You can still\n pull any listed item back in by name�❌ You are trusting my ranking before seeing each item's tradeoffs\n 3. C) Batch into two groups of ≤4\n ✅ Two prompts instead of eight�✅ Groups are coherent: backend/ownership (P1–P4) and picker UX (P5–P7)�❌\n Multi-select in a group loses the per-item Defer vs Skip distinction\n 4. Type something.\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n 5. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · Esc to cancel\n",
|
||||
"transcript": {
|
||||
"status": "ready",
|
||||
"calls": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "8adb42f6-ad10-4b23-870c-beb3cf863c75",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01GwdxEUmCCF4aTd9X99eeWr",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D3 — Which review mode should govern this plan?\nProject/branch/task: main; plan \"Add saved project views\"; estimated 10–13 changed files (migration, model, access policy, controller, routes, serializer, picker + save UI, filter-state wiring, API client, 3 test files; estimate, no app code in this repo to count against).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. It decides whether I push you to build more (shared views, default views, deep links), hold you to exactly the four approach bullets and make them bulletproof, or argue for cutting things out. Nothing is added or removed by picking a mode; every scope change still gets its own yes/no question.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too expansive and a small enhancement balloons into a views platform before the pilot proves anyone reuses views; too tight and you ship a per-member feature that has to be rebuilt the moment a team asks to share a view.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list (not greenfield, not a bug fix) under the 15-file line, and the landscape check shows the personal-vs-shared question arrives fast; you should see those options and decide item by item.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how hard I push on ambition versus rigor for the remaining sections.",
|
||||
"header": "Review mode",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Current four bullets get the full HOLD-SCOPE rigor pass (complexity, minimum change, invariants)\n✅ You see each expansion (shared views, default view, deep links, etc.) as a separate add/defer/skip call with neutral effort and risk\n❌ More questions than HOLD SCOPE; each expansion costs you a decision"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
|
||||
"description": "✅ I describe the 10x version and the platonic ideal and recommend expansions enthusiastically\n✅ Best if you already know views should become a platform (shared, defaults, dashboards)\n❌ Risks building a views system before the two-week pilot shows members reuse even personal views"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Maximum rigor on exactly the four approach bullets: every error path, edge case, test, and observability hook\n✅ Fewest decisions for you; fastest path to an implementable spec\n❌ Expansion candidates are only listed in NOT-in-scope; no neutral menu to cherry-pick from"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Strips to the minimum that proves the pilot metric (e.g. save + reopen only, no update endpoint)\n✅ Fastest to ship for a hypothesis test\n❌ The plan is already small; cutting update/delete likely produces a feature members can't maintain"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D3 — Which review mode should govern this plan?\nProject/branch/task: main; plan \"Add saved project views\"; estimated 10–13 changed files (migration, model, access policy, controller, routes, serializer, picker + save UI, filter-state wiring, API client, 3 test files; estimate, no app code in this repo to count against).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. It decides whether I push you to build more (shared views, default views, deep links), hold you to exactly the four approach bullets and make them bulletproof, or argue for cutting things out. Nothing is added or removed by picking a mode; every scope change still gets its own yes/no question.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too expansive and a small enhancement balloons into a views platform before the pilot proves anyone reuses views; too tight and you ship a per-member feature that has to be rebuilt the moment a team asks to share a view.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list (not greenfield, not a bug fix) under the 15-file line, and the landscape check shows the personal-vs-shared question arrives fast; you should see those options and decide item by item.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how hard I push on ambition versus rigor for the remaining sections.": "SCOPE EXPANSION"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T19:12:41.291Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "8adb42f6-ad10-4b23-870c-beb3cf863c75",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01WJQKs3Xyzr58PtuTNsoCZY",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D4.0 — Seven expansion proposals are on the table. How do you want to decide them?\nProject/branch/task: main; SCOPE EXPANSION on \"Add saved project views\".\nELI10: I have 7 independent expansions (P1 shared views, P2 deep links, P3 project default view, P4 display settings in the view, P5 personal default + last-opened memory, P6 dirty indicator + Update vs Save-as-new, P7 quick switcher + inline rename). Each is a separate yes/no, so the honest way is one question per item. That's 7 questions plus a final confirmation. Dependencies: P3 needs P1.\nStakes if we pick wrong: batching lets an item you'd have wanted get lost in a group; splitting costs you eight answers.\nRecommendation: A because every item is independently shippable and the mode you chose is about weighing each one.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: decision fidelity per item vs. fewer prompts.",
|
||||
"header": "Chain shape",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A) Proceed with the full split, one question per proposal (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Every proposal gets its own Add / Defer / Skip / Hold with effort and dependency spelled out\n✅ No item is silently merged or dropped to fit a 4-option cap\n❌ Eight prompts before the deep review sections start"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B) Narrow first: I propose a smaller top set, then ask per item",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Fewer prompts; I lead with the 3–4 highest-value items and list the rest as deferred candidates\n✅ You can still pull any listed item back in by name\n❌ You are trusting my ranking before seeing each item's tradeoffs"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "C) Batch into two groups of ≤4",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Two prompts instead of eight\n✅ Groups are coherent: backend/ownership (P1–P4) and picker UX (P5–P7)\n❌ Multi-select in a group loses the per-item Defer vs Skip distinction"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": false,
|
||||
"failed": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"assistantMessages": []
|
||||
},
|
||||
"events": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "8adb42f6-ad10-4b23-870c-beb3cf863c75",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:12:39.569Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01GwdxEUmCCF4aTd9X99eeWr",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D3 — Which review mode should govern this plan?\nProject/branch/task: main; plan \"Add saved project views\"; estimated 10–13 changed files (migration, model, access policy, controller, routes, serializer, picker + save UI, filter-state wiring, API client, 3 test files; estimate, no app code in this repo to count against).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. It decides whether I push you to build more (shared views, default views, deep links), hold you to exactly the four approach bullets and make them bulletproof, or argue for cutting things out. Nothing is added or removed by picking a mode; every scope change still gets its own yes/no question.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too expansive and a small enhancement balloons into a views platform before the pilot proves anyone reuses views; too tight and you ship a per-member feature that has to be rebuilt the moment a team asks to share a view.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list (not greenfield, not a bug fix) under the 15-file line, and the landscape check shows the personal-vs-shared question arrives fast; you should see those options and decide item by item.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how hard I push on ambition versus rigor for the remaining sections.",
|
||||
"header": "Review mode",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Current four bullets get the full HOLD-SCOPE rigor pass (complexity, minimum change, invariants)\n✅ You see each expansion (shared views, default view, deep links, etc.) as a separate add/defer/skip call with neutral effort and risk\n❌ More questions than HOLD SCOPE; each expansion costs you a decision"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
|
||||
"description": "✅ I describe the 10x version and the platonic ideal and recommend expansions enthusiastically\n✅ Best if you already know views should become a platform (shared, defaults, dashboards)\n❌ Risks building a views system before the two-week pilot shows members reuse even personal views"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Maximum rigor on exactly the four approach bullets: every error path, edge case, test, and observability hook\n✅ Fewest decisions for you; fastest path to an implementable spec\n❌ Expansion candidates are only listed in NOT-in-scope; no neutral menu to cherry-pick from"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Strips to the minimum that proves the pilot metric (e.g. save + reopen only, no update endpoint)\n✅ Fastest to ship for a hypothesis test\n❌ The plan is already small; cutting update/delete likely produces a feature members can't maintain"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf5kovaZBzhEVgqPzWWjE",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf5kov7mNLsJv1UpwGimS"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "8adb42f6-ad10-4b23-870c-beb3cf863c75",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:12:41.291Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01GwdxEUmCCF4aTd9X99eeWr",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D3 — Which review mode should govern this plan?\nProject/branch/task: main; plan \"Add saved project views\"; estimated 10–13 changed files (migration, model, access policy, controller, routes, serializer, picker + save UI, filter-state wiring, API client, 3 test files; estimate, no app code in this repo to count against).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. It decides whether I push you to build more (shared views, default views, deep links), hold you to exactly the four approach bullets and make them bulletproof, or argue for cutting things out. Nothing is added or removed by picking a mode; every scope change still gets its own yes/no question.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too expansive and a small enhancement balloons into a views platform before the pilot proves anyone reuses views; too tight and you ship a per-member feature that has to be rebuilt the moment a team asks to share a view.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list (not greenfield, not a bug fix) under the 15-file line, and the landscape check shows the personal-vs-shared question arrives fast; you should see those options and decide item by item.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how hard I push on ambition versus rigor for the remaining sections.\"=\"SCOPE EXPANSION\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "8adb42f6-ad10-4b23-870c-beb3cf863c75",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:14:51.716Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01WJQKs3Xyzr58PtuTNsoCZY",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D4.0 — Seven expansion proposals are on the table. How do you want to decide them?\nProject/branch/task: main; SCOPE EXPANSION on \"Add saved project views\".\nELI10: I have 7 independent expansions (P1 shared views, P2 deep links, P3 project default view, P4 display settings in the view, P5 personal default + last-opened memory, P6 dirty indicator + Update vs Save-as-new, P7 quick switcher + inline rename). Each is a separate yes/no, so the honest way is one question per item. That's 7 questions plus a final confirmation. Dependencies: P3 needs P1.\nStakes if we pick wrong: batching lets an item you'd have wanted get lost in a group; splitting costs you eight answers.\nRecommendation: A because every item is independently shippable and the mode you chose is about weighing each one.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: decision fidelity per item vs. fewer prompts.",
|
||||
"header": "Chain shape",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A) Proceed with the full split, one question per proposal (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Every proposal gets its own Add / Defer / Skip / Hold with effort and dependency spelled out\n✅ No item is silently merged or dropped to fit a 4-option cap\n❌ Eight prompts before the deep review sections start"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B) Narrow first: I propose a smaller top set, then ask per item",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Fewer prompts; I lead with the 3–4 highest-value items and list the rest as deferred candidates\n✅ You can still pull any listed item back in by name\n❌ You are trusting my ranking before seeing each item's tradeoffs"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "C) Batch into two groups of ≤4",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Two prompts instead of eight\n✅ Groups are coherent: backend/ownership (P1–P4) and picker UX (P5–P7)\n❌ Multi-select in a group loses the per-item Defer vs Skip distinction"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf5kz5NAwFBA9yN1wT1ue",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf5kz4xc7mxo6PwLJWTQy"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"limitation": "Original paid failure preserved. Only exact mode and pending pacing calls plus their public events are included; onboarding calls remain in the private source capture."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"countedNativeB955": {
|
||||
"source": "b955a49ec344706fa25c4ca47bcb1dac5c06a086",
|
||||
"actualOutcome": "first attempt failed: pacing used the generic substantive allowance; pending proposal was never answered. No paid pass supplied.",
|
||||
"selectedAt": 1789504882674,
|
||||
"mode": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "3a32c9a8-fd5a-4557-9b79-965c64aa8fcb",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01NA24LMtPcSFuxeKaJQkDYt",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D2 — Which review mode should govern this plan?\nProject/branch/task: plan-count fixture on `main`; reviewing PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\".\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. Do I push you to build a bigger, better version (EXPANSION)? Keep your scope but offer add-ons one at a time for you to accept or reject (SELECTIVE)? Lock scope and hunt every failure path (HOLD)? Or strip it to the smallest thing that works (REDUCTION)? Picking a mode approves no scope change by itself; every change still gets its own question.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too ambitious and a small quality-of-life feature turns into a views platform; too strict and you ship member-private views, then migrate to shared views in three months when the team asks for them.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list (~8-10 files), and the audit found two or three real expansions (shared visibility, versioned payload, cheaper framings) that deserve an individual yes/no rather than a blanket push.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)\n ✅ Your stated scope stays the baseline; each add-on gets a neutral, separate accept/defer/skip question\n ✅ Still runs the HOLD SCOPE complexity and minimum-change checks, so nothing sneaks in\n ❌ More questions than HOLD; you make 3-6 small scope calls before the deep review\nB) SCOPE EXPANSION\n ✅ Rethinks views as a first-class object: shared, default-per-project, deep-linkable, from day one\n ✅ Best fit if you already know the team wants shared views and this is the moment to build them\n ❌ Turns a small feature into a larger one; pilot metric gets harder to read\nC) HOLD SCOPE\n ✅ Fastest path to a bulletproof version of exactly what PLAN.md says\n ✅ Maximum rigor on failure paths, edge cases, tests, observability for the stated four bullets\n ❌ Shared visibility and payload versioning only get flagged, not offered; likely rework later\nD) SCOPE REDUCTION\n ✅ Tests whether auto-persisting last-used filters or URL-encoded state covers most of the pain\n ✅ Smallest maintenance surface if the pilot shows low reuse\n ❌ Named saved views are already a modest feature; cutting further may leave the goal unmet\nNet: how much of the shared-vs-private and payload-format questions you want to settle now versus after the pilot.",
|
||||
"header": "Review mode",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Hold current scope, cherry-pick expansions one by one."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
|
||||
"description": "Dream big: views as a first-class shared object."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
|
||||
"description": "Preserve scope; maximum rigor on failure paths and tests."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
|
||||
"description": "Strip to the minimum viable core with your approval per cut."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D2 — Which review mode should govern this plan?\nProject/branch/task: plan-count fixture on `main`; reviewing PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\".\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. Do I push you to build a bigger, better version (EXPANSION)? Keep your scope but offer add-ons one at a time for you to accept or reject (SELECTIVE)? Lock scope and hunt every failure path (HOLD)? Or strip it to the smallest thing that works (REDUCTION)? Picking a mode approves no scope change by itself; every change still gets its own question.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too ambitious and a small quality-of-life feature turns into a views platform; too strict and you ship member-private views, then migrate to shared views in three months when the team asks for them.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list (~8-10 files), and the audit found two or three real expansions (shared visibility, versioned payload, cheaper framings) that deserve an individual yes/no rather than a blanket push.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)\n ✅ Your stated scope stays the baseline; each add-on gets a neutral, separate accept/defer/skip question\n ✅ Still runs the HOLD SCOPE complexity and minimum-change checks, so nothing sneaks in\n ❌ More questions than HOLD; you make 3-6 small scope calls before the deep review\nB) SCOPE EXPANSION\n ✅ Rethinks views as a first-class object: shared, default-per-project, deep-linkable, from day one\n ✅ Best fit if you already know the team wants shared views and this is the moment to build them\n ❌ Turns a small feature into a larger one; pilot metric gets harder to read\nC) HOLD SCOPE\n ✅ Fastest path to a bulletproof version of exactly what PLAN.md says\n ✅ Maximum rigor on failure paths, edge cases, tests, observability for the stated four bullets\n ❌ Shared visibility and payload versioning only get flagged, not offered; likely rework later\nD) SCOPE REDUCTION\n ✅ Tests whether auto-persisting last-used filters or URL-encoded state covers most of the pain\n ✅ Smallest maintenance surface if the pilot shows low reuse\n ❌ Named saved views are already a modest feature; cutting further may leave the goal unmet\nNet: how much of the shared-vs-private and payload-format questions you want to settle now versus after the pilot.": "SCOPE EXPANSION"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T20:41:22.706Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"pacing": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "3a32c9a8-fd5a-4557-9b79-965c64aa8fcb",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UFKuY2dmUU9nEqDPEzy1YT",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D3.0 — Eleven expansion proposals: full per-item chain, narrow first, or batch?\nProject/branch/task: plan-count fixture on `main`; SCOPE EXPANSION review of \"Add saved project views\".\nELI10: The 10x analysis produced 11 independent add-ons (E1 shared visibility, E2 versioned payload, E3 stable view URLs, E4 modified/save-as state, E5 remember last view, E6 default view per project, E7 duplicate, E8 empty-state copy, E9 inline rename, E10 keyboard switching, L3 auto-persist last filters). Each needs its own Add / Defer / Cut call so nothing gets dropped silently. That is 11 short questions plus a final confirmation. Alternatively I narrow the list first, or batch them into groups of up to 4.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Full chain costs you a dozen taps; narrowing means I pre-filter your decision space; batching risks forcing one pick among items that are not alternatives to each other.\nRecommendation: Proceed with the full split because every proposal is independent (only E6 depends on E1) and you chose EXPANSION, which means you want to see the whole menu.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Proceed with the full split (recommended)\n ✅ You see and rule on all 11 proposals; none are cut by me before you weigh in\n ✅ Each question carries its own effort, risk, and dependency note so the picked set stays coherent\n ❌ Eleven sequential questions before the deep review starts\nB) Narrow scope first: I propose a smaller set\n ✅ Fewer questions; I pre-rank and present roughly the top 5-6 with the rest listed for opt-in\n ✅ Faster path to the deep review if you mostly trust the ranking\n ❌ The lower-ranked items get less consideration than the mode's \"dream big\" posture implies\nC) Batch into groups of 4\n ✅ Three or four questions instead of eleven\n ✅ Related items (E4/E5/E6 all touch \"which view is active\") appear side by side\n ❌ Multi-select batches blur individual Defer vs Cut decisions and dependency notes\nNet: your time now versus the completeness of the decision record.",
|
||||
"header": "Chain size",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Proceed with the full split (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "11 per-item questions (Add / Defer / Cut / Hold), then a final confirmation."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Narrow scope first",
|
||||
"description": "I present a ranked top 5-6; the rest are offered on request."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Batch into groups of 4",
|
||||
"description": "Multi-select batches of related proposals."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D3.0 — Eleven expansion proposals: full per-item chain, narrow first, or batch?\nProject/branch/task: plan-count fixture on `main`; SCOPE EXPANSION review of \"Add saved project views\".\nELI10: The 10x analysis produced 11 independent add-ons (E1 shared visibility, E2 versioned payload, E3 stable view URLs, E4 modified/save-as state, E5 remember last view, E6 default view per project, E7 duplicate, E8 empty-state copy, E9 inline rename, E10 keyboard switching, L3 auto-persist last filters). Each needs its own Add / Defer / Cut call so nothing gets dropped silently. That is 11 short questions plus a final confirmation. Alternatively I narrow the list first, or batch them into groups of up to 4.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Full chain costs you a dozen taps; narrowing means I pre-filter your decision space; batching risks forcing one pick among items that are not alternatives to each other.\nRecommendation: Proceed with the full split because every proposal is independent (only E6 depends on E1) and you chose EXPANSION, which means you want to see the whole menu.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Proceed with the full split (recommended)\n ✅ You see and rule on all 11 proposals; none are cut by me before you weigh in\n ✅ Each question carries its own effort, risk, and dependency note so the picked set stays coherent\n ❌ Eleven sequential questions before the deep review starts\nB) Narrow scope first: I propose a smaller set\n ✅ Fewer questions; I pre-rank and present roughly the top 5-6 with the rest listed for opt-in\n ✅ Faster path to the deep review if you mostly trust the ranking\n ❌ The lower-ranked items get less consideration than the mode's \"dream big\" posture implies\nC) Batch into groups of 4\n ✅ Three or four questions instead of eleven\n ✅ Related items (E4/E5/E6 all touch \"which view is active\") appear side by side\n ❌ Multi-select batches blur individual Defer vs Cut decisions and dependency notes\nNet: your time now versus the completeness of the decision record.": "Proceed with the full split (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T20:42:35.861Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"pending": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "3a32c9a8-fd5a-4557-9b79-965c64aa8fcb",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01K811Ztw6AZKMcbwVkLg6Qu",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D3.1 — E1: Shared (project-level) views alongside private ones?\nProject/branch/task: plan-count fixture on `main`; SCOPE EXPANSION, ledger row L1.\nELI10: Today's plan scopes every view to one member. E1 adds a `visibility` column (private | project) and `created_by`. The list endpoint returns your private views plus the project's shared ones; the picker shows \"Mine\" and \"Team\". Any project member can create a shared view; only the creator or a project admin can edit or delete it. The stated pain (\"team members repeatedly recreate filters\") is a team pain, and Jira and Asana both landed on this dual layer. Dependency: E6 (default view per project) needs E1.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without it, five members build five copies of \"Blocked\" and the team has no shared vocabulary; adding it later means a migration and a fight over who owns existing views. With it, you take on a small permission surface (who may edit a shared view) on day one.\nRecommendation: Include because it is one column plus one permission check on top of a table you are building anyway, and it is the single change most likely to make the pilot show real reuse. (human: ~1 day / CC: ~10 min)\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Include in this plan (recommended)\n ✅ One \"Blocked\" view means the same thing to everyone; recreated-filter pain actually goes away\n ✅ Schema is right from day one; no later migration or ownership dispute over existing rows\n ❌ Adds an authorization rule (creator or admin edits shared views) that needs tests and clear error copy\nB) Defer to TODOS.md\n ✅ Ships the plan as written faster; pilot measures private reuse first\n ✅ Keeps the permission surface at exactly the existing project-membership check\n ❌ Likely migration later; pilot may undercount value because private-only views miss the team pain\nC) Cut entirely\n ✅ Smallest possible feature; no visibility concept ever\n ✅ Zero shared-ownership edge cases (deleting a view others use, etc.)\n ❌ Locks the product into per-member presets even though the landscape converged on shared\nD) Hold: stop the chain and discuss E1 first\n ✅ Lets you settle the visibility model before ruling on E3-E6, which lean on it\n ❌ Pauses the expansion chain; no other items get decided until you resume\nNet: settle the visibility model now with one column, or ship private-only and accept a probable migration.",
|
||||
"header": "E1 shared",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Include (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Add visibility (private | project) + created_by; \"Mine\" and \"Team\" in picker."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Defer to TODOS.md",
|
||||
"description": "Record with context; ship private-only views first."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Cut",
|
||||
"description": "Not in scope; goes to NOT in scope."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Hold",
|
||||
"description": "Stop the chain; discuss E1 before continuing."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": false,
|
||||
"failed": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
"viewport": " ☐ Chain size \n\n│ D3.0 — Eleven expansion proposals: full per-item chain, narrow first, or batch?\n│Project/branch/task: plan-count fixture on `main`; SCOPE EXPANSION review of \"Add saved project views\".\n\n│ELI10:The10xanalysisproduced11independentadd-ons(E1sharedvisibility,E2versionedpayload,E3stableview\n\n│URLs,E4modified/save-asstate,E5rememberlastview,E6defaultviewperproject,E7duplicate,E8empty-state\n\n│copy,E9inlinerename,E10keyboardswitching,L3auto-persistlastfilters).EachneedsitsownAdd/Defer/Cut\n\n│callsonothinggetsdroppedsilently.Thatis11shortquestionsplusafinalconfirmation.AlternativelyInarrow\n\n│thelistfirst,orbatchthemintogroupsofupto4.\n\n│Stakesifwepickwrong:Fullchaincostsyouadozentaps;narrowingmeansIpre-filteryourdecisionspace;batching\n\n│risksforcingonepickamongitemsthatarenotalternativestoeachother.\n\n│Recommendation:Proceedwiththefullsplitbecauseeveryproposalisindependent(onlyE6dependsonE1)andyou\n\n│choseEXPANSION,whichmeansyouwanttoseethewholemenu.\n\n│Note:optionsdifferinkind,notcoverage—nocompletenessscore.\n\n│Pros/cons:\n\n│A)Proceedwiththefullsplit(recommended)\n\n│ ✅Youseeandruleonall11proposals;nonearecutbymebeforeyouweighin\n\n│ ✅Eachquestioncarriesitsowneffort,risk,anddependencynotesothepickedsetstayscoherent\n\n│ ❌Elevensequentialquestionsbeforethedeepreviewstarts\n\n│B)Narrowscopefirst:Iproposeasmallerset\n\n│ ✅Fewerquestions;Ipre-rankandpresentroughlythetop5-6withtherestlistedforopt-in\n\n│ ✅Fasterpathtothedeepreviewifyoumostlytrusttheranking\n\n│ ❌Thelower-rankeditemsgetlessconsiderationthanthemode's\"dreambig\"postureimplies\n\n│C)Batchintogroupsof4\n\n│ ✅Threeorfourquestionsinsteadofeleven\n\n│ ✅Relateditems(E4/E5/E6alltouch\"whichviewisactive\")appearsidebyside\n\n│ ❌Multi-selectbatchesblurindividualDefervsCutdecisionsanddependencynotes\n\n│Net:yourtimeno…\n\n\n\n❯1.Proceedwiththefullsplit(recommended)\n\n11per-itemquestions(Add/Defer/Cut/Hold),thenafinalconfirmation.\n\n2.Narrowscopefirst\n\nIpresentarankedtop5-6;therestareofferedonrequest.\n\n3.Batchintogroupsof4\n\nMulti-selectbatchesofrelatedproposals.\n\n4.Typesomething.\n\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n\n5.Chataboutthis\n\n\n\nEntertoselect·↑/↓tonavigate·Esctocancel",
|
||||
"nextViewport": "│ D3.1 — E1: Shared (project-level) views alongside private ones?\n│ Project/branch/task: plan-count fixture on `main`; SCOPE EXPANSION, ledger row L1.\n│ ELI10: Today's plan scopes every view to one member. E1 adds a `visibility` column (private | project) and\n│ `created_by`. The list endpoint returns your private views plus the project's shared ones; the picker shows \"Mine\" and\n│ \"Team\". Any project member can create a shared view; only the creator or a project admin can edit or delete it. The\n│ stated pain (\"team members repeatedly recreate filters\") is a team pain, and Jira and Asana both landed on this dual\n│ layer. Dependency: E6 (default view per project) needs E1.\n│ Stakes if we pick wrong: Without it, five members build five copies of \"Blocked\" and the team has no shared\n│ vocabulary; adding it later means a migration and a fight over who owns existing views. With it, you take on a small\n│ permission surface (who may edit a shared view) on day one.\n│ Recommendation: Include because it is one column plus one permission check on top of a table you are building anyway,\n│ and it is the single change most likely to make the pilot show real reuse. (human: ~1 day / CC: ~10 min)\n│ Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\n│ Pros / cons:\n│ A) Include in this plan (recommended)\n│ ✅ One \"Blocked\" view means the same thing to everyone; recreated-filter pain actually goes away\n│ ✅ Schema is right from day one; no later migration or ownership dispute over existing rows\n│ ❌ Adds an authorization rule (creator or admin edits shared views) that needs tests and clear error copy\n│ B) Defer to TODOS.md\n│ ✅ Ships the plan as written faster; pilot measures private reuse first\n│ ✅ Keeps the permission surface at exactly the existing project-membership check\n│ ❌ Likely migration later; pilot may undercount value because private-only views miss the team pain\n│ C) Cut entirely\n│ ✅ Smallest possible feature; no visibility concept ever\n│ ✅ Zero shared-ownership edge cases (deleting a view other…\n\n❯ 1. Include (recommended)\n Add visibility (private | project) + created_by; \"Mine\" and \"Team\" in picker.\n 2. Defer to TODOS.md\n Record with context; ship private-only views first.\n 3. Cut\n Not in scope; goes to NOT in scope.\n 4. Hold\n Stop the chain; discuss E1 before continuing.\n 5. Type something.\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n 6. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · Esc to cancel\n",
|
||||
"events": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T20:41:20.626Z",
|
||||
"sessionId": "3a32c9a8-fd5a-4557-9b79-965c64aa8fcb",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01NA24LMtPcSFuxeKaJQkDYt"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T20:41:22.706Z",
|
||||
"sessionId": "3a32c9a8-fd5a-4557-9b79-965c64aa8fcb",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01NA24LMtPcSFuxeKaJQkDYt",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T20:42:34.622Z",
|
||||
"sessionId": "3a32c9a8-fd5a-4557-9b79-965c64aa8fcb",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UFKuY2dmUU9nEqDPEzy1YT"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T20:42:35.861Z",
|
||||
"sessionId": "3a32c9a8-fd5a-4557-9b79-965c64aa8fcb",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UFKuY2dmUU9nEqDPEzy1YT",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T20:42:55.217Z",
|
||||
"sessionId": "3a32c9a8-fd5a-4557-9b79-965c64aa8fcb",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01K811Ztw6AZKMcbwVkLg6Qu"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"provenance": "Exact public native calls and public event identities from retained source; pacing viewport is an exact contiguous visible-terminal segment. Full source receipts live in final-b955-ceo-monitor/expansion-first-pending."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
+128
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+218
@@ -0,0 +1,218 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"provenance": {
|
||||
"source": "67147822f55b911c033617f759dc472d0d348e72",
|
||||
"actualOutcome": "first attempt failed; configured retry preserved separately",
|
||||
"observationSha256": "c6572ec1b584b17c096e20f2acb93de42d20a55433d922d6e64e2a1b4f4e01fc",
|
||||
"publicProjectionSha256": "eed4680a9487bb1b4a38cc700ba0f30d721bbf312432b5d962b5247e84453525",
|
||||
"envelopes": "Actual public native requests, answer values, session/request identities and request/reply timestamps. No synthetic timing."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"selectedAt": 1789475597256,
|
||||
"calls": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ff3497af-75fa-410a-916e-083dc44167d2",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01GWxSoGMRSKj1UNJaeqjMSM",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D3 \u2014 Which review mode should govern this plan?\nProject/branch/task: fixture repo on main; reviewing PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\" (per-member named filter+sort presets on a project task list).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. It decides whether I push you to build a bigger version, keep the plan exactly as written and stress-test it, or cut it to the smallest useful core. This is an enhancement to an existing task list (roughly 9\u201312 changed files, estimated), not a greenfield build or a bug fix. Nothing about the plan's approach changes by picking a mode; every scope change still gets its own yes/no question later.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too much expansion and a small feature grows a tail of half-wanted extras; too little and you ship personal-only views and re-discover the sharing and deleted-filter-reference problems in production.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because the plan is a solid enhancement, but the landscape check surfaced a few adjacent options (shared views, remember-last-state, canonical filter serialization) worth a neutral look before locking scope.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how hard I push on scope, in either direction, before the 11-section deep review.",
|
||||
"header": "Review mode",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Current scope gets the full rigor pass; each adjacent idea is offered neutrally as add / defer / skip\n\u2705 You choose per item; rejected ideas land in an explicit NOT-in-scope list\n\u274c More questions than HOLD SCOPE; a handful of extra decisions before the deep review"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 I describe the 10x version and the platonic ideal, then recommend expansions enthusiastically\n\u2705 Best if you want views to become a platform piece (shared, default, deep-linked) now\n\u274c Bigger diff, longer pilot, more surface to secure and test on a feature whose base pain is small"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Scope stays exactly as written; maximum rigor on failures, edge cases, error paths, tests\n\u2705 Fastest path to a review report; no scope questions beyond defer/keep checks\n\u274c Sharing, remember-last-state, and filter-shape questions get noted, not offered as scope"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Strips to the minimum core (e.g. remember last filter state, or create+list only)\n\u2705 Smallest diff, quickest pilot signal on whether members even want persistence\n\u274c Named views and update/delete may get cut; you re-plan them later if the pilot says yes"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D3 \u2014 Which review mode should govern this plan?\nProject/branch/task: fixture repo on main; reviewing PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\" (per-member named filter+sort presets on a project task list).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. It decides whether I push you to build a bigger version, keep the plan exactly as written and stress-test it, or cut it to the smallest useful core. This is an enhancement to an existing task list (roughly 9\u201312 changed files, estimated), not a greenfield build or a bug fix. Nothing about the plan's approach changes by picking a mode; every scope change still gets its own yes/no question later.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too much expansion and a small feature grows a tail of half-wanted extras; too little and you ship personal-only views and re-discover the sharing and deleted-filter-reference problems in production.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because the plan is a solid enhancement, but the landscape check surfaced a few adjacent options (shared views, remember-last-state, canonical filter serialization) worth a neutral look before locking scope.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how hard I push on scope, in either direction, before the 11-section deep review.": "SCOPE EXPANSION"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:33:17.286Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "ff3497af-75fa-410a-916e-083dc44167d2",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01R9LXiJmwEhkF4jcDDxTumZ",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D4.1 \u2014 E1: Store views using the task list's existing filter/sort serialization?\nProject/branch/task: main; saved project views plan, SCOPE EXPANSION, proposal 1 of 6.\nELI10: Your task list already turns filters and sort into some encoded shape (usually the URL query string). A saved view should persist exactly that shape, not a new hand-rolled JSON schema. Then saved views, URLs, and shared links all speak one language, and when you add a new filter next quarter, old views keep working without a migration.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Two filter encodings drift apart; every new filter needs a stored-view migration; deep links (E2) and shared views (E3) need translation code.\nRecommendation: Add because it is the cheapest item here (human ~0.5 d / CC ~15 min) and it is the foundation E2\u2013E4 stand on.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=3/10, D=n/a\nNet: one canonical filter language now vs. a second schema you maintain forever.",
|
||||
"header": "E1 serialize",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Add to scope (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 One filter encoding shared by URL, saved views, and future shared links; new filters need no view migration\n\u2705 Round-trip test (encode \u2192 save \u2192 load \u2192 decode) becomes the single test that proves views work\n\u274c Requires locating and possibly tidying the existing serializer before the table schema is final"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Defer to TODOS.md",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Base plan proceeds with whatever column shape is fastest today\n\u2705 Decision recorded so a later pass can converge the encodings\n\u274c Stored views written in the interim need a migration when you converge later"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Skip",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 No constraint on the saved_views column design\n\u2705 Zero coupling to the task list's URL handling\n\u274c Two filter schemas from day one; E2/E3 become translation projects instead of near-free"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Hold (stop chain, discuss)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Pauses the expansion questions so we can talk this one through first\n\u2705 Nothing is decided until you say so\n\u274c Delays the remaining five proposals and the deep review"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D4.1 \u2014 E1: Store views using the task list's existing filter/sort serialization?\nProject/branch/task: main; saved project views plan, SCOPE EXPANSION, proposal 1 of 6.\nELI10: Your task list already turns filters and sort into some encoded shape (usually the URL query string). A saved view should persist exactly that shape, not a new hand-rolled JSON schema. Then saved views, URLs, and shared links all speak one language, and when you add a new filter next quarter, old views keep working without a migration.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Two filter encodings drift apart; every new filter needs a stored-view migration; deep links (E2) and shared views (E3) need translation code.\nRecommendation: Add because it is the cheapest item here (human ~0.5 d / CC ~15 min) and it is the foundation E2\u2013E4 stand on.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=3/10, D=n/a\nNet: one canonical filter language now vs. a second schema you maintain forever.": "Add to scope (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:34:22.430Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"events": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01GWxSoGMRSKj1UNJaeqjMSM",
|
||||
"sessionId": "ff3497af-75fa-410a-916e-083dc44167d2",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T12:33:17.090Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01GWxSoGMRSKj1UNJaeqjMSM",
|
||||
"sessionId": "ff3497af-75fa-410a-916e-083dc44167d2",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T12:33:17.286Z",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01R9LXiJmwEhkF4jcDDxTumZ",
|
||||
"sessionId": "ff3497af-75fa-410a-916e-083dc44167d2",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T12:34:20.084Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01R9LXiJmwEhkF4jcDDxTumZ",
|
||||
"sessionId": "ff3497af-75fa-410a-916e-083dc44167d2",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T12:34:22.430Z",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"retry": {
|
||||
"selectedAt": 1789476022644,
|
||||
"mode": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "f68a6786-25d9-429d-b7f7-d2086fd16d59",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Ac8HqKbpPxpwqdA4UvaJdd",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D2 \u2014 Which review mode should govern this plan? (ledger row R1)\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-w6cXCj on main, PLAN.md: saved project views.\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. Expansion means I pitch bigger versions and ask you about each. Selective means I keep your scope, harden it, and offer each add-on (like shared views, stale-filter handling) as a separate yes/no. Hold means no additions, maximum rigor on what is written. Reduction means I propose cuts to reach a minimum core.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too expansive and a two-week pilot balloons into a platform project; too tight and the schema gets locked into private-only views that are painful to open up later.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement (est. 8-12 files) with two cheap structural hedges worth an explicit yes/no, and the pilot argues against a cathedral.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how much I am allowed to tempt you versus how tightly I guard the pilot scope.",
|
||||
"header": "Review mode",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Current scope gets bulletproofed first: access rules, error paths, tests, observability. \u2705 Each add-on (shared views, stale-filter handling, default view) is offered separately; you accept, defer, or skip. \u274c More questions than HOLD; a few extra decisions before the deep review starts."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 I describe the 10x version: shared and default views, view analytics, URL-shareable state. \u2705 Best if saved views are the seed of a larger task-list platform. \u274c Pulls hard against a two-week pilot; risks building features the pilot cannot measure."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Exactly the four bullets in PLAN.md, traced for every failure and edge case. \u2705 Fastest path to a reviewed, shippable pilot. \u274c The visibility-column hedge and stale-filter handling are only raised as concerns, not offered as scope; private-only schema may need a migration later."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Strips to the minimum: maybe save + reopen only, no update or picker polish. \u2705 Lowest cost to learn whether anyone reuses views. \u274c Plan is already small; cuts here would mostly remove the update/delete endpoints that users expect on any saved object."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D2 \u2014 Which review mode should govern this plan? (ledger row R1)\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-w6cXCj on main, PLAN.md: saved project views.\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. Expansion means I pitch bigger versions and ask you about each. Selective means I keep your scope, harden it, and offer each add-on (like shared views, stale-filter handling) as a separate yes/no. Hold means no additions, maximum rigor on what is written. Reduction means I propose cuts to reach a minimum core.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too expansive and a two-week pilot balloons into a platform project; too tight and the schema gets locked into private-only views that are painful to open up later.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement (est. 8-12 files) with two cheap structural hedges worth an explicit yes/no, and the pilot argues against a cathedral.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how much I am allowed to tempt you versus how tightly I guard the pilot scope.": "SCOPE EXPANSION"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:40:22.673Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"pacing": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "f68a6786-25d9-429d-b7f7-d2086fd16d59",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Nrp54fPik5GJq9GHC4NhCR",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D3.0 \u2014 Seven expansion proposals are on the table. How should I walk them?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-w6cXCj on main, saved project views, SCOPE EXPANSION mode.\nELI10: The proposals are E1 project-shared views, E2 default views, E3 stale-filter handling, E4 URL-addressable views, E5 pilot instrumentation, E6 dirty-state Update/Save-as-new, E7 delight pack (rename, duplicate, save nudge, shortcut, empty state, page title). Each is a separate scope call. I can ask one question per item (7 questions, each Add / Defer / Skip / Hold), or first propose a smaller set, or batch them into groups. Dependencies: E2's project default needs E1; E4 cross-member links need E1; E5 is what makes the pilot metric real for everything else.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Per-item gives you full control at the cost of 7 prompts; batching is faster but risks lumping unrelated decisions together.\nRecommendation: A because every proposal is independently shippable and this mode exists to let you weigh each one.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: decision precision versus prompt count.",
|
||||
"header": "Chain shape",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Full per-item split (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Seven D3.k questions, one per proposal, each with Add / Defer / Skip / Hold, then a D3.final to confirm the set. \u2705 No proposal is dropped or merged without your say. \u274c Seven prompts before the deep review begins."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Narrow first",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 I propose a smaller candidate set (my pick: E1, E3, E5) and you confirm the cut before per-item questions. \u2705 Fewer prompts if you agree with the narrowing. \u274c You see my shortlist before the full menu; less aligned with expansion posture."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Batch into two groups",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Two multi-select questions: structural (E1-E4) and polish/observability (E5-E7). \u2705 Fast: two prompts. \u274c Multi-select flattens Add vs Defer into yes/no; deferrals need a follow-up."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D3.0 \u2014 Seven expansion proposals are on the table. How should I walk them?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-w6cXCj on main, saved project views, SCOPE EXPANSION mode.\nELI10: The proposals are E1 project-shared views, E2 default views, E3 stale-filter handling, E4 URL-addressable views, E5 pilot instrumentation, E6 dirty-state Update/Save-as-new, E7 delight pack (rename, duplicate, save nudge, shortcut, empty state, page title). Each is a separate scope call. I can ask one question per item (7 questions, each Add / Defer / Skip / Hold), or first propose a smaller set, or batch them into groups. Dependencies: E2's project default needs E1; E4 cross-member links need E1; E5 is what makes the pilot metric real for everything else.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Per-item gives you full control at the cost of 7 prompts; batching is faster but risks lumping unrelated decisions together.\nRecommendation: A because every proposal is independently shippable and this mode exists to let you weigh each one.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: decision precision versus prompt count.": "Full per-item split (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:42:10.466Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"pendingProposal": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "f68a6786-25d9-429d-b7f7-d2086fd16d59",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_014QQHwT6o3sWWqWj9X7ejEs",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D3.1 \u2014 E1: Project-shared views (ledger row S1)\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-w6cXCj on main, saved project views.\nELI10: Today the plan saves a view for one member only. E1 adds a `visibility` column (private or project) and a share toggle, so a teammate's saved view shows up in my picker. Fixes the stated pain once per team instead of once per member. Owner keeps edit/delete; others can open and duplicate. Even if you defer the sharing UI, adding the column now (private default) avoids an ownership migration later. Effort: human ~2 days / CC ~30 min. Risk: medium, it is a new permission surface that must reuse the existing project-membership check. E2's project default and E4's cross-member links depend on it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip it and the schema locks in private-only; add it and the plan gains a permissions test matrix.\nRecommendation: Add because the goal sentence is about the team, and the structural cost is one column plus one authorization branch.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: team-wide fix now versus a smaller permission surface for the pilot.",
|
||||
"header": "E1 shared",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Add to scope (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Teammates reuse each other's views; the pain is fixed once per project. \u2705 Column + owner-only mutation rule land together with their permission tests. \u274c Adds a permission matrix (owner, member, non-member) to test and a share toggle to design."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Defer to TODOS.md",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Pilot stays private-only and smaller. \u2705 Deferral recorded with context so the follow-up starts warm. \u274c Without the column now, sharing later means a data migration; I will ask separately whether to add the column alone."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Skip entirely",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Smallest possible schema and permission surface. \u2705 Nothing to design beyond the original four bullets. \u274c Orphans E2 project default and E4 cross-member links; goes to NOT in scope."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Hold, discuss first",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Stops the chain so we can talk through the permission model before deciding. \u2705 No disposition recorded until you say continue. \u274c Delays the remaining six proposals."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": false,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"source": "pre_tool_use"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"limit": "Captured mode/pacing ACKs and pending unacknowledged proposal. Raw request timestamps were no longer available; synthetic test envelopes are not E2E acceptance."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sourceCommit": "dacc95ea69dc73d7d0358165355969b6e4f10f6f",
|
||||
"source": "Retained public native requests/answers from CLI2.1.251; full parent JSONL was deleted. Free tests create synthetic request/reply envelopes and times, not a historical E2E replay.",
|
||||
"sourceObservationSha256": {
|
||||
"first": "038d5a0b3f5343f1d27d7513391ec8b33abb20c1799410e0e91cd19002ac6c4d",
|
||||
"retry": "aa174a8589192e2c26578c335286f16015df2fe98b3a2c3b583229af3e27c0a2"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"actualOutcome": "Both EXPANSION attempts failed; no rejudging. Four Include/Defer/Cut/Hold options differ from source three-option menu.",
|
||||
"retryQuestion": {
|
||||
"question": "D3.1 — E1: Shared project views (private / project visibility)?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-F2ZINo on main, SCOPE EXPANSION review of saved views.\nELI10: Today's plan makes every view personal. E1 adds a `visibility` column (private | project) and a project-owned copy of a view that everyone in the project sees in the picker. Only the owner or a project admin can edit or delete a project view; anyone can duplicate it to private. This is the single change that turns bookmarks into a shared team artifact, and it is far cheaper to add the column now than to migrate later.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without it, the first \"can you share your view?\" request lands in week one of the pilot and the answer is screenshots. With it done carelessly, a member could edit a view the whole team relies on.\nRecommendation: Include because the schema cost is two columns now vs. a data migration later, and shared views are what every incumbent (Asana, Linear, Jira) treats as the baseline.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: a modest permissions surface now vs. an inevitable migration and a weaker pilot signal later.",
|
||||
"header": "E1 shared",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A) Include (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Views become team artifacts; \"Blocked this sprint\" exists once, not eight times. ✅ Two columns now avoids a later migration of live user data. ❌ Adds an edit/delete permission path that must be tested for owner, admin and non-owner."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B) Defer to TODOS.md",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Pilot stays personal-only and ships sooner. ✅ Schema can still reserve `visibility` so the later add is additive. ❌ Sharing requests during the pilot go unanswered; pilot signal understates value."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "C) Cut",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Smallest permission surface; nothing beyond PLAN.md. ✅ Zero admin/owner test matrix. ❌ Views stay bookmarks forever unless re-planned; contradicts the 12-month ideal."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "D) Hold — discuss first",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Stops the chain so we can talk through ownership/admin semantics before deciding. ✅ No disposition recorded yet. ❌ Delays the remaining five proposals until you say continue."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"retryAnswer": "A) Include (recommended)",
|
||||
"firstMetaQuestion": {
|
||||
"question": "D4.0 — Seven expansion proposals: how do you want to decide them?\nProject/branch/task: plan-count-dfvaRl on main, SCOPE EXPANSION ceremony for saved views.\nELI10: I have seven candidate additions (E1 shared views, E2 versioned payload + deep link, E3 stale-reference detection, E4 dirty state, E5 remember last view, E6 pilot instrumentation, E7 picker polish). The rule is one question per proposal so nothing gets dropped silently. That is seven quick Include/Defer/Cut questions plus a final confirmation. Or you can have me narrow the list first, or batch them into two groups.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Full split costs you 8 clicks; narrowing risks me cutting something you wanted; batching mixes independent items into one pick.\nRecommendation: A because E1-E7 are independent scope items (with E2 as the shared foundation) and each deserves its own yes/no.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: decision precision vs. number of prompts.",
|
||||
"header": "Ceremony",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Proceed with the full split (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Every proposal gets its own Include / Defer / Cut / Hold decision from you\n✅ Dependencies (E1, E3 need E2) surfaced inline so the set stays coherent\n❌ Eight prompts before the deep review starts"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Narrow scope first",
|
||||
"description": "✅ I propose a shorter list (likely E2, E1, E6, E4) and you approve the trim\n✅ Fewer prompts; still no silent drops because you approve the cut list\n❌ Items you might have wanted (E3, E5, E7) get one collective decision, not individual"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Batch into groups of 4",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Two multi-select prompts instead of seven single ones\n✅ Faster if you already know roughly what you want\n❌ Loses the per-item recommendation and dependency ELI10; easier to pick an incoherent set"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"firstMetaAnswer": "Proceed with the full split (recommended)",
|
||||
"firstUnansweredQuestion": {
|
||||
"question": "D4.1 — E2: One versioned JSON filter payload + deep-linkable view URLs?\nProject/branch/task: plan-count-dfvaRl on main, SCOPE EXPANSION ceremony, proposal 1 of 7.\nELI10: Right now the plan says \"store the filters\" without saying in what shape. E2 makes that explicit: a single `{version: 1, filters: {...}, sort: {...}}` payload produced by one serializer that both the live filter UI and the saved_views row use, plus a `?view=<id>` URL param so opening a link opens that view. Without it, the UI state and the stored state drift into two formats, and every later feature (sharing, stale detection) fights that drift. Paste a link in chat, teammate sees the exact list.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skipping it means E1 and E3 become unbuildable as proposed, and a v2 payload migration lands on every saved row.\nRecommendation: Include because it is the cheapest change with the largest downstream leverage, and it is nearly free if done before the first migration. Effort M: human ~2 days / CC ~30 min. Risk low.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: a few hours of schema discipline now vs. a data migration and two encodings later.",
|
||||
"header": "E2 payload",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Include (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ One serializer, one payload shape, versioned from day one; UI and storage cannot drift\n✅ Unlocks E1 (shared) and E3 (stale detection) and makes every view a shareable URL\n❌ Adds a version field and a migration path you must honor in every later payload change"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Defer to TODOS.md",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Ship the plan as written first; revisit the payload format after the pilot\n✅ Zero extra work in this PR\n❌ E1 and E3 fall out of this plan; a later format change migrates every saved row"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Cut",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Smallest possible scope; whatever shape falls out of the first implementation stands\n✅ No versioning ceremony at all\n❌ Locks in an accidental format; deep links never happen; sharing gets expensive"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Hold — discuss first",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Stops the chain so we can talk through the payload shape before deciding\n✅ Good if you already have a filter-state format in the codebase I cannot see\n❌ Pauses the review until you resume"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
Vendored
+14
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"provenance": {
|
||||
"sourceHead": "8525fd4abad1e54de1aaaa9a5692202d4b13bd25",
|
||||
"sessionId": "b1ebeb5c-9717-421c-8c27-de206a97fd2a",
|
||||
"originalPaidAttempt": 1,
|
||||
"originalPaidOutcome": "failed: hasStaleFillRaceFinding returned false after completion/report checks passed",
|
||||
"paidOutcomesReclassified": false,
|
||||
"publicWriteSha256": "2f70ae416722bc98073dcaa290222da10de8adc43f59679a35b7b9a99adb27a3",
|
||||
"publicWriteBytes": 36404,
|
||||
"projection": "Exact current fill-lifetime paragraph and ambiguous F1 row from completed public Write. The paragraph establishes the independent finding; the isolated row remains rejected."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"claim": "**[Amended: D1, D2, D3, D5]** The original sketch stated \"no additional version\nchecks or coordination between a cache fill and a write are proposed\". That\nstatement is withdrawn: without coordination, a fill that started before a write\nand stored after it caches the pre-write snapshot for up to 30 s, violating the\nretained read-after-write rule (evidence: F1 schedule in the review record).\nThese are the complete read/write ordering rules:",
|
||||
"ambiguousFinding": "### Findings register\n\n| F1 | CRITICAL GAP \u2192 fixed | Fill/write race. Schedule: R1 miss, `await read` returns v1 \u00b7 W commits v2, `delete` (no entry), settles \u00b7 R1 `set(v1)` \u00b7 R2 begun after W hits v1 for \u226430 s. Violates \"every read begun after that write completes must observe the committed version\". Single-flight excludes writes so it cannot prevent this | D1-A: epoch guard | Global epoch skips a fill for any concurrent write to any key (correct, lower hit rate under write bursts). Upgrade to per-key (D1-B) if `cache_fill_skipped_total` exceeds 5% of misses | Race tests order 1 & 2; skip counter on dashboard |\n"
|
||||
}
|
||||
+1047
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+508
@@ -0,0 +1,508 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"revision": "fb10b21c2a01365d82c1ac44d6fd53f67b9db644",
|
||||
"provenance": {
|
||||
"path": ".context/nouakchott-fb10b21c-monitor/codex-format/mode-routing-hold-retry-failure/latest-public-transcript.json",
|
||||
"sha256": "1af091d105cd0313fec6b405f86bb938b578b4a0523a2dbfe4675a8e40c2f20f",
|
||||
"qualification": "Literal native mode/decision/source Read events and complete transcript; original retry failed. No semantic judgment has run for this repair."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"source": {
|
||||
"path": "/tmp/g-vlxin2hi/gstack-paid-shard-sIo4dH/tmp/gstack-plan-count-OxBavb/PLAN.md",
|
||||
"content": "# Plan: Add saved project views\n\n## Review request\nReview this plan directly; skip optional /office-hours.\nAfter I select a review mode, briefly explain in your own words how you will\napply that mode to this plan before asking the next review question.\n\n## Goal\nTeam members repeatedly recreate filters on a project task list. Let each\nmember save a named combination of filters and sort order and reopen it later.\n\n## Approach\n- Add a saved_views table scoped to the project and member.\n- Provide authenticated create, list, update, and delete endpoints.\n- Add a view picker and a save action beside the existing task filters.\n- Keep existing task access rules when applying a saved view.\n\n## Validation\n- Test persistence, project access, and reopening a view after task changes.\n- Measure whether members reuse saved views during a two-week pilot."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"selectionStartedAt": 1789606778899,
|
||||
"continuedCallId": "552cc014-725a-4fd6-9ed7-f34d2def6ed9:toolu_016udcjV6SxTSUzcY1Zd779Z",
|
||||
"transcript": {
|
||||
"status": "ready",
|
||||
"calls": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "552cc014-725a-4fd6-9ed7-f34d2def6ed9",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01MESJYCTMzyDUhtVUHgZmMt",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: plan-review fixture on `main`, reviewing PLAN.md (saved project views).\nELI10: gstack skills work best when the project's CLAUDE.md tells Claude which skill to reach for (bugs \u2192 /investigate, scope \u2192 /plan-ceo-review, etc.). This is a one-time setup prompt, separate from the plan review itself. Plan mode is active, so if you say yes the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after the review ends, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without routing, skills only run when you type them by hand; with it, a few extra lines land in CLAUDE.md.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules are cheap and make future sessions pick the right skill without prompting.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: a few lines of CLAUDE.md config vs. invoking skills manually forever.",
|
||||
"header": "Routing",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Future requests auto-route to the right gstack skill without you naming it\n\u2705 One short section appended to CLAUDE.md, committed once, easy to remove later\n\u274c Edit is deferred until plan mode exits; adds ~15 lines to the project instructions file"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "No thanks, manual only",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 CLAUDE.md stays exactly as it is; nothing extra committed to the fixture repo\n\u2705 You keep full control over when each skill runs by typing /skill-name yourself\n\u274c Skills never trigger from natural-language requests; this prompt will not reappear for this project"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: plan-review fixture on `main`, reviewing PLAN.md (saved project views).\nELI10: gstack skills work best when the project's CLAUDE.md tells Claude which skill to reach for (bugs \u2192 /investigate, scope \u2192 /plan-ceo-review, etc.). This is a one-time setup prompt, separate from the plan review itself. Plan mode is active, so if you say yes the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after the review ends, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without routing, skills only run when you type them by hand; with it, a few extra lines land in CLAUDE.md.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules are cheap and make future sessions pick the right skill without prompting.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: a few lines of CLAUDE.md config vs. invoking skills manually forever.": "Add routing rules (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-17T00:57:10.266Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "552cc014-725a-4fd6-9ed7-f34d2def6ed9",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_011gDPgtgAxruNm1iLaWDXf3",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D2 \u2014 M1: Which review mode should govern this plan?\nProject/branch/task: `main`, reviewing PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\" (fixture repo, plan only).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. Expansion means I pitch bigger versions and adjacent wins; Selective means I harden what you have and offer expansions neutrally one at a time; Hold means I keep scope frozen and go deep on failure paths and tests; Reduction means I look for what to cut. Every scope change still needs your yes regardless of mode.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too ambitious and a 1-day feature turns into a platform project; too narrow and the schema locks in per-member-only views that need a migration when the team asks to share them.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an added capability in an existing system (~9-12 files), and there are exactly two or three expansions worth weighing (shared views, deep-link URLs, a defined pilot metric) without rewriting the plan.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how hard I push on ambition vs. rigor for the next ten sections.",
|
||||
"header": "Review mode",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Hardens the current four bullets first (failure paths, tests, access rules), then offers each expansion neutrally with effort and risk\n\u2705 Fits an enhancement to an existing system: you cherry-pick shared views, deep links, or metrics without a scope avalanche\n\u274c Each expansion is a separate question, so more decisions land on you than in Hold Scope"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 I pitch the platonic ideal: shared team views, default views, deep links, templates, delight items, argued enthusiastically\n\u2705 Best if you want this to become the team's triage layer rather than a personal bookmark\n\u274c Turns a ~1 hour CC feature into a multi-part project; easy to over-build before the pilot proves reuse"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Maximum rigor on exactly the four bullets: error map, edge cases, race conditions, test diagram, observability\n\u2705 Fastest path to a shippable pilot with the smallest diff\n\u274c Shared views and linkable URLs are not offered; if the schema is per-member-only it costs a migration later"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Strips to the minimum viable core (maybe just save + reopen, no update endpoint) to test demand fastest\n\u2705 Lowest risk if you doubt the pain is real\n\u274c The plan is already small (~9-12 files); cutting further mostly removes tests and edge handling, which cost seconds with CC"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D2 \u2014 M1: Which review mode should govern this plan?\nProject/branch/task: `main`, reviewing PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\" (fixture repo, plan only).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. Expansion means I pitch bigger versions and adjacent wins; Selective means I harden what you have and offer expansions neutrally one at a time; Hold means I keep scope frozen and go deep on failure paths and tests; Reduction means I look for what to cut. Every scope change still needs your yes regardless of mode.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too ambitious and a 1-day feature turns into a platform project; too narrow and the schema locks in per-member-only views that need a migration when the team asks to share them.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an added capability in an existing system (~9-12 files), and there are exactly two or three expansions worth weighing (shared views, deep-link URLs, a defined pilot metric) without rewriting the plan.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how hard I push on ambition vs. rigor for the next ten sections.": "HOLD SCOPE"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-17T00:59:38.946Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "552cc014-725a-4fd6-9ed7-f34d2def6ed9",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_016udcjV6SxTSUzcY1Zd779Z",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D3 \u2014 R3: How should \"members reuse saved views\" be defined and measured for the two-week pilot?\nProject/branch/task: `main`, PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\", HOLD SCOPE review.\nELI10: The plan promises to measure reuse in a two-week pilot, but never says what reuse means or how it gets counted. Right now nothing in the plan records that a view was opened, so at day 14 there is no number to read. This decision picks the definition and the smallest way to record it. It does not add features; it makes an acceptance criterion the plan already states actually checkable.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Pick nothing and the pilot ends with anecdotes; pick counters and you can say \"3 opens\" but not whether that was one Monday burst or steady use across days.\nRecommendation: A because per-day reuse is the question the pilot is asking, events are the standard way to answer it, and the code is ~30 lines (human: ~half a day / CC: ~10 min).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nNet: a real answer at day 14 vs. a counter that can't tell habit from a burst vs. asking people to remember.",
|
||||
"header": "Pilot metric",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Events + per-day definition (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Emit created/applied/deleted events for saved views through the existing analytics path and define reuse as a view applied on 2+ distinct days after creation. Effort S. Risk low. Reuse: existing event/analytics pipeline (verify). Verification: unit tests that apply emits one event, denied apply emits none. \u2705 Answers the actual pilot question: are people coming back to a view on different days \u2705 No writes on the saved_views row during reads, so applying a view stays a pure read path \u274c Depends on an analytics/event path existing; if none, a small events table is added (still S)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Counters on the row",
|
||||
"description": "Add open_count and last_applied_at columns to saved_views and bump them on apply; reuse = open_count >= 3 by pilot end. Effort S. Risk low. Reuse: none beyond the new table. Verification: unit test that apply increments once and denied apply does not. \u2705 Zero new infrastructure; a single SQL query at pilot end gives the number \u2705 Trivial to implement and read, no pipeline to verify \u274c Cannot distinguish three opens in one minute from three separate days, and every apply becomes a write"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "End-of-pilot survey only",
|
||||
"description": "No instrumentation. Ask pilot members after two weeks whether they reused their saved views. Effort S (zero code). Risk medium. Reuse: n/a. Verification: none. \u2705 No code, no schema, nothing to test or maintain \u2705 Captures qualitative reasons a number never would \u274c Recall bias and self-selection; the plan's stated \"measure\" criterion is not actually met"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D3 \u2014 R3: How should \"members reuse saved views\" be defined and measured for the two-week pilot?\nProject/branch/task: `main`, PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\", HOLD SCOPE review.\nELI10: The plan promises to measure reuse in a two-week pilot, but never says what reuse means or how it gets counted. Right now nothing in the plan records that a view was opened, so at day 14 there is no number to read. This decision picks the definition and the smallest way to record it. It does not add features; it makes an acceptance criterion the plan already states actually checkable.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Pick nothing and the pilot ends with anecdotes; pick counters and you can say \"3 opens\" but not whether that was one Monday burst or steady use across days.\nRecommendation: A because per-day reuse is the question the pilot is asking, events are the standard way to answer it, and the code is ~30 lines (human: ~half a day / CC: ~10 min).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nNet: a real answer at day 14 vs. a counter that can't tell habit from a burst vs. asking people to remember.": "Events + per-day definition (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-17T01:01:59.562Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"assistantMessages": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "552cc014-725a-4fd6-9ed7-f34d2def6ed9",
|
||||
"text": "I'll start with the skill preamble, then audit the repo and plan.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T00:56:48.413Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "552cc014-725a-4fd6-9ed7-f34d2def6ed9",
|
||||
"text": "Noted: routing rules approved. Plan mode blocks the CLAUDE.md write and commit right now, so I'll queue that for after the review ends. Moving to the pre-review audit.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T00:57:14.264Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "552cc014-725a-4fd6-9ed7-f34d2def6ed9",
|
||||
"text": "Read-back verified: row R3 and full payload match. Dispatching D3 with the saved strings.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T01:01:48.422Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "552cc014-725a-4fd6-9ed7-f34d2def6ed9",
|
||||
"text": "Now the R4 payload (update endpoint: defer or keep).",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T01:02:23.242Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"planReadyRequests": []
|
||||
},
|
||||
"publicTools": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "552cc014-725a-4fd6-9ed7-f34d2def6ed9",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T00:57:27.439Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01X68yaBUsCX8qdrbVoTE7Xd",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/g-vlxin2hi/gstack-paid-shard-sIo4dH/tmp/gstack-plan-count-OxBavb/PLAN.md"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf86vvk1SkYxBpm5znM48",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf86vvSPgZuYN86nWzXoC"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "552cc014-725a-4fd6-9ed7-f34d2def6ed9",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T00:57:27.464Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01X68yaBUsCX8qdrbVoTE7Xd",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "1\t# Plan: Add saved project views\n2\t\n3\t## Review request\n4\tReview this plan directly; skip optional /office-hours.\n5\tAfter I select a review mode, briefly explain in your own words how you will\n6\tapply that mode to this plan before asking the next review question.\n7\t\n8\t## Goal\n9\tTeam members repeatedly recreate filters on a project task list. Let each\n10\tmember save a named combination of filters and sort order and reopen it later.\n11\t\n12\t## Approach\n13\t- Add a saved_views table scoped to the project and member.\n14\t- Provide authenticated create, list, update, and delete endpoints.\n15\t- Add a view picker and a save action beside the existing task filters.\n16\t- Keep existing task access rules when applying a saved view.\n17\t\n18\t## Validation\n19\t- Test persistence, project access, and reopening a view after task changes.\n20\t- Measure whether members reuse saved views during a two-week pilot.",
|
||||
"file": {
|
||||
"filePath": "/tmp/g-vlxin2hi/gstack-paid-shard-sIo4dH/tmp/gstack-plan-count-OxBavb/PLAN.md",
|
||||
"content": "# Plan: Add saved project views\n\n## Review request\nReview this plan directly; skip optional /office-hours.\nAfter I select a review mode, briefly explain in your own words how you will\napply that mode to this plan before asking the next review question.\n\n## Goal\nTeam members repeatedly recreate filters on a project task list. Let each\nmember save a named combination of filters and sort order and reopen it later.\n\n## Approach\n- Add a saved_views table scoped to the project and member.\n- Provide authenticated create, list, update, and delete endpoints.\n- Add a view picker and a save action beside the existing task filters.\n- Keep existing task access rules when applying a saved view.\n\n## Validation\n- Test persistence, project access, and reopening a view after task changes.\n- Measure whether members reuse saved views during a two-week pilot.",
|
||||
"numLines": 20,
|
||||
"startLine": 1,
|
||||
"totalLines": 20
|
||||
},
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "552cc014-725a-4fd6-9ed7-f34d2def6ed9",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T00:59:37.386Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_011gDPgtgAxruNm1iLaWDXf3",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D2 \u2014 M1: Which review mode should govern this plan?\nProject/branch/task: `main`, reviewing PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\" (fixture repo, plan only).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. Expansion means I pitch bigger versions and adjacent wins; Selective means I harden what you have and offer expansions neutrally one at a time; Hold means I keep scope frozen and go deep on failure paths and tests; Reduction means I look for what to cut. Every scope change still needs your yes regardless of mode.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too ambitious and a 1-day feature turns into a platform project; too narrow and the schema locks in per-member-only views that need a migration when the team asks to share them.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an added capability in an existing system (~9-12 files), and there are exactly two or three expansions worth weighing (shared views, deep-link URLs, a defined pilot metric) without rewriting the plan.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how hard I push on ambition vs. rigor for the next ten sections.",
|
||||
"header": "Review mode",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Hardens the current four bullets first (failure paths, tests, access rules), then offers each expansion neutrally with effort and risk\n\u2705 Fits an enhancement to an existing system: you cherry-pick shared views, deep links, or metrics without a scope avalanche\n\u274c Each expansion is a separate question, so more decisions land on you than in Hold Scope"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 I pitch the platonic ideal: shared team views, default views, deep links, templates, delight items, argued enthusiastically\n\u2705 Best if you want this to become the team's triage layer rather than a personal bookmark\n\u274c Turns a ~1 hour CC feature into a multi-part project; easy to over-build before the pilot proves reuse"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Maximum rigor on exactly the four bullets: error map, edge cases, race conditions, test diagram, observability\n\u2705 Fastest path to a shippable pilot with the smallest diff\n\u274c Shared views and linkable URLs are not offered; if the schema is per-member-only it costs a migration later"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Strips to the minimum viable core (maybe just save + reopen, no update endpoint) to test demand fastest\n\u2705 Lowest risk if you doubt the pain is real\n\u274c The plan is already small (~9-12 files); cutting further mostly removes tests and edge handling, which cost seconds with CC"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf8757h39isTvRtytVCkE",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf8757KDUQv75YtU9WJmC"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "552cc014-725a-4fd6-9ed7-f34d2def6ed9",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T00:59:38.946Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_011gDPgtgAxruNm1iLaWDXf3",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D2 \u2014 M1: Which review mode should govern this plan?\nProject/branch/task: `main`, reviewing PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\" (fixture repo, plan only).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. Expansion means I pitch bigger versions and adjacent wins; Selective means I harden what you have and offer expansions neutrally one at a time; Hold means I keep scope frozen and go deep on failure paths and tests; Reduction means I look for what to cut. Every scope change still needs your yes regardless of mode.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too ambitious and a 1-day feature turns into a platform project; too narrow and the schema locks in per-member-only views that need a migration when the team asks to share them.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an added capability in an existing system (~9-12 files), and there are exactly two or three expansions worth weighing (shared views, deep-link URLs, a defined pilot metric) without rewriting the plan.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how hard I push on ambition vs. rigor for the next ten sections.\"=\"HOLD SCOPE\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "552cc014-725a-4fd6-9ed7-f34d2def6ed9",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T01:01:58.422Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_016udcjV6SxTSUzcY1Zd779Z",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D3 \u2014 R3: How should \"members reuse saved views\" be defined and measured for the two-week pilot?\nProject/branch/task: `main`, PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\", HOLD SCOPE review.\nELI10: The plan promises to measure reuse in a two-week pilot, but never says what reuse means or how it gets counted. Right now nothing in the plan records that a view was opened, so at day 14 there is no number to read. This decision picks the definition and the smallest way to record it. It does not add features; it makes an acceptance criterion the plan already states actually checkable.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Pick nothing and the pilot ends with anecdotes; pick counters and you can say \"3 opens\" but not whether that was one Monday burst or steady use across days.\nRecommendation: A because per-day reuse is the question the pilot is asking, events are the standard way to answer it, and the code is ~30 lines (human: ~half a day / CC: ~10 min).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nNet: a real answer at day 14 vs. a counter that can't tell habit from a burst vs. asking people to remember.",
|
||||
"header": "Pilot metric",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Events + per-day definition (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Emit created/applied/deleted events for saved views through the existing analytics path and define reuse as a view applied on 2+ distinct days after creation. Effort S. Risk low. Reuse: existing event/analytics pipeline (verify). Verification: unit tests that apply emits one event, denied apply emits none. \u2705 Answers the actual pilot question: are people coming back to a view on different days \u2705 No writes on the saved_views row during reads, so applying a view stays a pure read path \u274c Depends on an analytics/event path existing; if none, a small events table is added (still S)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Counters on the row",
|
||||
"description": "Add open_count and last_applied_at columns to saved_views and bump them on apply; reuse = open_count >= 3 by pilot end. Effort S. Risk low. Reuse: none beyond the new table. Verification: unit test that apply increments once and denied apply does not. \u2705 Zero new infrastructure; a single SQL query at pilot end gives the number \u2705 Trivial to implement and read, no pipeline to verify \u274c Cannot distinguish three opens in one minute from three separate days, and every apply becomes a write"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "End-of-pilot survey only",
|
||||
"description": "No instrumentation. Ask pilot members after two weeks whether they reused their saved views. Effort S (zero code). Risk medium. Reuse: n/a. Verification: none. \u2705 No code, no schema, nothing to test or maintain \u2705 Captures qualitative reasons a number never would \u274c Recall bias and self-selection; the plan's stated \"measure\" criterion is not actually met"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf87GCeFn8YNuMdyjjiHu",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf87GCCi5y4hTy4ZXhBRg"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "552cc014-725a-4fd6-9ed7-f34d2def6ed9",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T01:01:59.562Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_016udcjV6SxTSUzcY1Zd779Z",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D3 \u2014 R3: How should \"members reuse saved views\" be defined and measured for the two-week pilot?\nProject/branch/task: `main`, PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\", HOLD SCOPE review.\nELI10: The plan promises to measure reuse in a two-week pilot, but never says what reuse means or how it gets counted. Right now nothing in the plan records that a view was opened, so at day 14 there is no number to read. This decision picks the definition and the smallest way to record it. It does not add features; it makes an acceptance criterion the plan already states actually checkable.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Pick nothing and the pilot ends with anecdotes; pick counters and you can say \"3 opens\" but not whether that was one Monday burst or steady use across days.\nRecommendation: A because per-day reuse is the question the pilot is asking, events are the standard way to answer it, and the code is ~30 lines (human: ~half a day / CC: ~10 min).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nNet: a real answer at day 14 vs. a counter that can't tell habit from a burst vs. asking people to remember.\"=\"Events + per-day definition (recommended)\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"firstAttempt": {
|
||||
"provenance": {
|
||||
"path": ".context/nouakchott-fb10b21c-monitor/codex-format/additional-terminal-v2/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-mode-routing/plan-ceo-review-mode-1789606160981-ThDyqB/latest-public-transcript.json",
|
||||
"sha256": "2c361ef38e2de834f085fad09e6e46add1587d94cc93b69118b62b98b8ad21a6",
|
||||
"qualification": "Original first-attempt FAIL. Source was displayed by Bash, not the full Read required by this opt-in branch. Actual selected deferral remains zero-credit."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"selectionStartedAt": 1789606354922,
|
||||
"continuedCallId": "fc9b2f20-4446-4a46-af00-e497477f8d64:toolu_01EstbpxV7vdQGc5KLuBAF6M",
|
||||
"transcript": {
|
||||
"status": "ready",
|
||||
"calls": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "fc9b2f20-4446-4a46-af00-e497477f8d64",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01AJBe8a4d2BsY1d54Lgketa",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D1 \u2014 gstack setup: add skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-2n1ktg on main, reviewing PLAN.md (saved project views).\nELI10: gstack skills work best when CLAUDE.md tells Claude which skill to reach for (\"bugs \u2192 /investigate\", \"scope \u2192 /plan-ceo-review\"). Without it you invoke skills by hand every time. Note: we are in plan mode, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after this review exits plan mode, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: minor either way; you can flip it later with gstack-config.\nRecommendation: A because routing is the default gstack setup and costs one committed section.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: convenience later vs. one extra file change in this repo.",
|
||||
"header": "Routing",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Future requests auto-route to the right skill without typing slash commands\n\u2705 One-time, one section appended to CLAUDE.md and committed\n\u274c Deferred until plan mode exits; adds a commit to this fixture repo"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "No thanks, invoke manually",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 CLAUDE.md stays exactly as-is; nothing committed to this repo\n\u2705 Re-enable any time with gstack-config set routing_declined false\n\u274c Every skill has to be invoked by name; no proactive suggestions"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D2 \u2014 gstack setup: search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-2n1ktg on main.\nELI10: gstack records small lessons per project (\"this repo's tests need X\"). With cross-project enabled it also checks lessons from your other local projects when reviewing this one. Nothing leaves your machine.\nStakes if we pick wrong: low; a config flag you can flip later.\nRecommendation: A because it is the default for solo developers and this is a local-only read.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: more recall vs. strict per-project isolation (matters if you work across client codebases).",
|
||||
"header": "Learnings",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Prior lessons from other local projects surface during this and future reviews\n\u2705 Purely local read of ~/.gstack; no data leaves the machine\n\u274c Unsuitable if you keep client codebases strictly separated"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Project-scoped only",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Strict isolation between projects; nothing from other repos is consulted\n\u2705 Safe default for multi-client work\n\u274c Fewer learnings available; this project has 0 so far"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D1 \u2014 gstack setup: add skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-2n1ktg on main, reviewing PLAN.md (saved project views).\nELI10: gstack skills work best when CLAUDE.md tells Claude which skill to reach for (\"bugs \u2192 /investigate\", \"scope \u2192 /plan-ceo-review\"). Without it you invoke skills by hand every time. Note: we are in plan mode, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after this review exits plan mode, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: minor either way; you can flip it later with gstack-config.\nRecommendation: A because routing is the default gstack setup and costs one committed section.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: convenience later vs. one extra file change in this repo.": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
|
||||
"D2 \u2014 gstack setup: search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-2n1ktg on main.\nELI10: gstack records small lessons per project (\"this repo's tests need X\"). With cross-project enabled it also checks lessons from your other local projects when reviewing this one. Nothing leaves your machine.\nStakes if we pick wrong: low; a config flag you can flip later.\nRecommendation: A because it is the default for solo developers and this is a local-only read.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: more recall vs. strict per-project isolation (matters if you work across client codebases).": "Enable cross-project (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-17T00:50:59.210Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "fc9b2f20-4446-4a46-af00-e497477f8d64",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01XCdNf3MHEEAq7tCXD1W8SA",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D3 \u2014 Which review mode for the saved-views plan?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-2n1ktg on main, PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\" (~9\u201311 files, estimate).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. Expansion means I pitch bigger versions and argue for them. Selective means I harden what you wrote and offer add-ons neutrally, one at a time, you pick. Hold means no scope changes, maximum rigor on failure paths and tests. Reduction means I look for what to cut.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Expansion on a small feature bloats it; Hold on a plan with a data-model gap (visibility scope) ships a table you may migrate in six months.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing system, under 15 files, with one or two adjacent additions worth a yes/no each.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how much I push on scope vs. how much I push on rigor within the scope you already wrote.",
|
||||
"header": "Review mode",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Hold the current scope, run the HOLD rigor checks, then offer each candidate add-on (shared visibility, URL filter state, default view) with S/M/L effort and risk; you accept, defer, or skip each.\n\u2705 Catches the data-model gap now without committing you to more UI\n\u2705 Every addition is an explicit opt-in; rejected items are recorded as out of scope\n\u274c More questions than HOLD; a few minutes longer"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
|
||||
"description": "Dream big: shared/team views, URL-addressable filters, default view per member, views as inputs to notifications. I recommend each expansion enthusiastically.\n\u2705 Produces the 12-month version of the feature in one plan\n\u2705 Best if you want a cathedral, not a feature\n\u274c Likely 2\u20133x the files; slower pilot; more to roll back"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
|
||||
"description": "Keep the four approach bullets exactly. Trace every error path, nil/empty case, double-click, stale-view case, tests and observability.\n\u2705 Fastest path to a hardened plan for the two-week pilot\n\u2705 No scope debates; only correctness and completeness\n\u274c Visibility-scope gap gets flagged but not fixed unless you reopen it"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
|
||||
"description": "Strip to the minimum: e.g. create + list + apply, no update/delete or no UI picker, ship the pilot faster.\n\u2705 Smallest diff; quickest signal on whether anyone uses saved views\n\u2705 Each cut is an explicit approval, nothing silently dropped\n\u274c Under 15 files already; cutting CRUD or the picker likely hurts the pilot signal"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D3 \u2014 Which review mode for the saved-views plan?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-2n1ktg on main, PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\" (~9\u201311 files, estimate).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. Expansion means I pitch bigger versions and argue for them. Selective means I harden what you wrote and offer add-ons neutrally, one at a time, you pick. Hold means no scope changes, maximum rigor on failure paths and tests. Reduction means I look for what to cut.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Expansion on a small feature bloats it; Hold on a plan with a data-model gap (visibility scope) ships a table you may migrate in six months.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing system, under 15 files, with one or two adjacent additions worth a yes/no each.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how much I push on scope vs. how much I push on rigor within the scope you already wrote.": "HOLD SCOPE"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-17T00:52:34.958Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "fc9b2f20-4446-4a46-af00-e497477f8d64",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EstbpxV7vdQGc5KLuBAF6M",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D4 \u2014 R5: Keep the update endpoint (rename / overwrite a saved view) in this plan, or defer it?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-2n1ktg on main, PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\", HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan lists create, list, update, delete. Update is the only one the goal does not strictly need: during a two-week pilot a member can delete a view and save it again under a new name. Dropping it removes one endpoint, its authorization check, the rename control in the picker, and their tests. Keeping it means members can rename or \"save changes\" to a view in place, which is what every incumbent offers.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Defer and members hit a small annoyance (delete + re-save) and the pilot cannot tell \"edited my view\" from \"gave up on it\". Keep and you carry one more endpoint's error paths and tests; with CC that is minutes, not days.\nRecommendation: B) Keep in scope because update is cheap with CC (human: ~half day / CC: ~10 min), users expect rename, and the HOLD posture prefers full coverage of the scope you already wrote.\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=10/10.\nNet: one fewer endpoint in the pilot vs. a complete CRUD surface with no re-create workaround.",
|
||||
"header": "R5 update",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A) Defer to TODOS.md",
|
||||
"description": "Summary: Ship create/list/delete only; record update (rename/overwrite) in TODOS.md with the reason \"not needed to reopen a view; revisit after pilot\". Effort: S. Risk: low. Reuse: no new code. Verification coverage: none for update; existing tests for the other endpoints unchanged.\n\u2705 Smallest API surface for the two-week pilot; one fewer authorization path to get wrong\n\u2705 Delete + re-save covers rename during the pilot with no data loss\n\u274c Members cannot fix a typo or tweak a view in place; the pilot metric conflates \"edited\" with \"abandoned\""
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B) Keep in scope (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Summary: Keep PATCH/PUT update for name and filter/sort payload, owner-only, with rename and \"save changes\" controls in the picker. Effort: S. Risk: low. Reuse: same model validation and authorization policy as create/delete. Verification coverage: request tests (non-owner \u2192 404, stale id \u2192 404, name collision \u2192 422, empty payload \u2192 422) and model tests for validation.\n\u2705 Members rename or adjust a view in place; matches Asana/Linear/Jira behavior they already know\n\u2705 Full CRUD means the pilot's \"reuse\" metric reflects real use, not re-create churn\n\u274c One more endpoint whose error paths, authorization and tests must be traced in the review"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D4 \u2014 R5: Keep the update endpoint (rename / overwrite a saved view) in this plan, or defer it?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-2n1ktg on main, PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\", HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan lists create, list, update, delete. Update is the only one the goal does not strictly need: during a two-week pilot a member can delete a view and save it again under a new name. Dropping it removes one endpoint, its authorization check, the rename control in the picker, and their tests. Keeping it means members can rename or \"save changes\" to a view in place, which is what every incumbent offers.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Defer and members hit a small annoyance (delete + re-save) and the pilot cannot tell \"edited my view\" from \"gave up on it\". Keep and you carry one more endpoint's error paths and tests; with CC that is minutes, not days.\nRecommendation: B) Keep in scope because update is cheap with CC (human: ~half day / CC: ~10 min), users expect rename, and the HOLD posture prefers full coverage of the scope you already wrote.\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=10/10.\nNet: one fewer endpoint in the pilot vs. a complete CRUD surface with no re-create workaround.": "A) Defer to TODOS.md"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-17T00:54:10.229Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"assistantMessages": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "fc9b2f20-4446-4a46-af00-e497477f8d64",
|
||||
"text": "I'll start with the skill preamble.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T00:49:22.524Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "fc9b2f20-4446-4a46-af00-e497477f8d64",
|
||||
"text": "The skill requires a Read-back of the saved decision payload before dispatching the question.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T00:53:54.391Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "fc9b2f20-4446-4a46-af00-e497477f8d64",
|
||||
"text": "Read-back matches the payload. Dispatching D4 with the saved strings.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T00:53:58.783Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "fc9b2f20-4446-4a46-af00-e497477f8d64",
|
||||
"text": "Now the 0I temporal walk-through and scope dispositions, appended to the working plan.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T00:55:04.838Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "fc9b2f20-4446-4a46-af00-e497477f8d64",
|
||||
"text": "Step 0 complete. Now reading the review sections file as the skill mandates before the deep review.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T00:55:28.963Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"planReadyRequests": []
|
||||
},
|
||||
"publicTools": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "fc9b2f20-4446-4a46-af00-e497477f8d64",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T00:49:38.182Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01DkQbE5SvpbgcsRgejnqvxp",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "echo \"--- REMOTE ---\"; git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null || echo \"no remote\"; echo \"--- LOG ---\"; git log --oneline -30; echo \"--- STASH ---\"; git stash list; echo \"--- FILES ---\"; ls -la; echo \"--- TODO GREP ---\"; grep -r \"TODO\\|FIXME\\|HACK\\|XXX\" -l --exclude-dir=node_modules --exclude-dir=vendor --exclude-dir=.git . | head -30; echo \"--- RECENT ---\"; git log --since=30.days --name-only --format=\"\" | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head -20; echo \"--- PLAN ---\"; cat PLAN.md; echo \"--- TODOS ---\"; cat TODOS.md 2>/dev/null || echo \"no TODOS.md\"",
|
||||
"description": "Pre-review system audit of the repo"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf86KwuyjQ2Se9K4iLT8C",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf86KwTSAkn2GLKC8axoj"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "fc9b2f20-4446-4a46-af00-e497477f8d64",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T00:49:39.373Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01DkQbE5SvpbgcsRgejnqvxp",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "--- REMOTE ---\nno remote\n--- LOG ---\n89a3e83 Seed review plan\n--- STASH ---\n--- FILES ---\ntotal 8\ndrwx------ 3 vercel-sandbox vercel-sandbox 50 Sep 17 00:49 .\ndrwx------ 10 vercel-sandbox vercel-sandbox 245 Sep 17 00:49 ..\ndrwxr-xr-x 7 vercel-sandbox vercel-sandbox 150 Sep 17 00:49 .git\n-rw-r--r-- 1 vercel-sandbox vercel-sandbox 1156 Sep 17 00:49 CLAUDE.md\n-rw-r--r-- 1 vercel-sandbox vercel-sandbox 850 Sep 17 00:49 PLAN.md\n--- TODO GREP ---\n--- RECENT ---\n 1 PLAN.md\n 1 CLAUDE.md\n--- PLAN ---\n# Plan: Add saved project views\n\n## Review request\nReview this plan directly; skip optional /office-hours.\nAfter I select a review mode, briefly explain in your own words how you will\napply that mode to this plan before asking the next review question.\n\n## Goal\nTeam members repeatedly recreate filters on a project task list. Let each\nmember save a named combination of filters and sort order and reopen it later.\n\n## Approach\n- Add a saved_views table scoped to the project and member.\n- Provide authenticated create, list, update, and delete endpoints.\n- Add a view picker and a save action beside the existing task filters.\n- Keep existing task access rules when applying a saved view.\n\n## Validation\n- Test persistence, project access, and reopening a view after task changes.\n- Measure whether members reuse saved views during a two-week pilot.--- TODOS ---\nno TODOS.md",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "fc9b2f20-4446-4a46-af00-e497477f8d64",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T00:52:33.629Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01XCdNf3MHEEAq7tCXD1W8SA",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D3 \u2014 Which review mode for the saved-views plan?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-2n1ktg on main, PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\" (~9\u201311 files, estimate).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. Expansion means I pitch bigger versions and argue for them. Selective means I harden what you wrote and offer add-ons neutrally, one at a time, you pick. Hold means no scope changes, maximum rigor on failure paths and tests. Reduction means I look for what to cut.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Expansion on a small feature bloats it; Hold on a plan with a data-model gap (visibility scope) ships a table you may migrate in six months.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing system, under 15 files, with one or two adjacent additions worth a yes/no each.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how much I push on scope vs. how much I push on rigor within the scope you already wrote.",
|
||||
"header": "Review mode",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Hold the current scope, run the HOLD rigor checks, then offer each candidate add-on (shared visibility, URL filter state, default view) with S/M/L effort and risk; you accept, defer, or skip each.\n\u2705 Catches the data-model gap now without committing you to more UI\n\u2705 Every addition is an explicit opt-in; rejected items are recorded as out of scope\n\u274c More questions than HOLD; a few minutes longer"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
|
||||
"description": "Dream big: shared/team views, URL-addressable filters, default view per member, views as inputs to notifications. I recommend each expansion enthusiastically.\n\u2705 Produces the 12-month version of the feature in one plan\n\u2705 Best if you want a cathedral, not a feature\n\u274c Likely 2\u20133x the files; slower pilot; more to roll back"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
|
||||
"description": "Keep the four approach bullets exactly. Trace every error path, nil/empty case, double-click, stale-view case, tests and observability.\n\u2705 Fastest path to a hardened plan for the two-week pilot\n\u2705 No scope debates; only correctness and completeness\n\u274c Visibility-scope gap gets flagged but not fixed unless you reopen it"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
|
||||
"description": "Strip to the minimum: e.g. create + list + apply, no update/delete or no UI picker, ship the pilot faster.\n\u2705 Smallest diff; quickest signal on whether anyone uses saved views\n\u2705 Each cut is an explicit approval, nothing silently dropped\n\u274c Under 15 files already; cutting CRUD or the picker likely hurts the pilot signal"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf86Xbzjec5h39f54jwpk",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf86XbduwiiHdoomgxrm7"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "fc9b2f20-4446-4a46-af00-e497477f8d64",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T00:52:34.958Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01XCdNf3MHEEAq7tCXD1W8SA",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D3 \u2014 Which review mode for the saved-views plan?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-2n1ktg on main, PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\" (~9\u201311 files, estimate).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. Expansion means I pitch bigger versions and argue for them. Selective means I harden what you wrote and offer add-ons neutrally, one at a time, you pick. Hold means no scope changes, maximum rigor on failure paths and tests. Reduction means I look for what to cut.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Expansion on a small feature bloats it; Hold on a plan with a data-model gap (visibility scope) ships a table you may migrate in six months.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing system, under 15 files, with one or two adjacent additions worth a yes/no each.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how much I push on scope vs. how much I push on rigor within the scope you already wrote.\"=\"HOLD SCOPE\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "fc9b2f20-4446-4a46-af00-e497477f8d64",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T00:54:08.926Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EstbpxV7vdQGc5KLuBAF6M",
|
||||
"kind": "use",
|
||||
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D4 \u2014 R5: Keep the update endpoint (rename / overwrite a saved view) in this plan, or defer it?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-2n1ktg on main, PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\", HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan lists create, list, update, delete. Update is the only one the goal does not strictly need: during a two-week pilot a member can delete a view and save it again under a new name. Dropping it removes one endpoint, its authorization check, the rename control in the picker, and their tests. Keeping it means members can rename or \"save changes\" to a view in place, which is what every incumbent offers.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Defer and members hit a small annoyance (delete + re-save) and the pilot cannot tell \"edited my view\" from \"gave up on it\". Keep and you carry one more endpoint's error paths and tests; with CC that is minutes, not days.\nRecommendation: B) Keep in scope because update is cheap with CC (human: ~half day / CC: ~10 min), users expect rename, and the HOLD posture prefers full coverage of the scope you already wrote.\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=10/10.\nNet: one fewer endpoint in the pilot vs. a complete CRUD surface with no re-create workaround.",
|
||||
"header": "R5 update",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A) Defer to TODOS.md",
|
||||
"description": "Summary: Ship create/list/delete only; record update (rename/overwrite) in TODOS.md with the reason \"not needed to reopen a view; revisit after pilot\". Effort: S. Risk: low. Reuse: no new code. Verification coverage: none for update; existing tests for the other endpoints unchanged.\n\u2705 Smallest API surface for the two-week pilot; one fewer authorization path to get wrong\n\u2705 Delete + re-save covers rename during the pilot with no data loss\n\u274c Members cannot fix a typo or tweak a view in place; the pilot metric conflates \"edited\" with \"abandoned\""
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B) Keep in scope (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Summary: Keep PATCH/PUT update for name and filter/sort payload, owner-only, with rename and \"save changes\" controls in the picker. Effort: S. Risk: low. Reuse: same model validation and authorization policy as create/delete. Verification coverage: request tests (non-owner \u2192 404, stale id \u2192 404, name collision \u2192 422, empty payload \u2192 422) and model tests for validation.\n\u2705 Members rename or adjust a view in place; matches Asana/Linear/Jira behavior they already know\n\u2705 Full CRUD means the pilot's \"reuse\" metric reflects real use, not re-create churn\n\u274c One more endpoint whose error paths, authorization and tests must be traced in the review"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"messageId": "msg_011Cf86fkvjKLcRe8BmEHko2",
|
||||
"requestId": "req_011Cf86fkXB58W2QuSGbR8FZ"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "fc9b2f20-4446-4a46-af00-e497477f8d64",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-17T00:54:10.229Z",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EstbpxV7vdQGc5KLuBAF6M",
|
||||
"kind": "result",
|
||||
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D4 \u2014 R5: Keep the update endpoint (rename / overwrite a saved view) in this plan, or defer it?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-2n1ktg on main, PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\", HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan lists create, list, update, delete. Update is the only one the goal does not strictly need: during a two-week pilot a member can delete a view and save it again under a new name. Dropping it removes one endpoint, its authorization check, the rename control in the picker, and their tests. Keeping it means members can rename or \"save changes\" to a view in place, which is what every incumbent offers.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Defer and members hit a small annoyance (delete + re-save) and the pilot cannot tell \"edited my view\" from \"gave up on it\". Keep and you carry one more endpoint's error paths and tests; with CC that is minutes, not days.\nRecommendation: B) Keep in scope because update is cheap with CC (human: ~half day / CC: ~10 min), users expect rename, and the HOLD posture prefers full coverage of the scope you already wrote.\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=10/10.\nNet: one fewer endpoint in the pilot vs. a complete CRUD surface with no re-create workaround.\"=\"A) Defer to TODOS.md\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"source": {
|
||||
"path": "/tmp/g-vlxin2hi/gstack-paid-shard-sIo4dH/tmp/gstack-plan-count-2n1ktg/PLAN.md",
|
||||
"content": "# Plan: Add saved project views\n\n## Review request\nReview this plan directly; skip optional /office-hours.\nAfter I select a review mode, briefly explain in your own words how you will\napply that mode to this plan before asking the next review question.\n\n## Goal\nTeam members repeatedly recreate filters on a project task list. Let each\nmember save a named combination of filters and sort order and reopen it later.\n\n## Approach\n- Add a saved_views table scoped to the project and member.\n- Provide authenticated create, list, update, and delete endpoints.\n- Add a view picker and a save action beside the existing task filters.\n- Keep existing task access rules when applying a saved view.\n\n## Validation\n- Test persistence, project access, and reopening a view after task changes.\n- Measure whether members reuse saved views during a two-week pilot."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
+225
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+66
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"source": "8525fd4abad1e54de1aaaa9a5692202d4b13bd25",
|
||||
"artifact": ".context/sep15-ship-consolidation/remaining-paid-periodic-repairs/executions/8525fd4abad1e54de1aaaa9a5692202d4b13bd25/all/run/phases/periodic-independent/shards/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-mode-routing/pty-count/ship-all-8525fd4a-f2f6397b-728c-4530-9c5b-e5ccb679aff9/plan-ceo-review-mode-1789467209822-Dc878o",
|
||||
"targetMode": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
|
||||
"selectionStartedAt": 1789467366397,
|
||||
"native": {
|
||||
"status": "ready",
|
||||
"calls": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9047e993-a80a-4add-980d-7518ff40a8e2",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01P2JRsCTTnhnvC71eGrLvST",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"header": "Routing",
|
||||
"question": "D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: fixture repo on main; one-time gstack onboarding, unrelated to the plan itself.\nELI10: gstack works best when CLAUDE.md tells Claude which skill to reach for (\"bugs \u2192 /investigate\", \"scope \u2192 /plan-ceo-review\"). Without it you invoke skills by hand. This is a small appended section plus a commit.\nStakes if we pick wrong: none for this review; only affects how automatically skills get suggested later. Note: plan mode blocks file edits and commits right now, so if you pick A the append + commit happens after this review exits plan mode.\nRecommendation: A because it is a two-way door and costs one small commit.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: convenience later vs. one extra commit in a fixture repo.",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Skills get suggested automatically when a request matches (bugs, scope, ship, review). \u2705 One appended section, one commit, fully reversible by deleting it. \u274c Adds ~20 lines to CLAUDE.md in what is currently a small fixture repo."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "No thanks, manual invocation",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 CLAUDE.md stays exactly as seeded; nothing else changes in the repo. \u2705 You can re-enable later with gstack-config set routing_declined false. \u274c Skills only run when you type them; no proactive routing suggestions."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"header": "Review mode",
|
||||
"question": "D2 \u2014 Which review mode for the saved-views plan?\nProject/branch/task: main; reviewing PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\" (per-member named filter+sort presets on a project task list).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture. It does not approve any scope or approach change; every addition or cut still gets its own yes/no. This is an enhancement to an existing task list, estimated ~10\u201314 changed files (estimate; no code in this checkout), which under the skill's rules points to SELECTIVE EXPANSION: make the current scope bulletproof, then offer a short list of adjacent additions (shared views, URL-addressable filter state, default view, handling deleted filter targets) one at a time for you to take, defer, or skip.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too ambitious and a small feature turns into a views platform; too narrow and you ship a table whose schema can't grow into shared views without a migration.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because the core is clear and small, and the real leverage is in a few cheap adjacent decisions (schema shape, URL state) that are painful to retrofit.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: rigor on the core plus a neutral menu of expansions, versus dreaming big, holding the line, or cutting.",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Full rigor on the submitted scope (errors, edge cases, tests, observability) plus a neutral cherry-pick menu of adjacent additions. \u2705 Accepted items become scope; rejected ones are recorded as NOT in scope so nothing creeps back. \u274c More questions than HOLD SCOPE; each expansion is its own decision."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Dream-big pass: 10x vision, platonic ideal, delight scan, then opt-in per proposal. \u2705 Best if you suspect saved views should become a views platform (shared, default, subscriptions). \u274c Risks turning a two-week pilot feature into a multi-sprint initiative."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Maximum rigor on exactly the four bullets in the plan; no expansion menu. \u2705 Fastest path to an approved plan. \u274c Schema-shaping choices (owner/visibility column, URL state) only surface if I flag them as failure modes, not as offers."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Strip to the minimum that removes the pain (possibly bookmarkable filter URLs with no table). \u2705 Smallest diff, least to maintain. \u274c Probably loses the in-app picker the goal asks for; only fits if the file count or timeline is under real pressure."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": false,
|
||||
"failed": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"assistantMessages": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "9047e993-a80a-4add-980d-7518ff40a8e2",
|
||||
"text": "I'll start with the skill preamble.",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T10:13:30.167Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"screen": "\n\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n\u2190 \u2612 Routing \u2612 Review mode \u2714 Submit \u2192\n \nReview your answers\n\n \u2502 \u25cf D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\n \u2502 Project/branch/task: fixture repo on main; one-time gstack onboarding, unrelated to the plan itself.\n \u2502 ELI10: gstack works best when CLAUDE.md tells Claude which skill to reach for (\"bugs \u2192 /investigate\", \"scope \u2192\n \u2502 /plan-ceo-review\"). Without it you invoke skills by hand. This is a small appended section plus a commit.\n \u2502 Stakes if we pick wrong: none for this review; only affects how automatically skills get suggested later. Note:\n \u2502 plan mode blocks file edits and commits right now, so if you pick A the append + commit happens after this review\n \u2502 exits plan mode.\n \u2502 Recommendation: A because it is a two-way door and costs one small commit.\n \u2502 Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\n \u2502 Net: convenience later vs. one extra commit in a fixture repo.\n \u2192 Add routing rules (recommended)\n \u2502 \u25cf D2 \u2014 Which review mode for the saved-views plan?\n \u2502 Project/branch/task: main; reviewing PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\" (per-member named filter+sort presets on a\n \u2502 project task list).\n \u2502 ELI10: The mode sets my posture. It does not approve any scope or approach change; every addition or cut still gets\n \u2502 its own yes/no. This is an enhancement to an existing task list, estimated ~10\u201314 changed files (estimate; no code\n \u2502 in this checkout), which under the skill's rules points to SELECTIVE EXPANSION: make the current scope\n \u2502 bulletproof, then offer a short list of adjacent additions (shared views, URL-addressable filter state, default\n \u2502 view, handling deleted filter targets) one at a time for you to take, defer, or skip.\n \u2502 Stakes if we pick wrong: too ambitious and a small feature turns into a views platform; too narrow and you ship a\n \u2502 table whose schema can't grow into shared views without a migration.\n \u2502 Recommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because the core is clear and small, and the real leverage is in a few cheap\n \u2502 adjacent decisions (schema shape, URL state) that are painful to retrofit.\n \u2502 Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\n \u2502 Net: rigor on the core plus a neutral menu of expansions, versus dreaming big, holding the line, or cutting.\n \u2192 SCOPE EXPANSION\n \nReady to submit your answers?\n \n\u276f 1. Submit answers\n 2. Cancel\n \n\n",
|
||||
"observationSha256": "e6f620088cea8b00037e2c4eb764c406c6160319d291f8dd0049f868128d61ce"
|
||||
}
|
||||
+45
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+1476
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+60
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"source": "90f099817ac7e56cddafbd6fdac4c12dfd70f4a4",
|
||||
"cliVersion": "2.1.251",
|
||||
"originalOutcome": {
|
||||
"outcome": "error",
|
||||
"reviewCount": 0,
|
||||
"step0Count": 0,
|
||||
"error": "Invalid or duplicated completed native decision"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"provenance": {
|
||||
"case": "plan-ceo-finding-count:paired",
|
||||
"attempt": "plan-ceo-review-1789487819364-A9tWfs",
|
||||
"publicCaptureSha256": "77dab72421f48dbea2d459b9ed27eb64e9289b327f69f4e01dc68f8b8b439eee",
|
||||
"scope": "One complete acknowledged onboarding call only; no report existed or was required before setup."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"call": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "d85796d3-a8b8-463c-8cb7-a60d806874d6",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01G57fBV3scjjCCf9xcCDcss",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"header": "Routing",
|
||||
"question": "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-3VUDV3 on main, CEO review of the payment test-coverage plan.\nELI10: gstack skills work best when CLAUDE.md tells Claude which skill to reach for (bugs → /investigate, strategy → /plan-ceo-review, and so on). Without it you invoke each skill by hand. Note: plan mode is active, so if you pick A the append and commit happen after this review exits plan mode, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: mild either way; A means a small committed CLAUDE.md change, B means you type skill names yourself.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules are cheap and make later reviews one line to trigger.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: a one-time 15-line addition to CLAUDE.md versus manual skill invocation.",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Skills auto-route from plain requests, no memorizing slash names\n✅ Teammates get the same routing from the committed file\n❌ Adds a commit touching CLAUDE.md in a fixture repo you may not own"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "No thanks, manual",
|
||||
"description": "✅ CLAUDE.md stays exactly as checked in, zero repo churn\n✅ Re-enable any time with gstack-config set routing_declined false\n❌ Every future skill needs its explicit /name typed"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"header": "Learnings",
|
||||
"question": "D2 — Let gstack search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: same repo and review.\nELI10: gstack records small lessons per project (command quirks, pitfalls). Cross-project mode lets this review also read lessons from your other repos on this machine. Nothing leaves the machine. Good for solo devs; skip if you juggle multiple client codebases where mixing is a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A on a multi-client machine could surface one client's quirks in another's review; B on a solo machine just means slower compounding.\nRecommendation: A because this is a local-only read and there are zero learnings recorded yet, so risk is nil today.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: broader local recall versus strict per-project isolation.",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Past fixes from sibling repos surface as 'Prior learning applied' hints\n✅ Stays on this machine; a local config flag, flip back any time\n❌ Client-work isolation is weaker if you mix codebases on one box"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Project-scoped only",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Hard wall between projects; nothing crosses repos\n✅ Safest default for consulting or multi-tenant machines\n❌ Learnings compound slower since each repo starts cold"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-3VUDV3 on main, CEO review of the payment test-coverage plan.\nELI10: gstack skills work best when CLAUDE.md tells Claude which skill to reach for (bugs → /investigate, strategy → /plan-ceo-review, and so on). Without it you invoke each skill by hand. Note: plan mode is active, so if you pick A the append and commit happen after this review exits plan mode, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: mild either way; A means a small committed CLAUDE.md change, B means you type skill names yourself.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules are cheap and make later reviews one line to trigger.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: a one-time 15-line addition to CLAUDE.md versus manual skill invocation.": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
|
||||
"D2 — Let gstack search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: same repo and review.\nELI10: gstack records small lessons per project (command quirks, pitfalls). Cross-project mode lets this review also read lessons from your other repos on this machine. Nothing leaves the machine. Good for solo devs; skip if you juggle multiple client codebases where mixing is a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A on a multi-client machine could surface one client's quirks in another's review; B on a solo machine just means slower compounding.\nRecommendation: A because this is a local-only read and there are zero learnings recorded yet, so risk is nil today.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: broader local recall versus strict per-project isolation.": "Enable cross-project (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T15:58:13.529Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+144
@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sourceHead": "a1395656d43b41107b0fe6ec312dcd988e17ce22",
|
||||
"sourceFile": ".context/sep12-ship-final-focus/ceo-paired-outcome-public.json",
|
||||
"sourceSha256": "814e7265e4ba21d6e11e5fef0afa009cc84209484b083357ff83a39648a357cc",
|
||||
"nativeToolUseId": "toolu_015RffKiRM9NQWQLUVjaM4Ca",
|
||||
"callId": "c1",
|
||||
"plan": "Please review this plan thoroughly. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/gstack-paid-shard-OXUua3/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-lAWgvj/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nUse HOLD SCOPE mode for this review; examine the current plan with full rigor.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing — Test Coverage\n\n## Existing implementation\nRead README.md, src/payment.ts and contract.test.ts for the unchanged function\nand existing coverage. The runtime behavior stays fixed.\n\n## Proposed verification\nFor now, manually check `processPayment()` for:\n1. The happy path (Stripe succeeds on the first charge — confirm the correct receipt is returned).\n2. The error/timeout path (Stripe returns 502 or times out — confirm one retry after the 100 ms wait, then clean failure).\n\nNeither path has a dedicated unit test. This proposal relies on manual checks\nfor both; whether and what dedicated unit coverage to add is unresolved.\nThe success path is correctness; the failure path is graceful degradation.",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"header": "Learnings",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"description": "✅ Prior lessons from other repos on this machine feed future reviews here\n✅ Stays local; no data leaves the machine, reversible with /plan-tune\n❌ Not ideal if you juggle multiple client codebases that must stay separate",
|
||||
"label": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"description": "✅ Strict isolation between codebases you work on for different clients\n✅ Zero chance of an unrelated repo's lesson showing up in this review\n❌ Loses cross-repo pattern reuse, so gstack learns slower on this machine",
|
||||
"label": "Keep learnings project-scoped only"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"question": "D1 — Enable cross-project learnings?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired on main, CEO review of the payment test-coverage plan.\nELI10: gstack can remember lessons from your other repos on this machine and reuse them here. Nothing leaves the machine. It only matters if you work across several unrelated client codebases.\nStakes if we pick wrong: either miss useful past lessons, or mix context between codebases you keep separate.\nRecommendation: Enable because this is a solo, local setting and the review benefits from any prior payment-testing lessons.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience vs. strict per-project isolation."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"header": "Office hours",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"description": "✅ Goes straight to the full-rigor HOLD SCOPE review the input asked for\n✅ The problem statement is already concrete: two named paths, fixed runtime\n❌ No separate design doc recorded for this branch",
|
||||
"label": "Skip — proceed with standard review (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"description": "✅ Produces a premise challenge and alternatives doc before the review\n✅ Useful if you are still unsure what verification you actually want\n❌ Roughly 10 extra minutes for a change that touches one test file",
|
||||
"label": "Run /office-hours now"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"question": "D2 — Run /office-hours before this review?\nProject/branch/task: same repo; no design doc exists for this branch.\nELI10: /office-hours produces a structured problem statement and explored alternatives that make this review sharper. It takes about 10 minutes. Here the plan is a small test-coverage question over a 45-line function whose behavior is fixed, so the problem is already well defined.\nStakes if we pick wrong: 10 minutes spent on a design doc for a two-test change, or a review with slightly less framing input.\nRecommendation: Skip because the problem statement is already unambiguous and HOLD SCOPE was explicitly requested.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: sharper framing vs. getting straight to the rigor pass."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"header": "D3 Tests",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"description": "✅ Pins first-try success (1 call, 0 sleeps, receipt from frozen request) and the double-retryable failure (cap, cause identity, outcomeUnknown, exactly 2 calls, one 100 ms wait) across all four code pairs\n✅ Uses only patterns already in contract.test.ts; no helper layer, matches README convention\n❌ Adds roughly 35 lines to the suite, more cases than the plan's prose lists",
|
||||
"label": "A) Dedicated tests for both paths (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"description": "✅ Zero diff to the repository; fastest single pass to a checkmark\n✅ Keeps the plan exactly as the author wrote it\n❌ Nothing survives the session; the retry cap stays untested and CI cannot catch a regression",
|
||||
"label": "B) Manual checks only (plan as written)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"description": "✅ Closes the retry-cap gap, which is the higher-risk of the two\n✅ Smaller diff than A, one test.each block\n❌ Leaves the receipt contract unpinned even though it costs one more test(); splits verification across two instruments",
|
||||
"label": "C) Test the failure path only, manual happy path"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"question": "D3 — How should the two paths be verified? (ledger row D3, Section 6)\nProject/branch/task: same repo; the plan currently proposes manual checks and leaves unit coverage unresolved.\nELI10: processPayment is a pure function with a fake transport and fake clock injected, so checking it by hand is a throwaway script that is one test() wrapper away from a permanent guard. Today nothing in the suite exercises the two-attempt cap: if the retry limit were deleted, all 20 tests would still pass. That cap is what stops runaway duplicate charges on a persistent 502.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the retry-cap gap stays open and a regression toward infinite retries ships green.\nRecommendation: A because the tests reuse existing patterns exactly, cost minutes, and close the only unguarded contract.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=3/10, C=6/10\nEffort: A (human: ~1 hour / CC: ~3 min); B (human: ~30 min per repeat / CC: ~2 min); C (human: ~40 min / CC: ~2 min)\nNet: permanent regression guard in the repo's own convention vs. a one-time look that leaves the cap unguarded."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"selectedOptions": [
|
||||
1,
|
||||
1,
|
||||
1
|
||||
],
|
||||
"judgment": {
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"toolUseId": "c1",
|
||||
"questionIndex": 1,
|
||||
"kind": "workflow",
|
||||
"targetIds": [],
|
||||
"independentDecisions": 0,
|
||||
"evidence": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"field": "question",
|
||||
"optionIndex": null,
|
||||
"quote": "D1 — Enable cross-project learnings?"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"field": "optionLabel",
|
||||
"optionIndex": 1,
|
||||
"quote": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"reason": "Pure tool preference about whether prior learnings from other repos feed this review; it decides no current-plan remedy or target.",
|
||||
"optionActions": []
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"toolUseId": "c1",
|
||||
"questionIndex": 2,
|
||||
"kind": "workflow",
|
||||
"targetIds": [],
|
||||
"independentDecisions": 0,
|
||||
"evidence": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"field": "question",
|
||||
"optionIndex": null,
|
||||
"quote": "D2 — Run /office-hours before this review?"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"field": "optionLabel",
|
||||
"optionIndex": 1,
|
||||
"quote": "Skip — proceed with standard review (recommended)"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"reason": "Routing/process choice about running a framing step before the review; no substantive plan content or target decided.",
|
||||
"optionActions": []
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"toolUseId": "c1",
|
||||
"questionIndex": 3,
|
||||
"kind": "finding",
|
||||
"targetIds": [
|
||||
"receipt-test",
|
||||
"failure-test"
|
||||
],
|
||||
"independentDecisions": 2,
|
||||
"evidence": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"field": "question",
|
||||
"optionIndex": null,
|
||||
"quote": "D3 — How should the two paths be verified? (ledger row D3, Section 6)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"field": "optionLabel",
|
||||
"optionIndex": 1,
|
||||
"quote": "A) Dedicated tests for both paths (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"field": "optionDescription",
|
||||
"optionIndex": 1,
|
||||
"quote": "Pins first-try success (1 call, 0 sleeps, receipt from frozen request) and the double-retryable failure (cap, cause identity, outcomeUnknown, exactly 2 calls, one 100 ms wait) across all four code pairs"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"field": "optionLabel",
|
||||
"optionIndex": 3,
|
||||
"quote": "C) Test the failure path only, manual happy path"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"reason": "Substantive decision on whether to add dedicated unit coverage for the happy path (receipt) and the failure path (one retry then clean failure). Selected A commits to dedicated tests for both, explicitly deciding both targets' whole obligations. Option C shows the two path remedies vary independently, so they are two independent decisions bundled in one question.",
|
||||
"optionActions": []
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
+316
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+42
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+154
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+206
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+13
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"source": "fb10b21c2a01365d82c1ac44d6fd53f67b9db644",
|
||||
"expectedPath": "/tmp/g-vlxin2hi/gstack-paid-shard-gR2uza/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-wMJyQi/gstack-test-plan-ceo.md",
|
||||
"cwd": "/tmp/g-vlxin2hi/gstack-paid-shard-gR2uza/tmp/gstack-plan-count-MRwRV4",
|
||||
"viewport": " ting WebhookDispatcher\") is superseded by this answer. |\n 109 | R2 \u2014 Section 3 (security) | User lookup input handling. PLAN.md:21-26 (opaque TEXT, unsanitized, no format restr\n iction), 110-112 (raw SQL fragment). Coverage: none. | Raw SQL interpolation of `request.params.userId` | Paramete\n rized/bound lookup (no format validation, ids stay opaque TEXT) | approved | D5 answer = A. Scope: `userId` passed\n as a bind value (ORM `find_by(id:)` or placeholder), no cast, no allowlist, exact-match TEXT compare; unknown use\n r \u2192 retained lookup guard. Hostile-id test method pending R4. PLAN.md:110-112 (\"raw SQL fragment\") superseded. |\n 110 | R3 \u2014 Section 2 (errors) | Email-leg failure handling. PLAN.md:52-53, 62-63, 96-97 (mail client rethrows), 85-91 \n (idempotency key + durable retry record), 66-69 (runbook retries notification, never payment), 114-116 (no handlin\n g). | Mail exception escapes handler \u2192 ingress returns 500 after committed update | Rescue the named mail-client e\n xceptions after the update commits; log correlated outcome; return 200; recovery via existing notification retry p\n rocedure | approved | D4 answer = A. Scope: send after commit; rescue only MailTimeout + the client's delivery-err\n or class around the send; one structured correlated error log; no inline retry; return 200; DB exceptions still pr\n opagate. Test method pending R4. PLAN.md:114-116 (\"no error handling on the email leg\") superseded. |\n 111 -| R4 \u2014 Section 6 (tests) | Regression coverage. PLAN.md:76-80 (manual checklist is not regression coverage), 118-1\n -19 (none planned). | No automated tests | Unit tests for handler paths + integration test through the guards | unr\n -esolved (pending owner section) | \u2014 | \n 111 +| R4 \u2014 Section 6 (tests) | Regression coverage. PLAN.md:76-80 (manual checklist is not regression coverage), 118-1\n +19 (none planned). | No automated tests | Unit tests for handler paths + integration test through the guards | app\n +roved | D6 answer = A. Scope: unit tests for handler items 2\u20139 (bound lookup incl. hostile ids `'` `;` `--` Unicod\n +e 5KB, user-nil guard, zero/nil orders \u2192 one receipt with empty summary, idempotent update, recipient skip, single\n + send with PI key, MailTimeout/MailDeliveryError \u2192 200 + committed paid + one correlated log + no inline retry, DB\n + error \u2192 500); integration tests through WebhookDispatcher + retained guards (flag on \u2192 new handler identity in tr\n +ace; flag off \u2192 prior handler; unregistered type \u2192 acked without handler; duplicate delivery both lock orders with\n + controlled release; replay after crash between commit and marker; deletion before/after lock). Faked mail client/\n +provider, injected clock, no sleeps. Query-count assertion added only if R5 approved. PLAN.md:118-119 superseded. \n +| \n 112 | R5 \u2014 Section 7 (performance) | Order loading. PLAN.md:81-84 (one receipt with order summary; zero orders still o\n ne receipt), 94-95 (2s combined DB deadline), 121-123 (per-order loop). | Per-order query loop | Single batched or\n der query for the user's PaymentIntent | unresolved (pending owner section) | \u2014 |\n 113 \n 114 ## Review Sections\n\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\n Do you want to make this edit to gstack-test-plan-ceo.md?\n \u276f 1. Yes\n 2. Yes, and switch to accept edits (auto-approve file edits and common file commands) for this session; Yes, and\n always allow access to /tmp/g-vlxin2hi/gstack-paid-shard-gR2uza/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-wMJyQi for this session\n (shift+tab)\n 3. No\n\n Esc to cancel \u00b7 Tab to amend",
|
||||
"sourceLine": 108,
|
||||
"priorLine": "| R1 \u2014 Step 0D (architecture; carried to Section 1) | Handler placement. PLAN.md:10-11 (dispatcher remains available, bypass is a choice to review), 100-103 (name settled, placement open), 105-108 (plan bypasses). Coverage: no tests planned. | Plan bypasses `WebhookDispatcher`; new class wired directly to ingress | A) register `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` for `payment_intent.succeeded` inside `WebhookDispatcher`; B) bypass as written; C) investigate dispatcher wiring first | approved | D3 answer = A. Scope: new class registered through `WebhookDispatcher`; one routing path; no bypass. Wiring-test scope stays pending R4. Plan text PLAN.md:105-108 (\"bypasses the existing WebhookDispatcher\") is superseded by this answer. |",
|
||||
"originalReportBytes": 70729,
|
||||
"reportSha256": "489021a5103eb520cfacce330d66adda5aaec6dbdfa1a756cfea9225f2355e31",
|
||||
"viewportSha256": "3d7b5df8af2459d6293734075db88419293f21a26209f6707e0d5c9f677fdb9c",
|
||||
"pendingId": "47e96dd8-efc3-418b-9b4c-9c81d79620bb:toolu_01PyH7XjCnxbSh9W3ooQuQ6K",
|
||||
"completedId": "47e96dd8-efc3-418b-9b4c-9c81d79620bb:toolu_01Wgf2Pky8jZqs2Bvh2cjhUw"
|
||||
}
|
||||
+96
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+476
@@ -0,0 +1,476 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"source": "6aef8d74a7835a0986694d57d4fa5748ac960379",
|
||||
"attempt": "plan-ceo-review-1789599842147-Sa4U3k",
|
||||
"outcome": "timeout",
|
||||
"qualification": "Complete acknowledged native questions from the failed original fixture. Replay is free evidence only; counterfactual actor answers never rewrite actual outcomes.",
|
||||
"calls": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "2a0839ff-ba3c-4283-bbed-2ebec6967674",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_013ed9xS8t9nA6ypSddXaJkf",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D1.1 — E1: Include the Slack DM bot for incident alerts this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main, choosing 2-3 of 5 chat integrations for the quarter.\nELI10: Slack is where 40% of your customers asked to get incident alerts, and you already have a working Slack login flow to build on, so this is the cheapest way to make the most people happy. It takes one of your 2-3 slots (this would be slot 1 of 3). Saying no here means the single biggest customer request waits another quarter.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Defer or cut and the top Q2 survey request ships late while a Slack-native competitor becomes the default; include and you spend ~2 weeks on the safest bet on the board.\nRecommendation: A) Include because it is the highest-demand candidate at the second-lowest cost with the only stated code reuse.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: 40% of demand for ~2 weeks with reusable auth is the strongest ratio on the list; the only reason to say no is if you want all three slots for revenue bets.",
|
||||
"header": "E1 Slack",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Include (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Ship the Slack DM bot this quarter as one of the 2-3 integrations. Effort: M (human: ~2 weeks / CC+gstack: ~1-2 days plus Slack app review). Risk: low. Reuse: existing Slack auth flow. Verification: end-to-end alert delivery test against a Slack workspace plus auth-flow regression.\n✅ Covers ~40% of survey asks, the top customer request from Q2, in a single build\n✅ Existing Slack auth flow makes this the most trustworthy estimate of the five\n❌ Consumes one of only 2-3 slots, leaving at most two for revenue-weighted bets"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Defer",
|
||||
"description": "Move Slack to next quarter and record it in TODOS.md with the demand data. Effort: S (zero build work this quarter). Risk: high. Reuse: none this quarter. Verification: none; nothing ships.\n✅ Frees the slot for a revenue-first quarter (e.g. Teams plus Mattermost)\n✅ Keeps the option alive with its context captured for next quarter's planning\n❌ The single largest block of customer demand waits another 3 months for no cost reason"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Cut",
|
||||
"description": "Remove Slack from the roadmap entirely, no TODO. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: high. Reuse: none. Verification: none.\n✅ Ends the discussion permanently and frees planning attention for other platforms\n✅ Zero engineering cost this quarter or any future quarter\n❌ Walks away from 40% of asks and from the one integration with existing reuse"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Hold",
|
||||
"description": "Stop the chain here and discuss E1 before deciding anything else. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: n/a.\n✅ Lets you surface pipeline or ownership context I do not have before committing\n✅ No disposition is recorded; every later candidate stays fully open\n❌ Pauses the walkthrough; the other four candidates wait until you say continue"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D1.1 — E1: Include the Slack DM bot for incident alerts this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main, choosing 2-3 of 5 chat integrations for the quarter.\nELI10: Slack is where 40% of your customers asked to get incident alerts, and you already have a working Slack login flow to build on, so this is the cheapest way to make the most people happy. It takes one of your 2-3 slots (this would be slot 1 of 3). Saying no here means the single biggest customer request waits another quarter.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Defer or cut and the top Q2 survey request ships late while a Slack-native competitor becomes the default; include and you spend ~2 weeks on the safest bet on the board.\nRecommendation: A) Include because it is the highest-demand candidate at the second-lowest cost with the only stated code reuse.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: 40% of demand for ~2 weeks with reusable auth is the strongest ratio on the list; the only reason to say no is if you want all three slots for revenue bets.": "Include (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T23:07:12.020Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "2a0839ff-ba3c-4283-bbed-2ebec6967674",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_019XUvjmQM1xgYHHZi1XGspQ",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D1.2 — E2: Include the Discord guild bot for community channels this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main, choosing 2-3 of 5 chat integrations; E1 Slack already included (slot 1 of 3).\nELI10: Discord is asked for by about 15% of customers, and the community that wants it is vocal, but it is the most expensive greenfield build here (~3 weeks, no existing login flow to reuse). Including it would take slot 2 of 3 and leave room for only one more platform. Deferring keeps it alive for next quarter without spending this quarter's budget on the second-priciest option.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Include and you spend 3 weeks on 15% of asks while the enterprise revenue platforms wait; cut and you lose a loud community for good; defer and the community waits a quarter but nothing is lost.\nRecommendation: B) Defer because 3 weeks greenfield for 15% of asks is the worst cost-to-demand ratio among the mid-tier candidates, and loud is not the same as paying.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: You are trading a vocal community's patience for a quarter against 3 weeks that could fund Telegram plus most of Teams.",
|
||||
"header": "E2 Discord",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Include",
|
||||
"description": "Ship the Discord guild bot this quarter, including a new Discord OAuth/auth flow. Effort: L (human: ~3 weeks / CC+gstack: ~2-3 days plus Discord app verification). Risk: medium. Reuse: none; greenfield auth. Verification: guild install flow, channel post delivery, permission-scope tests.\n✅ Satisfies a loud community segment that will amplify the launch publicly\n✅ Covers ~15% of asks, the second-largest demand block after Slack\n❌ Most expensive greenfield build here; estimate has no reuse to anchor it and may slip"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Defer (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Move Discord to next quarter and record it in TODOS.md with the 15% demand and greenfield-auth note. Effort: S (zero build work this quarter). Risk: low. Reuse: none this quarter. Verification: none; nothing ships.\n✅ Preserves ~3 weeks for candidates with better revenue or cost ratios this quarter\n✅ Keeps the option and its context alive; nothing about the demand goes away\n❌ The loudest community segment hears \"not yet\" and may say so publicly"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Cut",
|
||||
"description": "Remove Discord from the roadmap entirely, no TODO. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: medium. Reuse: none. Verification: none.\n✅ Removes a recurring 3-week ask from every future planning cycle\n✅ Signals a deliberate enterprise-first positioning instead of a community one\n❌ Permanently forfeits 15% of asks and a community that markets for you"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Hold",
|
||||
"description": "Stop the chain here and discuss E2 before deciding anything else. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: n/a.\n✅ Lets you weigh community-growth value I cannot see from survey percentages alone\n✅ No disposition is recorded; E3, E4 and E5 stay fully open\n❌ Pauses the walkthrough until you say continue"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D1.2 — E2: Include the Discord guild bot for community channels this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main, choosing 2-3 of 5 chat integrations; E1 Slack already included (slot 1 of 3).\nELI10: Discord is asked for by about 15% of customers, and the community that wants it is vocal, but it is the most expensive greenfield build here (~3 weeks, no existing login flow to reuse). Including it would take slot 2 of 3 and leave room for only one more platform. Deferring keeps it alive for next quarter without spending this quarter's budget on the second-priciest option.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Include and you spend 3 weeks on 15% of asks while the enterprise revenue platforms wait; cut and you lose a loud community for good; defer and the community waits a quarter but nothing is lost.\nRecommendation: B) Defer because 3 weeks greenfield for 15% of asks is the worst cost-to-demand ratio among the mid-tier candidates, and loud is not the same as paying.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: You are trading a vocal community's patience for a quarter against 3 weeks that could fund Telegram plus most of Teams.": "Include"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T23:08:23.713Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "2a0839ff-ba3c-4283-bbed-2ebec6967674",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_0198w4wRMqzN1TWVoDsfTane",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D1.3 — E3: Include Microsoft Teams (webhook + bot framework) this quarter, using your last slot?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main; E1 Slack and E2 Discord already included (2 of 3 slots, ~5 weeks committed).\nELI10: Teams is what your enterprise customers asked for by name, and each of those customers is worth more than any other segment here, but only 5% of asks came from them and it is the biggest build on the list (~4 weeks). Because you already committed two slots, saying yes here fills the quarter (3 of 3, ~9 weeks total) and means Telegram and Mattermost both wait or go. Saying no keeps the last slot open for a cheaper pick.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Include and a 9-week quarter has no slack if Discord's greenfield estimate slips; defer and enterprise deals that need Teams stall another quarter, which is the most expensive kind of miss on this list.\nRecommendation: A) Include because highest revenue per user is the one signal that survey percentages undercount, and Teams is the candidate whose absence most likely blocks a sale; if your pipeline does not actually show Teams-gated deals, pick Defer and give the slot to Telegram.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: You are trading a full quarter with zero slack for the one platform that closes enterprise deals; this is the row where your pipeline data should outrank my estimate.",
|
||||
"header": "E3 Teams",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Include (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Ship the Teams webhook + bot-framework integration this quarter as the third and final slot. Effort: XL (human: ~4 weeks / CC+gstack: ~3-4 days plus Azure bot registration and admin-consent flow). Risk: medium. Reuse: none stated. Verification: webhook delivery, bot-framework message round-trip, tenant admin-consent and multi-tenant isolation tests.\n✅ Unblocks the customers with the highest revenue per user, who asked for it by name\n✅ Slack plus Teams is the industry-standard pair every incident tool ships first\n❌ Fills the quarter at ~9 weeks with no buffer, and forces Telegram and Mattermost to Defer or Cut"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Defer",
|
||||
"description": "Move Teams to next quarter and record it in TODOS.md with the enterprise-demand and revenue note. Effort: S (zero build work this quarter). Risk: medium. Reuse: none this quarter. Verification: none; nothing ships.\n✅ Keeps the last slot open for a 1-2 week candidate, leaving ~4-5 weeks of buffer\n✅ Enterprise demand is captured with context; nothing about it is lost\n❌ Enterprise deals that require Teams wait a quarter; that is the costliest miss here"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Cut",
|
||||
"description": "Remove Teams from the roadmap entirely, no TODO. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: high. Reuse: none. Verification: none.\n✅ Commits the product to a non-Microsoft-shop positioning and ends the 4-week debate\n✅ Zero engineering cost now or later\n❌ Permanently walks away from the highest-revenue-per-user segment on the list"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Hold",
|
||||
"description": "Stop the chain here and discuss E3 before deciding anything else. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: n/a.\n✅ Lets you check pipeline dollars behind the enterprise asks before spending the last slot\n✅ No disposition is recorded; E4 and E5 stay fully open\n❌ Pauses the walkthrough until you say continue"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D1.3 — E3: Include Microsoft Teams (webhook + bot framework) this quarter, using your last slot?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main; E1 Slack and E2 Discord already included (2 of 3 slots, ~5 weeks committed).\nELI10: Teams is what your enterprise customers asked for by name, and each of those customers is worth more than any other segment here, but only 5% of asks came from them and it is the biggest build on the list (~4 weeks). Because you already committed two slots, saying yes here fills the quarter (3 of 3, ~9 weeks total) and means Telegram and Mattermost both wait or go. Saying no keeps the last slot open for a cheaper pick.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Include and a 9-week quarter has no slack if Discord's greenfield estimate slips; defer and enterprise deals that need Teams stall another quarter, which is the most expensive kind of miss on this list.\nRecommendation: A) Include because highest revenue per user is the one signal that survey percentages undercount, and Teams is the candidate whose absence most likely blocks a sale; if your pipeline does not actually show Teams-gated deals, pick Defer and give the slot to Telegram.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: You are trading a full quarter with zero slack for the one platform that closes enterprise deals; this is the row where your pipeline data should outrank my estimate.": "Include (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T23:09:55.017Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "2a0839ff-ba3c-4283-bbed-2ebec6967674",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01P4AGNPerJpYxU9Hrxrzc8f",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D1.4 — E4: Telegram bot API integration: defer to next quarter, or force it in over the cap?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main; E1 Slack, E2 Discord, E3 Teams already included (3 of 3 slots, ~9 weeks committed).\nELI10: Telegram is the cheapest build on the list (~1 week, simplest API) and 8% of asks want it, mostly international users, but you have already filled all three slots. Including it now means four integrations, which breaks the 2-3 limit you set, so I would have to ask you to pull one of Slack, Discord or Teams back out at the final check. Deferring is the natural home for a 1-week cheap win: it is the first thing to ship next quarter, or the thing to slot in if any of the three current builds finishes early.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Include and you either break your own capacity limit or reopen a decision you just made; cut and you throw away the cheapest 8% of demand on the board for no reason; defer and international users wait a quarter for a 1-week feature.\nRecommendation: B) Defer because the cap is full, and a 1-week build is the ideal \"first in line next quarter or slot-in on early finish\" item; cutting it would discard the best cost-to-demand ratio here.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: You are trading a quarter of delay on an 8%, 1-week feature against reopening a slot decision you already made.",
|
||||
"header": "E4 Telegram",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Include (over cap)",
|
||||
"description": "Ship the Telegram bot this quarter as a fourth integration, breaching the stated 2-3 cap; D1.final will require you to revisit E1, E2 or E3 to restore the cap. Effort: S (human: ~1 week / CC+gstack: ~0.5-1 day). Risk: high (capacity, not technical). Reuse: none stated. Verification: bot token setup, message delivery, webhook vs long-poll mode test.\n✅ Cheapest build on the list picks up 8% of asks for about one week of work\n✅ Simplest API surface means the lowest chance of estimate slip of any candidate\n❌ Breaks your own 2-3 cap: total becomes 4 integrations, ~10 weeks, and forces a revisit of a prior Include"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Defer (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Move Telegram to next quarter and record it in TODOS.md as \"first in line, or slot in if a current build finishes early\". Effort: S (zero build work this quarter). Risk: low. Reuse: none this quarter. Verification: none; nothing ships.\n✅ Respects the cap you set while keeping the cheapest win queued at the front of next quarter\n✅ Natural slot-in candidate if Slack or Discord finishes ahead of estimate\n❌ International users asking for Telegram wait a quarter for a 1-week feature"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Cut",
|
||||
"description": "Remove Telegram from the roadmap entirely, no TODO. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: medium. Reuse: none. Verification: none.\n✅ Removes a low-strategic-value platform from every future planning debate\n✅ Zero engineering cost now or later\n❌ Discards the best cost-to-demand ratio on the list and 8% of asks permanently"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Hold",
|
||||
"description": "Stop the chain here and discuss E4 before deciding anything else. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: n/a.\n✅ Lets you reconsider the cap itself or a prior slot before deciding Telegram\n✅ No disposition is recorded; E5 stays fully open\n❌ Pauses the walkthrough until you say continue"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D1.4 — E4: Telegram bot API integration: defer to next quarter, or force it in over the cap?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main; E1 Slack, E2 Discord, E3 Teams already included (3 of 3 slots, ~9 weeks committed).\nELI10: Telegram is the cheapest build on the list (~1 week, simplest API) and 8% of asks want it, mostly international users, but you have already filled all three slots. Including it now means four integrations, which breaks the 2-3 limit you set, so I would have to ask you to pull one of Slack, Discord or Teams back out at the final check. Deferring is the natural home for a 1-week cheap win: it is the first thing to ship next quarter, or the thing to slot in if any of the three current builds finishes early.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Include and you either break your own capacity limit or reopen a decision you just made; cut and you throw away the cheapest 8% of demand on the board for no reason; defer and international users wait a quarter for a 1-week feature.\nRecommendation: B) Defer because the cap is full, and a 1-week build is the ideal \"first in line next quarter or slot-in on early finish\" item; cutting it would discard the best cost-to-demand ratio here.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: You are trading a quarter of delay on an 8%, 1-week feature against reopening a slot decision you already made.": "Include (over cap)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T23:11:16.325Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "2a0839ff-ba3c-4283-bbed-2ebec6967674",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01742VYEXqsqyRk1pDMxHoFc",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D1.5 — E5: Mattermost REST plugin: defer, cut, or include as a fifth integration?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main; E1 Slack, E2 Discord, E3 Teams, E4 Telegram all included (4 integrations, ~10 weeks, already over the 2-3 cap).\nELI10: Mattermost is for self-hosted enterprise customers. Only 3% of asks, but every one of them is a high-ARR account, and because they are self-hosted they are locked in, so they are unlikely to churn while they wait. It costs ~2 weeks. You are already one integration over your own limit, so including this too would mean five platforms in a quarter you sized for two or three. Deferring keeps the high-ARR accounts' ask on the books for next quarter; cutting throws away a segment that pays the most per seat.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Include and the quarter becomes ~12 weeks of build with five launches to support; cut and you permanently drop your highest-ARR-per-account segment for a 2-week saving; defer and locked-in accounts wait a quarter, which they can afford.\nRecommendation: B) Defer because locked-in means low churn risk, so waiting costs little, while the set is already over cap; cutting a high-ARR segment to save 2 weeks is the wrong trade.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: You are trading a quarter of patience from accounts that are not going anywhere against making an over-cap quarter even more crowded.",
|
||||
"header": "E5 Mattermost",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Include (over cap)",
|
||||
"description": "Ship the Mattermost REST plugin this quarter as a fifth integration; D1.final will require revisiting two prior Includes to restore the 2-3 cap. Effort: M (human: ~2 weeks / CC+gstack: ~1-2 days plus self-hosted install testing). Risk: high (capacity, not technical). Reuse: none stated. Verification: plugin install on a self-hosted Mattermost instance, REST delivery, version-compat matrix.\n✅ Every requester is a high-ARR account; revenue per build-week is strong at 2 weeks\n✅ Self-hosted enterprise buyers often overlap with the Teams segment you already chose\n❌ Pushes the quarter to 5 integrations and ~12 weeks against a cap of 2-3; two prior Includes must be reopened"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Defer (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Move Mattermost to next quarter and record it in TODOS.md with the high-ARR, locked-in context. Effort: S (zero build work this quarter). Risk: low. Reuse: none this quarter. Verification: none; nothing ships.\n✅ Locked-in self-hosted accounts have low churn risk, so a one-quarter wait costs little\n✅ Keeps the highest-ARR-per-account ask on the roadmap with its context intact\n❌ If a renewal is gated on Mattermost this quarter, sales has to hold the line for 3 months"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Cut",
|
||||
"description": "Remove Mattermost from the roadmap entirely, no TODO. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: high. Reuse: none. Verification: none.\n✅ Ends a niche 3% ask permanently and simplifies the platform story to hosted-only\n✅ Zero engineering cost now or later\n❌ Permanently forfeits the segment with the highest ARR per account to save 2 weeks"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Hold",
|
||||
"description": "Stop the chain here and discuss E5 before deciding anything else. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: n/a.\n✅ Lets you check whether any high-ARR renewal is actually gated on Mattermost\n✅ No disposition is recorded; the cap conflict stays open for discussion\n❌ Pauses the walkthrough before the final set can be validated"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D1.5 — E5: Mattermost REST plugin: defer, cut, or include as a fifth integration?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main; E1 Slack, E2 Discord, E3 Teams, E4 Telegram all included (4 integrations, ~10 weeks, already over the 2-3 cap).\nELI10: Mattermost is for self-hosted enterprise customers. Only 3% of asks, but every one of them is a high-ARR account, and because they are self-hosted they are locked in, so they are unlikely to churn while they wait. It costs ~2 weeks. You are already one integration over your own limit, so including this too would mean five platforms in a quarter you sized for two or three. Deferring keeps the high-ARR accounts' ask on the books for next quarter; cutting throws away a segment that pays the most per seat.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Include and the quarter becomes ~12 weeks of build with five launches to support; cut and you permanently drop your highest-ARR-per-account segment for a 2-week saving; defer and locked-in accounts wait a quarter, which they can afford.\nRecommendation: B) Defer because locked-in means low churn risk, so waiting costs little, while the set is already over cap; cutting a high-ARR segment to save 2 weeks is the wrong trade.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: You are trading a quarter of patience from accounts that are not going anywhere against making an over-cap quarter even more crowded.": "Include (over cap)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T23:12:36.156Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "2a0839ff-ba3c-4283-bbed-2ebec6967674",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Bp3JCRtJUSBV8XRVfKV3bD",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D1.final — CAP: The set is 5 integrations (~12 weeks) against your stated limit of 2-3. Raise the cap, or revisit a candidate?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main; all five candidates answered Include (E4 and E5 explicitly over cap).\nELI10: You told me the team can do at most two or three integrations this quarter, then chose all five. Either the limit was too conservative and you know something about bandwidth I do not (a new hire, parallel teams, or you are counting on AI-assisted builds compressing 12 human-weeks to a couple of weeks), or two of these need to move to next quarter. I cannot pick which for you; this question routes to the fix. If you pick a candidate to revisit, I will re-ask just that one with the normal Include / Defer / Cut / Hold menu, and the other four stay exactly as you answered.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Raise the cap without real bandwidth and you ship five half-finished integrations or slip Teams into next quarter anyway; revisit the wrong candidate and you defer the one that was actually gating revenue.\nRecommendation: B) Revisit E2 Discord because it is the largest saving (~3 weeks, greenfield auth) for the demand it serves, and getting back under the cap needs two revisits, so start with the biggest; E5 is my second pick. Choose A only if you can name the extra bandwidth.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: You are choosing between believing your original capacity estimate and believing your five Include answers; one of them has to give.",
|
||||
"header": "Cap conflict",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Raise cap to 5",
|
||||
"description": "Keep all five Includes and record the cap as 5 integrations (~12 human-weeks / CC+gstack: ~8-12 days plus five platform reviews and five launches to support). Effort: S for this decision; XL for the quarter. Risk: high. Reuse: existing Slack auth only. Verification: you state the bandwidth evidence (headcount, parallel teams, or AI-assisted estimate) and I record it beside the CAP row.\n✅ Honors every disposition you just made; no candidate is reopened or delayed\n✅ Legitimate if bandwidth genuinely exists; the 2-3 limit was your estimate, not a law\n❌ Contradicts PLAN.md line 6 with no evidence yet; five launches in one quarter with zero buffer"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Revisit E2 Discord (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Reopen only the Discord decision at D1.revise-2 with the full Include / Defer / Cut / Hold menu. Effort: S (one more question). Risk: low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: set is revalidated against the cap after the answer; a second revisit will still be needed to reach 3.\n✅ Largest single saving on the board (~3 weeks) if you choose Defer on the re-ask\n✅ E1, E3, E4, E5 stay exactly as answered; nothing else is touched\n❌ Reopens a choice you already made once, and one more revisit is still needed after it"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Revisit E5 Mattermost",
|
||||
"description": "Reopen only the Mattermost decision at D1.revise-5 with the full Include / Defer / Cut / Hold menu. Effort: S (one more question). Risk: low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: set is revalidated against the cap after the answer; a second revisit will still be needed to reach 3.\n✅ Locked-in self-hosted accounts have the lowest churn cost of waiting a quarter\n✅ E1, E2, E3, E4 stay exactly as answered; nothing else is touched\n❌ Saves only ~2 weeks, and gives up the highest-ARR-per-account segment for this quarter"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Hold",
|
||||
"description": "Stop here and discuss; you may also name a different candidate (E1, E3 or E4) to revisit. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: n/a.\n✅ Lets you check real bandwidth or pipeline data before changing any answer\n✅ All five answers and the cap conflict stay recorded as they are\n❌ The plan cannot be confirmed as ready while the set is over cap"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D1.final — CAP: The set is 5 integrations (~12 weeks) against your stated limit of 2-3. Raise the cap, or revisit a candidate?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main; all five candidates answered Include (E4 and E5 explicitly over cap).\nELI10: You told me the team can do at most two or three integrations this quarter, then chose all five. Either the limit was too conservative and you know something about bandwidth I do not (a new hire, parallel teams, or you are counting on AI-assisted builds compressing 12 human-weeks to a couple of weeks), or two of these need to move to next quarter. I cannot pick which for you; this question routes to the fix. If you pick a candidate to revisit, I will re-ask just that one with the normal Include / Defer / Cut / Hold menu, and the other four stay exactly as you answered.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Raise the cap without real bandwidth and you ship five half-finished integrations or slip Teams into next quarter anyway; revisit the wrong candidate and you defer the one that was actually gating revenue.\nRecommendation: B) Revisit E2 Discord because it is the largest saving (~3 weeks, greenfield auth) for the demand it serves, and getting back under the cap needs two revisits, so start with the biggest; E5 is my second pick. Choose A only if you can name the extra bandwidth.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: You are choosing between believing your original capacity estimate and believing your five Include answers; one of them has to give.": "Raise cap to 5"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T23:14:24.198Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "2a0839ff-ba3c-4283-bbed-2ebec6967674",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01GUqvVxCx1Nr7FtnHtj5unM",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D2 — MODE: Which review posture for the rest of this review, now that scope is fixed at all five integrations?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main; scope decisions complete (E1-E5 Include, cap 5, ~12 weeks).\nELI10: You have made every scope call, so the rest of this review is about how hard I push on what you chose. Expansion modes propose even more (a shared notification adapter, extra features per platform) and ask about each. Hold scope keeps exactly your five and goes deep on what will break, in what order to build, and what has to be true for 12 weeks of work to land in one quarter. Reduction would re-ask you to defer items you just chose to keep. The skill's default heuristic says \"added capability to an existing system\" maps to Selective Expansion; I am recommending Hold Scope instead because you already settled scope and the real risk now is feasibility, not ambition.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Pick an expansion mode and you get more proposals on top of an already-full quarter; pick reduction and you relitigate five answers; pick hold and you get sequencing and failure-path rigor but no new ideas.\nRecommendation: C) HOLD SCOPE because scope is fully decided, the quarter is at capacity, and the highest-value remaining question is feasibility: build order, slip risk, and what \"done\" means for each of five launches.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: You are choosing between more ideas and more rigor on the ideas you already committed to; with five platforms in one quarter, rigor is the scarce resource.",
|
||||
"header": "Review mode",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
|
||||
"description": "Dream big: propose a platonic-ideal version (e.g. shared outbound adapter, per-platform rich actions) and ask opt-in for each. Effort: L for the review (many questions, spec-review subagent loop, CEO plan file). Risk: medium. Reuse: n/a. Verification: spec-review subagent grades the amended plan.\n✅ Surfaces the 12-month adapter abstraction as an explicit proposal instead of a note\n✅ Produces a persisted CEO plan document with a scored spec review\n❌ Adds proposals to a quarter that is already at ~12 weeks with zero buffer"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION",
|
||||
"description": "Hold your five, then neutrally offer a short list of cherry-pick expansions with effort and risk; you accept or skip each. Effort: M for the review (several opt-in questions plus the 0H spec-review loop). Risk: low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: spec-review subagent grades the amended plan.\n✅ Matches the skill's default heuristic for adding capability to an existing system\n✅ You see the adapter and delight-scan ideas but nothing lands without your yes\n❌ Still runs the heavier 0H machinery for a plan whose scope you have already fixed"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "HOLD SCOPE (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Keep exactly E1-E5; spend the review on build sequencing, per-platform failure paths, test and rollout plans, and the 12-week feasibility question. Effort: S for the review (0G complexity check, 0I temporal interrogation, then Sections 1-11). Risk: low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: review sections cover error map, failure modes and test plan per integration.\n✅ Puts all remaining effort on the real risk: five launches, ~12 weeks, no stated bandwidth evidence\n✅ No further scope questions; only feasibility blockers get asked\n❌ No new product ideas surface; the shared-adapter idea stays a note, not a proposal"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
|
||||
"description": "Propose the minimum viable core and re-ask defer/keep for each of the five. Effort: S per question, five questions. Risk: low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: n/a.\n✅ Gives you a structured second look at the cap you just raised\n✅ Cheapest route through the rest of Step 0 (0G only)\n❌ Re-asks five decisions you made minutes ago with no new information"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D2 — MODE: Which review posture for the rest of this review, now that scope is fixed at all five integrations?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main; scope decisions complete (E1-E5 Include, cap 5, ~12 weeks).\nELI10: You have made every scope call, so the rest of this review is about how hard I push on what you chose. Expansion modes propose even more (a shared notification adapter, extra features per platform) and ask about each. Hold scope keeps exactly your five and goes deep on what will break, in what order to build, and what has to be true for 12 weeks of work to land in one quarter. Reduction would re-ask you to defer items you just chose to keep. The skill's default heuristic says \"added capability to an existing system\" maps to Selective Expansion; I am recommending Hold Scope instead because you already settled scope and the real risk now is feasibility, not ambition.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Pick an expansion mode and you get more proposals on top of an already-full quarter; pick reduction and you relitigate five answers; pick hold and you get sequencing and failure-path rigor but no new ideas.\nRecommendation: C) HOLD SCOPE because scope is fully decided, the quarter is at capacity, and the highest-value remaining question is feasibility: build order, slip risk, and what \"done\" means for each of five launches.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: You are choosing between more ideas and more rigor on the ideas you already committed to; with five platforms in one quarter, rigor is the scarce resource.": "SCOPE EXPANSION"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T23:16:17.861Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "2a0839ff-ba3c-4283-bbed-2ebec6967674",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01SDaRm5yZ6b2ANBQRXtPTUB",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D3.1 — X1: Build one shared notification core first, with the five platforms as thin drivers on it?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main; SCOPE EXPANSION on a fixed floor of E1-E5 (cap 5, ~12 weeks).\nELI10: Right now the plan is five separate bots, each with its own retry logic, its own formatting, its own error handling, its own metrics. That is the same code written five times, and every bug gets fixed five times. A shared core means routing, retries, dead-letter handling and metrics live in one place and each platform is a thin adapter that only knows how to talk to its API. It costs about a week and a half up front and pays for itself before the third driver ships, because drivers two through five get much smaller. It is also the 12-month ideal from 0C: a sixth platform next year becomes days, not weeks.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip it and you ship five copies of the same plumbing this quarter and spend next quarter unpicking them; add it and the first driver (Slack) lands about a week later than it would alone.\nRecommendation: A) Add because you are building five integrations in one quarter, which is exactly the moment the shared abstraction is knowable and cheapest; DRY is not optional at five copies.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: You are trading a ~1-week delay on the first launch for four smaller builds, one place to fix bugs, and a platform you can extend next year.",
|
||||
"header": "X1 Core",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Add (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Build the notification core before or alongside E1 Slack; E2-E5 are implemented as drivers against its interface. Effort: M (human: ~1.5 weeks / CC+gstack: ~1 day). Risk: low. Reuse: existing Slack auth stays as-is; core wraps delivery only. Verification: core unit tests for routing, retry, dead-letter and metrics; contract test suite every driver must pass; Slack driver as the first proof.\n✅ Retry, dead-letter, formatting hooks and metrics are written once and tested once for all five platforms\n✅ Each later driver shrinks to API glue, pulling the ~12-week total down rather than up\n✅ Directly builds the 12-month ideal from 0C instead of leaving it as a note\n❌ Slack ships roughly a week later than it would as a standalone build"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Defer to TODOS.md",
|
||||
"description": "Ship the five as independent implementations this quarter; record the core as a next-quarter refactor with the duplication evidence. Effort: S now (zero work). Risk: medium. Reuse: none. Verification: none this quarter.\n✅ Slack lands as early as possible with no new abstraction in its path\n✅ Refactor next quarter happens with five real implementations to generalize from\n❌ Five copies of retry, error handling and metrics ship and drift before the refactor"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Skip",
|
||||
"description": "Never build a shared core; each platform owns its full stack permanently. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: high. Reuse: none. Verification: none.\n✅ Zero coordination cost between the five builds; teams work fully independently\n✅ No abstraction risk of designing the core wrong before all five APIs are understood\n❌ Permanent 5x duplication; every cross-platform bug and feature costs five times"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Hold",
|
||||
"description": "Stop the expansion chain and discuss X1 before any other proposal. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: n/a.\n✅ Lets you weigh team structure (one team or five owners) before committing to shared code\n✅ No proposal is recorded; X2-X5 stay fully open\n❌ Pauses the expansion walkthrough until you say continue"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D3.1 — X1: Build one shared notification core first, with the five platforms as thin drivers on it?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main; SCOPE EXPANSION on a fixed floor of E1-E5 (cap 5, ~12 weeks).\nELI10: Right now the plan is five separate bots, each with its own retry logic, its own formatting, its own error handling, its own metrics. That is the same code written five times, and every bug gets fixed five times. A shared core means routing, retries, dead-letter handling and metrics live in one place and each platform is a thin adapter that only knows how to talk to its API. It costs about a week and a half up front and pays for itself before the third driver ships, because drivers two through five get much smaller. It is also the 12-month ideal from 0C: a sixth platform next year becomes days, not weeks.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip it and you ship five copies of the same plumbing this quarter and spend next quarter unpicking them; add it and the first driver (Slack) lands about a week later than it would alone.\nRecommendation: A) Add because you are building five integrations in one quarter, which is exactly the moment the shared abstraction is knowable and cheapest; DRY is not optional at five copies.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: You are trading a ~1-week delay on the first launch for four smaller builds, one place to fix bugs, and a platform you can extend next year.": "Add (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T23:18:36.294Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "2a0839ff-ba3c-4283-bbed-2ebec6967674",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01PzWSCqVjb3Wj6oas622BBC",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D3.2 — X2: Make every alert observable: delivery metrics, dead-letter queue, alert-on-failure, test-alert button, launch dashboard?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main; SCOPE EXPANSION; X1 shared core approved, E1-E5 fixed.\nELI10: An incident alert that silently fails to deliver is worse than no integration, because the team believes someone was paged. This proposal makes the core count every send, park failures in a dead-letter queue you can inspect and replay, page your own on-call when deliveries fail, and give admins a \"send test alert\" button so they see it work before a real incident. It also ships the dashboard and runbook as launch scope, not follow-up. Because the core (X1) is approved, this is written once and every platform gets it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip and the first time Teams silently rejects a webhook you find out from a customer during an outage; add and you spend about a week making failure impossible to miss.\nRecommendation: A) Add because zero silent failures is the first rule of an alerting product and, with X1 in place, this costs one implementation, not five.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: You are trading ~1 week of core work for never having to ask \"did the page actually go out?\"",
|
||||
"header": "X2 Observe",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Add (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Build metrics, dead-letter queue, alert-on-failure, test-alert button, dashboard and runbook into the X1 core so all five drivers inherit them. Effort: M (human: ~1 week / CC+gstack: ~0.5 day). Risk: low. Reuse: X1 core; existing metrics/logging stack. Verification: forced-failure tests per driver land in the dead-letter queue and fire the failure alert; test-alert button covered end to end.\n✅ Every delivery failure on every platform reaches the team, the dashboard and the admin\n✅ Dashboard and runbook ship with the integrations, so launch day has no observability gap\n✅ Written once in the core; drivers only report their API result\n❌ Adds ~1 week of core work before the first driver is considered launch-ready"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Defer to TODOS.md",
|
||||
"description": "Ship drivers with basic logging only; record the observability stack as next-quarter work. Effort: S now (zero work). Risk: high. Reuse: none. Verification: none this quarter.\n✅ First driver reaches customers about a week sooner\n✅ Observability is designed with real failure data from five live platforms\n❌ Five platforms go live with no way to know a page was dropped; violates Prime Directive 1"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Skip",
|
||||
"description": "Never build delivery observability beyond logs. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: high. Reuse: none. Verification: none.\n✅ Smallest possible core; no dashboard or runbook to maintain\n✅ Zero extra work now or later\n❌ Silent delivery failures are permanent product behavior for an alerting feature"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Hold",
|
||||
"description": "Stop the expansion chain and discuss X2 before any other proposal. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: n/a.\n✅ Lets you check what metrics and alerting infrastructure already exists before scoping\n✅ No proposal is recorded; X3-X5 stay fully open\n❌ Pauses the expansion walkthrough until you say continue"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D3.2 — X2: Make every alert observable: delivery metrics, dead-letter queue, alert-on-failure, test-alert button, launch dashboard?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main; SCOPE EXPANSION; X1 shared core approved, E1-E5 fixed.\nELI10: An incident alert that silently fails to deliver is worse than no integration, because the team believes someone was paged. This proposal makes the core count every send, park failures in a dead-letter queue you can inspect and replay, page your own on-call when deliveries fail, and give admins a \"send test alert\" button so they see it work before a real incident. It also ships the dashboard and runbook as launch scope, not follow-up. Because the core (X1) is approved, this is written once and every platform gets it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip and the first time Teams silently rejects a webhook you find out from a customer during an outage; add and you spend about a week making failure impossible to miss.\nRecommendation: A) Add because zero silent failures is the first rule of an alerting product and, with X1 in place, this costs one implementation, not five.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: You are trading ~1 week of core work for never having to ask \"did the page actually go out?\"": "Add (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T23:19:58.379Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "2a0839ff-ba3c-4283-bbed-2ebec6967674",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BZ4kG8djVRyqUpx6UCwf5p",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D3.3 — X3: Let on-call engineers Ack, Escalate or Snooze an incident directly from the chat message on all five platforms?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main; SCOPE EXPANSION; X1 core and X2 observability approved, E1-E5 fixed.\nELI10: One-way alerts tell someone there is a fire. Two-way actions let them say \"I've got it\" or \"wake up the next person\" without leaving the chat window, which is where they already are at 3am. Every one of your five platforms supports message buttons or inline keyboards, so this is one inbound endpoint in the core (verify the signature, apply the action once, log who did it) plus a small formatter per driver. This is the feature that turns \"we post to Slack\" into \"we run incidents from Slack\", and it is what the Slack-native incident tools in the landscape check win on.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip and your integrations look identical to a webhook anyone could wire up in an afternoon; add and you own the inbound security surface (signed callbacks, replay protection) that must be right on day one.\nRecommendation: A) Add because it is the single largest jump in user value on the board and the core already owns the plumbing it needs; ship it behind a feature flag per platform so any driver can launch one-way first if its callback verification slips.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: You are trading ~2 weeks and a real security surface for the feature that makes the chat message the incident console.",
|
||||
"header": "X3 Actions",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Add (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Inbound action endpoint in the core (signature verification per platform, idempotency, audit log) plus interactive-message formatting in each driver; feature-flagged per platform. Effort: L (human: ~2 weeks across platforms / CC+gstack: ~2 days). Risk: medium. Reuse: X1 core, X2 metrics for action success/failure. Verification: signed-callback tests per platform (valid, tampered, replayed), double-click idempotency, stale-incident action path, end-to-end Ack on each platform.\n✅ On-call engineers resolve or escalate from the message they already received, on every platform\n✅ One inbound endpoint and one audit trail; drivers only translate button payloads\n✅ Per-platform feature flag lets any driver ship one-way first without blocking the others\n❌ Adds a public callback surface that needs signature verification and replay protection done right"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Defer to TODOS.md",
|
||||
"description": "Ship one-way alerts this quarter; record two-way actions with the per-platform API notes for next quarter. Effort: S now (zero work). Risk: low. Reuse: none. Verification: none this quarter.\n✅ Removes the inbound security surface from this quarter entirely\n✅ Two-way lands next quarter on five proven drivers with real usage data\n❌ Launch looks like every other webhook integration; no differentiation in the quarter you ship five"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Skip",
|
||||
"description": "Alerts stay one-way permanently. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: medium. Reuse: none. Verification: none.\n✅ Simplest possible security posture: outbound only, no callbacks\n✅ Zero extra work now or later\n❌ Permanently concedes the incident-console position to Slack-native competitors"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Hold",
|
||||
"description": "Stop the expansion chain and discuss X3 before any other proposal. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: n/a.\n✅ Lets you check whether your incident model already has ack/escalate/snooze semantics to bind to\n✅ No proposal is recorded; X4 and X5 stay fully open\n❌ Pauses the expansion walkthrough until you say continue"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D3.3 — X3: Let on-call engineers Ack, Escalate or Snooze an incident directly from the chat message on all five platforms?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main; SCOPE EXPANSION; X1 core and X2 observability approved, E1-E5 fixed.\nELI10: One-way alerts tell someone there is a fire. Two-way actions let them say \"I've got it\" or \"wake up the next person\" without leaving the chat window, which is where they already are at 3am. Every one of your five platforms supports message buttons or inline keyboards, so this is one inbound endpoint in the core (verify the signature, apply the action once, log who did it) plus a small formatter per driver. This is the feature that turns \"we post to Slack\" into \"we run incidents from Slack\", and it is what the Slack-native incident tools in the landscape check win on.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip and your integrations look identical to a webhook anyone could wire up in an afternoon; add and you own the inbound security surface (signed callbacks, replay protection) that must be right on day one.\nRecommendation: A) Add because it is the single largest jump in user value on the board and the core already owns the plumbing it needs; ship it behind a feature flag per platform so any driver can launch one-way first if its callback verification slips.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: You are trading ~2 weeks and a real security surface for the feature that makes the chat message the incident console.": "Add (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T23:21:16.006Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "2a0839ff-ba3c-4283-bbed-2ebec6967674",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EMXW3nBDFmZG7JmJMvLu6t",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D3.4 — X4: Let an admin connect a platform, pick channels, and route alerts by severity from a self-serve settings screen instead of asking an engineer?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main; SCOPE EXPANSION; X1 core, X2 observability, X3 actions approved, E1-E5 fixed.\nELI10: Right now every integration will need an engineer to paste tokens and channel IDs into config. With five platforms and enterprise customers (Teams, Mattermost) asking for this, that becomes a support queue: every new customer, every channel rename, every \"stop paging me at night\" request lands on your team. A self-serve screen lets the customer's admin connect the platform, choose where each severity goes, and set quiet hours, all writing into the routing table the X1 core already reads. The setup path is also where the X2 \"send test alert\" button lives, so this is the screen your customers see first.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip and five integrations ship with an engineer-only setup path, so onboarding speed is bounded by your team's queue, not the customer's; add and you build a UI surface (auth callbacks for OAuth platforms, token storage, validation) that lands in the same quarter as five drivers.\nRecommendation: A) Add because self-serve setup is the difference between \"we support Teams\" and \"your Teams admin connected it in two minutes\", and every one of the five drivers otherwise ships with a hidden engineer-in-the-loop cost; scope it to connect + channel routing + quiet hours, nothing more.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: You are trading ~1.5 weeks of UI and token-handling work for onboarding that scales with customers instead of with your engineering queue.",
|
||||
"header": "X4 Setup UI",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Add (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Self-serve settings screen: connect a platform (OAuth for Slack, Discord, Teams; token paste for Telegram, Mattermost), pick channels, map severity to channel or DM, set quiet hours with P1 override; writes to the X1 routing table and hosts the X2 test-alert button. Effort: M (human: ~1.5 weeks / CC+gstack: ~1 day). Risk: medium. Reuse: existing Slack auth flow, X1 routing table, X2 test-alert. Verification: connect and disconnect each platform as a non-engineer admin, invalid-token and revoked-token paths, severity routing test per rule, quiet-hours boundary test, encrypted-at-rest check on stored tokens.\n✅ Customer admins connect any of the five platforms and route by severity with no engineer involved\n✅ One screen hosts the X2 test-alert button and health badges, so setup ends with a visible success\n✅ Enterprise buyers (Teams, Mattermost) get the admin control they expect from a paid integration\n❌ Adds OAuth callback and token-storage surface in the same quarter as five drivers and X3 callbacks"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Defer to TODOS.md",
|
||||
"description": "Engineers configure integrations this quarter via config or an internal-only form; record the self-serve screen with the routing schema for next quarter. Effort: S now (zero work). Risk: low. Reuse: none. Verification: none this quarter.\n✅ Keeps every UI and token-handling surface out of a quarter that is already ~16.5 human-weeks\n✅ Next quarter's UI is designed against real routing rules customers actually asked for\n❌ Every customer onboarding and routing change this quarter costs engineer time and waits on your queue"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Skip",
|
||||
"description": "Integration setup stays engineer-owned permanently. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: medium. Reuse: none. Verification: none.\n✅ No customer-facing auth or token UI to secure, ever\n✅ Zero extra work now or later\n❌ Onboarding speed is permanently bounded by engineering capacity, which is the constraint this whole plan is about"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Hold",
|
||||
"description": "Stop the expansion chain and discuss X4 before X5. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: n/a.\n✅ Lets you check whether an existing settings or integrations page can host this before deciding\n✅ No proposal is recorded; X5 stays fully open\n❌ Pauses the expansion walkthrough until you say continue"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D3.4 — X4: Let an admin connect a platform, pick channels, and route alerts by severity from a self-serve settings screen instead of asking an engineer?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main; SCOPE EXPANSION; X1 core, X2 observability, X3 actions approved, E1-E5 fixed.\nELI10: Right now every integration will need an engineer to paste tokens and channel IDs into config. With five platforms and enterprise customers (Teams, Mattermost) asking for this, that becomes a support queue: every new customer, every channel rename, every \"stop paging me at night\" request lands on your team. A self-serve screen lets the customer's admin connect the platform, choose where each severity goes, and set quiet hours, all writing into the routing table the X1 core already reads. The setup path is also where the X2 \"send test alert\" button lives, so this is the screen your customers see first.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip and five integrations ship with an engineer-only setup path, so onboarding speed is bounded by your team's queue, not the customer's; add and you build a UI surface (auth callbacks for OAuth platforms, token storage, validation) that lands in the same quarter as five drivers.\nRecommendation: A) Add because self-serve setup is the difference between \"we support Teams\" and \"your Teams admin connected it in two minutes\", and every one of the five drivers otherwise ships with a hidden engineer-in-the-loop cost; scope it to connect + channel routing + quiet hours, nothing more.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: You are trading ~1.5 weeks of UI and token-handling work for onboarding that scales with customers instead of with your engineering queue.": "Add (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T23:24:21.638Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "2a0839ff-ba3c-4283-bbed-2ebec6967674",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Qpc35ooRCeZwXQp2i9wZnM",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D3.5 — X5: Ship the delight pack (native formatting, threading, dedupe, health badges, launch docs) on top of the five drivers this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main; SCOPE EXPANSION; X1-X4 approved, E1-E5 fixed.\nELI10: Everything approved so far makes the alerts correct, observable and actionable. This pack makes them feel native: a Slack alert that looks like Slack, a Teams card that looks like Teams, follow-ups threaded under the first message instead of twenty pings, an alert storm collapsed to one message, a health badge on the settings page so the admin trusts it, and a short doc plus GIF per platform so launch day is not five support tickets. Each item is roughly a half-hour of CC+gstack work because the X1 core already owns the alert model, X2 owns the metrics, and X4 owns the screen.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip and the first thing a customer sees on day one is a plain-text wall that looks like a webhook; add and you spend ~1 human-week polishing in a quarter already at ~18 human-weeks.\nRecommendation: A) Add because the whole pack is ~1 week on top of ~18, every item reuses an approved surface, and first impressions on five platforms at once are the moment you cannot redo; if the quarter runs hot, formatting and threading are the two to keep and the rest can slip.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: You are trading ~1 week of polish for launches that look native on five platforms instead of a wall of text on five platforms.",
|
||||
"header": "X5 Delight",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Add (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "All seven items: native formatting per platform, threading, dedupe in the core, health badges on the X4 screen, launch doc and setup GIF per platform. Effort: M (human: ~1 week total / CC+gstack: ~0.5 day). Risk: low. Reuse: X1 alert model, X2 metrics, X4 settings screen. Verification: golden-render snapshot per platform, thread-continuity test, dedupe window test with a 50-event burst, health badge shows a forced failure, docs reviewed against the real flow.\n✅ Every platform launch looks like it belongs on that platform, not like a generic webhook\n✅ Alert storms collapse to one threaded message, so the channel stays usable during a real incident\n✅ Health badges and launch docs cut day-one support tickets for five simultaneous launches\n❌ Adds ~1 human-week to a quarter already at ~18; polish is the first thing to slip if drivers run late"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Defer to TODOS.md",
|
||||
"description": "Ship plain-text, unthreaded alerts this quarter; record all seven items with the per-platform format notes for next quarter. Effort: S now (zero work). Risk: low. Reuse: none. Verification: none this quarter.\n✅ Removes the last optional week from an already heavy quarter\n✅ Formatting decisions next quarter are informed by how customers actually read the alerts\n❌ First impression on five platforms is plain text, and first impressions are not re-shippable"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Skip",
|
||||
"description": "Plain text, no threading, no dedupe, no badges, no docs, permanently. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: medium. Reuse: none. Verification: none.\n✅ Zero extra work now or later\n✅ Simplest possible rendering path with nothing platform-specific to maintain\n❌ Alert storms flood channels and alerts look like webhooks forever, undercutting X3 and X4"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Hold",
|
||||
"description": "Stop the expansion chain and discuss X5 before the final confirmation. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: n/a.\n✅ Lets you split the pack (for example formatting + threading now, rest later) before deciding\n✅ No proposal is recorded; D3.final stays open\n❌ Pauses the expansion walkthrough until you say continue"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D3.5 — X5: Ship the delight pack (native formatting, threading, dedupe, health badges, launch docs) on top of the five drivers this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main; SCOPE EXPANSION; X1-X4 approved, E1-E5 fixed.\nELI10: Everything approved so far makes the alerts correct, observable and actionable. This pack makes them feel native: a Slack alert that looks like Slack, a Teams card that looks like Teams, follow-ups threaded under the first message instead of twenty pings, an alert storm collapsed to one message, a health badge on the settings page so the admin trusts it, and a short doc plus GIF per platform so launch day is not five support tickets. Each item is roughly a half-hour of CC+gstack work because the X1 core already owns the alert model, X2 owns the metrics, and X4 owns the screen.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip and the first thing a customer sees on day one is a plain-text wall that looks like a webhook; add and you spend ~1 human-week polishing in a quarter already at ~18 human-weeks.\nRecommendation: A) Add because the whole pack is ~1 week on top of ~18, every item reuses an approved surface, and first impressions on five platforms at once are the moment you cannot redo; if the quarter runs hot, formatting and threading are the two to keep and the rest can slip.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: You are trading ~1 week of polish for launches that look native on five platforms instead of a wall of text on five platforms.": "Add (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T23:25:28.269Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "2a0839ff-ba3c-4283-bbed-2ebec6967674",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01YPj1xazPeQKFjufpmkGAd7",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D3.final — Confirm the assembled quarter scope: five drivers (E1-E5) plus X1 core, X2 observability, X3 actions, X4 setup UI, X5 delight, ~19 human-weeks gross?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main; SCOPE EXPANSION; all D1 and D3 answers in; cap approved at 5 integrations.\nELI10: You answered Include on all five platforms and Add on all five expansions, so this is the whole board. Nothing depends on anything that was cut, so the set is buildable. The one number to look at is size: the plan started at \"2-3 integrations\" and you are now at five drivers plus a shared core, observability, two-way actions, a settings screen and polish, about 19 human-weeks before the core makes each driver cheaper, or roughly 13-17 CC+gstack days. Confirming here does not change any answer; it locks the set so the CEO plan and spec review can run against it. Revising or cutting re-asks only the item you name.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Confirm a set the team cannot staff and the quarter ends with five half-finished drivers instead of three finished ones; cut something the customers already voted for and you re-open a decision you made ten minutes ago.\nRecommendation: A) Ship this scope because every expansion you approved was also the reviewer's recommendation, the dependencies all resolve, and the cap you approved is counted in integrations (5, unchanged); sequence it core-first with X5 as the slip buffer, and carry the missing bandwidth evidence as the report's top concern rather than re-opening it here.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: You are locking a 2-3x larger quarter than the plan first stated, with a build order that lets you stop after any driver and still have shipped something whole.",
|
||||
"header": "Confirm scope",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Ship this scope (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Lock E1-E5 + X1-X5 as the scope under review. Build order: X1 core + X2 with E1 Slack (reuses existing auth), then E4 Telegram, E5 Mattermost, E2 Discord, E3 Teams; X3 and X4 once two drivers are live; X5 last. Effort: XL (human: ~19 wk gross, ~16-17 net / CC+gstack: ~13-17 days plus platform review waits). Risk: medium. Reuse: existing Slack auth, X1 across all drivers. Verification: each driver passes the X1 contract tests before the next starts; a stop-after-any-driver check at each boundary.\n✅ Every approved answer stands exactly as given; nothing is silently changed or re-asked\n✅ Core-first order means each finished driver is shippable on its own if the quarter runs short\n✅ Unblocks the CEO plan, spec review loop and the remaining review sections now\n❌ Locks ~19 human-weeks against a stated 2-3 integration bandwidth with no evidence yet that the team can staff it"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Revise one option",
|
||||
"description": "You name one item (E1-E5, CAP, or X1-X5); I re-ask only that one with its original Include / Defer / Cut / Hold menu and hold everything else fixed. Effort: S (one more question). Risk: low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: re-run the assembled-set validation after the answer.\n✅ Surgical: one decision reopens, the other ten stay locked\n✅ Cheapest way to pull the quarter back toward the stated bandwidth if one item is the doubt\n❌ Adds one more round before the CEO plan; if two items are in doubt you will be back here again"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Cut more",
|
||||
"description": "You name the items to drop; each is re-asked individually and removed only on an explicit Defer or Cut answer. Effort: S-M (one question per named item). Risk: low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: re-validate dependencies (X2-X5 need X1) after each answer.\n✅ Directly addresses the 2-3x size gap if you now think the team cannot absorb it\n✅ Dependency check after each cut prevents an orphaned expansion (for example X3 without X1)\n❌ Reverses choices you made minutes ago without new information; each cut also loses the customers it served"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Hold",
|
||||
"description": "Pause before confirming; nothing is locked and no item is reopened. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: n/a.\n✅ Gives you time to check real staffing before committing to ~19 human-weeks\n✅ Every answer so far is retained verbatim for when you resume\n❌ CEO plan, spec review and the remaining review sections wait until you say continue"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D3.final — Confirm the assembled quarter scope: five drivers (E1-E5) plus X1 core, X2 observability, X3 actions, X4 setup UI, X5 delight, ~19 human-weeks gross?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rFjNLS @ main; SCOPE EXPANSION; all D1 and D3 answers in; cap approved at 5 integrations.\nELI10: You answered Include on all five platforms and Add on all five expansions, so this is the whole board. Nothing depends on anything that was cut, so the set is buildable. The one number to look at is size: the plan started at \"2-3 integrations\" and you are now at five drivers plus a shared core, observability, two-way actions, a settings screen and polish, about 19 human-weeks before the core makes each driver cheaper, or roughly 13-17 CC+gstack days. Confirming here does not change any answer; it locks the set so the CEO plan and spec review can run against it. Revising or cutting re-asks only the item you name.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Confirm a set the team cannot staff and the quarter ends with five half-finished drivers instead of three finished ones; cut something the customers already voted for and you re-open a decision you made ten minutes ago.\nRecommendation: A) Ship this scope because every expansion you approved was also the reviewer's recommendation, the dependencies all resolve, and the cap you approved is counted in integrations (5, unchanged); sequence it core-first with X5 as the slip buffer, and carry the missing bandwidth evidence as the report's top concern rather than re-opening it here.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: You are locking a 2-3x larger quarter than the plan first stated, with a build order that lets you stop after any driver and still have shipped something whole.": "Ship this scope (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T23:26:51.053Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
+377
@@ -0,0 +1,377 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"provenance": {
|
||||
"source": "0bcd44ee9cf60a8736e9409a9bf43a9138b9595d",
|
||||
"attempt": "plan-ceo-review-1789633849352-oLlDBg",
|
||||
"originalOutcome": "timeout",
|
||||
"originalReviewCount": 5,
|
||||
"originalReviewCountCeiling": 8,
|
||||
"completeAt": "2026-09-17T08:40:27.694Z",
|
||||
"observationSha256": "be85074cef63b5e171db2524ff7eeb75c2a47373494453481ee45bbba5257a3c",
|
||||
"publicTranscriptSha256": "bcb2fb01cd046b9f207164f09e5a5c7ac48bbf6b8b97570ee9f1985ef7a3a0e0",
|
||||
"qualification": "Exact first six published native calls and their captured fingerprints through the final E5 ACK. NativeCall is stored once and reattached by index. The complete original timeout artifacts remain retained; this fixture grants no paid semantic or full-review credit."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"calls": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "1b245cdb-3c71-44d5-a8c6-c69bd63e4afb",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_013RRSCNo7obx5J9DrMj4nmr",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D1 — Which review mode should govern this scope decision?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-sIEkYl on main, deciding which of 5 chat integrations ship this quarter.\nELI10: Review mode sets my posture for the rest of the session. The plan's own goal is to shrink 5 candidates to 2-3, so the natural fit is a mode built around deciding what NOT to do. Expansion modes would instead have me pitch extra ideas on top of the five, which is the opposite of the constraint you gave.\nStakes if we pick wrong: an expansion mode adds noise to a decision that is about subtraction; a hold mode skips the cut/defer analysis you asked for.\nRecommendation: SCOPE REDUCTION because the plan's stated goal is a bandwidth-capped cut from 5 to 2-3, and all 5 built is an estimated 20-30 files (>15 threshold).\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.",
|
||||
"header": "Review mode",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Matches the plan's actual job: propose minimum scope, then resolve each candidate one at a time with include/defer/cut. ✅ Keeps the 2-3 integration cap and ~12 total weeks visible in every question. ❌ No delight scan or platform-potential pitch; if you wanted ideas beyond the five, this mode won't volunteer them."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Maximum rigor on the five as written: complexity check, minimum-change trace, per-item defer/keep. ✅ Still runs the per-candidate chain. ❌ Treats 'all five' as the baseline to preserve, which fights the bandwidth cap you stated; the cut framing is weaker."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Runs the hold checks and then neutrally offers extra opportunities (e.g. a shared adapter layer, alert routing rules) for cherry-picking. ✅ Good if you suspect the candidate list itself is incomplete. ❌ Adds a second decision chain on top of the five, longer session, and the plan explicitly wants a smaller set, not a bigger one."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Cathedral mode: what would the best chat-integration platform look like, all five plus shared infra plus routing. ✅ Useful only if the bandwidth cap is negotiable. ❌ Directly contradicts the 2-3 integration limit and the 'no shared infrastructure' premise; would spend the session arguing against your constraints."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D1 — Which review mode should govern this scope decision?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-sIEkYl on main, deciding which of 5 chat integrations ship this quarter.\nELI10: Review mode sets my posture for the rest of the session. The plan's own goal is to shrink 5 candidates to 2-3, so the natural fit is a mode built around deciding what NOT to do. Expansion modes would instead have me pitch extra ideas on top of the five, which is the opposite of the constraint you gave.\nStakes if we pick wrong: an expansion mode adds noise to a decision that is about subtraction; a hold mode skips the cut/defer analysis you asked for.\nRecommendation: SCOPE REDUCTION because the plan's stated goal is a bandwidth-capped cut from 5 to 2-3, and all 5 built is an estimated 20-30 files (>15 threshold).\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.": "HOLD SCOPE"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-17T08:33:19.165Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "1b245cdb-3c71-44d5-a8c6-c69bd63e4afb",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_013m3rxMYboLrJdCdjTgZCrJ",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D2.1 — E1: Slack DM bot for incident alerts: include, defer, or cut?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-sIEkYl on main, first of five per-candidate scope decisions (chain D2.1-D2.5, then D2.final).\nELI10: Slack is the top customer request from the Q2 survey, about 40% of all asks, and it is the cheapest of the big three because the Slack auth flow already exists. Two weeks buys the most demand of anything on the list. Independent of the other four; no dependency either way.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skipping it leaves the single loudest request unanswered another quarter and makes the other picks look like we ignored customers.\nRecommendation: Include because ~40% of asks for ~2 weeks with reused auth is the best demand-per-week on the list and it anchors any 2-3 pick.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: E1 is the anchor; the real question is what goes next to it.",
|
||||
"header": "E1 Slack",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Include (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Ship Slack DM incident alerts this quarter. Effort M (human: ~2 weeks / CC: ~1-2 days). Risk low. Reuse: existing Slack auth flow. Verification: alert delivery + auth happy/expired-token/rate-limit paths. ✅ Answers the top Q2 request (~40% of asks) in one shot. ✅ Cheapest weeks-per-demand on the list thanks to reused auth. ❌ Uses 1 of your 2-3 slots and ~2 of ~4-8 available weeks."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Defer",
|
||||
"description": "Push Slack to next quarter, record in TODOS with context. Effort S now (zero build). Risk high. Reuse: n/a. Verification: none this quarter. ✅ Frees the full cap for enterprise-revenue picks (E3/E5) if that is the quarter's goal. ✅ Nothing is lost permanently; auth reuse still exists next quarter. ❌ The loudest 40% of customers wait another quarter for the top request."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Cut",
|
||||
"description": "Drop Slack entirely, no TODO. Effort S (zero work). Risk high. Reuse: n/a. Verification: none. ✅ Cleanest possible scope statement if Slack is off-strategy. ✅ Zero engineering weeks spent. ❌ Refuses the top customer request with no stated path back."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Hold",
|
||||
"description": "Stop the chain here and discuss E1 before deciding anything else. Effort S (zero work). Risk low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: n/a. ✅ Lets you challenge the 40% figure or the 2-week estimate before committing. ✅ No disposition recorded, nothing to unwind. ❌ Remaining four candidates wait until you say continue."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D2.1 — E1: Slack DM bot for incident alerts: include, defer, or cut?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-sIEkYl on main, first of five per-candidate scope decisions (chain D2.1-D2.5, then D2.final).\nELI10: Slack is the top customer request from the Q2 survey, about 40% of all asks, and it is the cheapest of the big three because the Slack auth flow already exists. Two weeks buys the most demand of anything on the list. Independent of the other four; no dependency either way.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skipping it leaves the single loudest request unanswered another quarter and makes the other picks look like we ignored customers.\nRecommendation: Include because ~40% of asks for ~2 weeks with reused auth is the best demand-per-week on the list and it anchors any 2-3 pick.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: E1 is the anchor; the real question is what goes next to it.": "Include (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-17T08:34:42.383Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "1b245cdb-3c71-44d5-a8c6-c69bd63e4afb",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Kyp6QMmDwirvrDdGUbkyfa",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D2.2 — E2: Discord guild bot for community channels: include, defer, or cut?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-sIEkYl on main, second of five per-candidate decisions; E1 Slack is already Included (1 slot, ~2 weeks used).\nELI10: Discord is a community channel, not an ops channel. It has real demand (about 15% of asks, and the people asking are loud) but it is the most expensive mid-tier option at 3 weeks because there is no existing auth to reuse. With Slack in, adding Discord uses a second slot and brings you to ~5 weeks, leaving room for at most one more small item.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it can crowd out an enterprise pick (Teams or Mattermost) that pays more per account; cutting it outright tells a vocal community there is no path, which they will say publicly.\nRecommendation: Defer because 3 greenfield weeks for ~15% of asks is the weakest weeks-per-demand of the mid-tier, and deferring keeps the slot open for a revenue-weighted pick while leaving a visible path back next quarter.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: loud demand versus expensive build; defer keeps the door open without spending the slot.",
|
||||
"header": "E2 Discord",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Include",
|
||||
"description": "Ship Discord guild bot this quarter alongside Slack. Effort L (human: ~3 weeks / CC: ~2-3 days). Risk medium. Reuse: none, greenfield OAuth + guild permissions. Verification: bot install, channel post, permission-denied, rate-limit, guild-removed paths. ✅ Answers the loudest community segment (~15% of asks) while they are still engaged. ✅ Slack + Discord together cover ~55% of all asks. ❌ Takes slot 2 and brings the quarter to ~5 weeks, leaving little room for Teams or Mattermost."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Defer (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Push Discord to next quarter, record in TODOS with the 15%/loud-community context. Effort S now (zero build). Risk medium. Reuse: n/a. Verification: none this quarter. ✅ Keeps slot 2 available for a higher revenue-per-account pick (E3/E5) or a cheap win (E4). ✅ Explicit path back next quarter, so the community gets a date rather than a no. ❌ The vocal 15% wait, and they will notice."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Cut",
|
||||
"description": "Drop Discord entirely, no TODO. Effort S (zero work). Risk medium. Reuse: n/a. Verification: none. ✅ Clear statement that community-chat is not the product's channel. ✅ Zero weeks spent, no greenfield auth to maintain. ❌ Publicly closes the door on a vocal segment with real (if minority) demand."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Hold",
|
||||
"description": "Stop the chain and discuss E2 before deciding E3-E5. Effort S (zero work). Risk low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: n/a. ✅ Lets you weigh community goodwill against the 3-week estimate before committing. ✅ E1's Include stays approved; nothing to unwind. ❌ Remaining three candidates wait until you say continue."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D2.2 — E2: Discord guild bot for community channels: include, defer, or cut?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-sIEkYl on main, second of five per-candidate decisions; E1 Slack is already Included (1 slot, ~2 weeks used).\nELI10: Discord is a community channel, not an ops channel. It has real demand (about 15% of asks, and the people asking are loud) but it is the most expensive mid-tier option at 3 weeks because there is no existing auth to reuse. With Slack in, adding Discord uses a second slot and brings you to ~5 weeks, leaving room for at most one more small item.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it can crowd out an enterprise pick (Teams or Mattermost) that pays more per account; cutting it outright tells a vocal community there is no path, which they will say publicly.\nRecommendation: Defer because 3 greenfield weeks for ~15% of asks is the weakest weeks-per-demand of the mid-tier, and deferring keeps the slot open for a revenue-weighted pick while leaving a visible path back next quarter.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: loud demand versus expensive build; defer keeps the door open without spending the slot.": "Defer (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-17T08:35:55.602Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "1b245cdb-3c71-44d5-a8c6-c69bd63e4afb",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01C5FgpC5d66cQ2rAQgeihDD",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D2.3 — E3: Microsoft Teams webhook + bot framework: include, defer, or cut?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-sIEkYl on main, third of five; E1 Slack Included (slot 1, ~2 wk), E2 Discord Deferred.\nELI10: Teams is the opposite of Slack on this list: few people ask for it (about 5%) but the ones who do are enterprise accounts that pay the most per seat, and they asked by name. It is also the most expensive build at 4 weeks because the Teams bot framework is its own world. Slack plus Teams is the standard pairing every incident-alerting vendor ships first, and together they use 2 slots and ~6 weeks, leaving one slot for a 1-2 week item.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it and slipping the 4-week estimate can eat the whole quarter; deferring it leaves enterprise revenue riding on Mattermost alone (E5, still to decide) or nothing.\nRecommendation: Include because it is the only candidate that directly serves the highest revenue-per-user segment, E1+E3 is the proven breadth+revenue pairing, and 6 weeks still leaves a slot for a small third pick.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: most expensive build on the list, but it is the revenue pick; the alternative enterprise path is E5, decided at D2.5.",
|
||||
"header": "E3 Teams",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Include (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Ship Teams webhook + bot this quarter alongside Slack. Effort XL (human: ~4 weeks / CC: ~3-4 days). Risk medium. Reuse: none stated; Teams bot framework registration, Azure AD app, adaptive cards. Verification: webhook delivery, bot install, tenant-consent-denied, token-refresh, card-render, rate-limit paths. ✅ Directly serves the enterprise accounts that asked by name and pay the most per user. ✅ Slack + Teams is the proven first pairing in this category; covers most enterprise ARR. ❌ 4 weeks is the longest estimate on the list and the most likely to slip; brings the quarter to ~6 weeks with one slot left."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Defer",
|
||||
"description": "Push Teams to next quarter, record in TODOS with the enterprise-asked-by-name context. Effort S now (zero build). Risk medium. Reuse: n/a. Verification: none this quarter. ✅ Frees 4 weeks and slot 2 for two cheaper picks (E4 + E5 = 3 weeks, both fit). ✅ Enterprise path can still be served this quarter via E5 Mattermost if Included at D2.5. ❌ The accounts that asked by name wait another quarter, and they are the ones with procurement cycles and renewal dates."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Cut",
|
||||
"description": "Drop Teams entirely, no TODO. Effort S (zero work). Risk high. Reuse: n/a. Verification: none. ✅ Avoids committing to the Teams bot framework's ongoing maintenance and Azure AD churn. ✅ Zero weeks spent. ❌ Tells named enterprise customers there is no path to Teams; the highest revenue-per-user segment has nowhere to go."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Hold",
|
||||
"description": "Stop the chain and discuss E3 before deciding E4-E5. Effort S (zero work). Risk low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: n/a. ✅ Lets you pressure-test the 4-week estimate or name the specific accounts before committing. ✅ E1 Include and E2 Defer stay approved; nothing to unwind. ❌ Remaining two candidates wait until you say continue."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D2.3 — E3: Microsoft Teams webhook + bot framework: include, defer, or cut?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-sIEkYl on main, third of five; E1 Slack Included (slot 1, ~2 wk), E2 Discord Deferred.\nELI10: Teams is the opposite of Slack on this list: few people ask for it (about 5%) but the ones who do are enterprise accounts that pay the most per seat, and they asked by name. It is also the most expensive build at 4 weeks because the Teams bot framework is its own world. Slack plus Teams is the standard pairing every incident-alerting vendor ships first, and together they use 2 slots and ~6 weeks, leaving one slot for a 1-2 week item.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it and slipping the 4-week estimate can eat the whole quarter; deferring it leaves enterprise revenue riding on Mattermost alone (E5, still to decide) or nothing.\nRecommendation: Include because it is the only candidate that directly serves the highest revenue-per-user segment, E1+E3 is the proven breadth+revenue pairing, and 6 weeks still leaves a slot for a small third pick.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: most expensive build on the list, but it is the revenue pick; the alternative enterprise path is E5, decided at D2.5.": "Include (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-17T08:37:41.016Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "1b245cdb-3c71-44d5-a8c6-c69bd63e4afb",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01GDgL6zPBVNDcDyzZvwFQps",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D2.4 — E4: Telegram bot API integration: include, defer, or cut?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-sIEkYl on main, fourth of five; E1 Slack + E3 Teams Included (2 slots, ~6 wk), E2 Discord Deferred. One slot left.\nELI10: Telegram is the cheapest item on the list, about one week with the simplest API, and it serves ~8% of asks, mostly international users. The plan itself calls it low strategic value. The catch is the cap: with Slack and Teams already in, Telegram and Mattermost (E5, next question) are competing for the last slot. Including Telegram here means E5 has to be deferred or cut at D2.5, or the set exceeds your 2-3 limit.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it spends the last slot on the lowest-strategic-value item and squeezes out the high-ARR Mattermost accounts; cutting it closes a one-week goodwill win that could land any quarter.\nRecommendation: Defer because the quarter is already shaped as breadth (Slack) + enterprise revenue (Teams), and the last slot is better spent extending the enterprise story with E5 than on a low-strategic-value channel; one week of Telegram fits easily next quarter.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: cheapest build versus lowest strategic value; the real trade is Telegram or Mattermost for slot 3.",
|
||||
"header": "E4 Telegram",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Include",
|
||||
"description": "Ship Telegram bot this quarter as the third integration. Effort S (human: ~1 week / CC: ~half a day). Risk low. Reuse: none needed; bot-token auth, simplest API surface. Verification: message send, bot-blocked-by-user, chat-not-found, rate-limit paths. ✅ Cheapest win on the list; ~8% of asks for one week. ✅ Low slip risk, good filler if Teams runs long. ❌ Fills the cap at 3, so E5 Mattermost (all high-ARR accounts) must be deferred or cut at D2.5."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Defer (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Push Telegram to next quarter, record in TODOS with the international-users context. Effort S now (zero build). Risk low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: none this quarter. ✅ Keeps slot 3 open for E5, the high-ARR enterprise segment. ✅ One-week item slots into any future quarter without planning. ❌ International users (~8% of asks) wait a quarter for a one-week feature."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Cut",
|
||||
"description": "Drop Telegram entirely, no TODO. Effort S (zero work). Risk low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: none. ✅ Consistent with the plan's own \"low strategic value\" label. ✅ Zero weeks, one fewer bot surface to maintain long-term. ❌ Refuses a cheap request from ~8% of users with no stated path back."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Hold",
|
||||
"description": "Stop the chain and discuss E4 before deciding E5. Effort S (zero work). Risk low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: n/a. ✅ Lets you decide the E4-vs-E5 slot-3 trade explicitly before either question. ✅ E1/E3 Include and E2 Defer stay approved; nothing to unwind. ❌ E5 waits until you say continue."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D2.4 — E4: Telegram bot API integration: include, defer, or cut?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-sIEkYl on main, fourth of five; E1 Slack + E3 Teams Included (2 slots, ~6 wk), E2 Discord Deferred. One slot left.\nELI10: Telegram is the cheapest item on the list, about one week with the simplest API, and it serves ~8% of asks, mostly international users. The plan itself calls it low strategic value. The catch is the cap: with Slack and Teams already in, Telegram and Mattermost (E5, next question) are competing for the last slot. Including Telegram here means E5 has to be deferred or cut at D2.5, or the set exceeds your 2-3 limit.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it spends the last slot on the lowest-strategic-value item and squeezes out the high-ARR Mattermost accounts; cutting it closes a one-week goodwill win that could land any quarter.\nRecommendation: Defer because the quarter is already shaped as breadth (Slack) + enterprise revenue (Teams), and the last slot is better spent extending the enterprise story with E5 than on a low-strategic-value channel; one week of Telegram fits easily next quarter.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: cheapest build versus lowest strategic value; the real trade is Telegram or Mattermost for slot 3.": "Defer (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-17T08:39:04.292Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "1b245cdb-3c71-44d5-a8c6-c69bd63e4afb",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_016sXSCQ3C8AxvZVRKPxHbgK",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D2.5 — E5: Mattermost REST plugin: include, defer, or cut?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-sIEkYl on main, last of five; E1 Slack + E3 Teams Included (2 slots, ~6 wk), E2 Discord + E4 Telegram Deferred. One slot open.\nELI10: Mattermost is the smallest segment by headcount (about 3% of asks) but every one of those asks comes from a high-ARR, self-hosted enterprise account, the kind that is locked in and expensive to lose. It costs 2 weeks as a REST plugin. With Telegram deferred, this is the only candidate left for slot 3, and including it lands the quarter at 3 integrations and ~8 weeks, inside your cap. Leaving the slot empty is also allowed: the cap is \"at most\" 3.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it stretches the quarter to ~8 weeks on top of a 4-week Teams build that may slip; deferring it leaves your highest-ARR self-hosted accounts as the only segment with nothing this quarter.\nRecommendation: Include because slot 3 is open, 2 weeks is affordable, and it completes the enterprise story (Teams for cloud, Mattermost for self-hosted) for the accounts most costly to churn.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: small user count, big accounts; the only real cost is quarter length (~8 weeks) with Teams slip risk stacked underneath.",
|
||||
"header": "E5 Mattermost",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Include (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Ship Mattermost REST plugin this quarter as the third integration. Effort M (human: ~2 weeks / CC: ~1-2 days). Risk medium. Reuse: none stated; plugin manifest, per-host webhook config, admin install flow. Verification: plugin install, alert post, host-unreachable, version-mismatch, token-revoked paths. ✅ Covers the self-hosted enterprise segment where every ask is a high-ARR locked-in account. ✅ Completes cloud (Teams) + self-hosted (Mattermost) enterprise coverage in one quarter. ❌ Brings the quarter to ~8 weeks and 3 of 3 slots, with Teams slip risk underneath it."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Defer",
|
||||
"description": "Push Mattermost to next quarter, record in TODOS with the high-ARR self-hosted context. Effort S now (zero build). Risk medium. Reuse: n/a. Verification: none this quarter. ✅ Leaves slack in the quarter (~6 weeks, 2 slots) to absorb a Teams overrun. ✅ Explicit path back next quarter for the affected accounts. ❌ The highest-ARR self-hosted accounts get nothing this quarter while every other segment has a date."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Cut",
|
||||
"description": "Drop Mattermost entirely, no TODO. Effort S (zero work). Risk high. Reuse: n/a. Verification: none. ✅ Avoids maintaining a plugin against self-hosted version drift indefinitely. ✅ Zero weeks spent. ❌ Tells locked-in high-ARR accounts there is no path; that is churn risk with no offsetting demand gain."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Hold",
|
||||
"description": "Stop the chain and discuss E5 before the final set is assembled. Effort S (zero work). Risk low. Reuse: n/a. Verification: n/a. ✅ Lets you weigh quarter length (~8 wk) against the high-ARR retention argument before committing. ✅ E1-E4 dispositions stay approved; nothing to unwind. ❌ D2.final and the rest of the review wait until you say continue."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D2.5 — E5: Mattermost REST plugin: include, defer, or cut?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-sIEkYl on main, last of five; E1 Slack + E3 Teams Included (2 slots, ~6 wk), E2 Discord + E4 Telegram Deferred. One slot open.\nELI10: Mattermost is the smallest segment by headcount (about 3% of asks) but every one of those asks comes from a high-ARR, self-hosted enterprise account, the kind that is locked in and expensive to lose. It costs 2 weeks as a REST plugin. With Telegram deferred, this is the only candidate left for slot 3, and including it lands the quarter at 3 integrations and ~8 weeks, inside your cap. Leaving the slot empty is also allowed: the cap is \"at most\" 3.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it stretches the quarter to ~8 weeks on top of a 4-week Teams build that may slip; deferring it leaves your highest-ARR self-hosted accounts as the only segment with nothing this quarter.\nRecommendation: Include because slot 3 is open, 2 weeks is affordable, and it completes the enterprise story (Teams for cloud, Mattermost for self-hosted) for the accounts most costly to churn.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: small user count, big accounts; the only real cost is quarter length (~8 weeks) with Teams slip risk stacked underneath.": "Include (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-17T08:40:27.694Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"fingerprints": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"signature": "1b245cdb-3c71-44d5-a8c6-c69bd63e4afb:toolu_013RRSCNo7obx5J9DrMj4nmr",
|
||||
"promptSnippet": "Review mode D1 — Which review mode should govern this scope decision? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-sIEkYl on main, deciding which of 5 chat integrations ship this quarter. ELI10: Review mode sets my posture for the rest of the ses",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"index": 1,
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"index": 2,
|
||||
"label": "HOLD SCOPE"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"index": 3,
|
||||
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"index": 4,
|
||||
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"observedAtMs": 183948,
|
||||
"preReview": true
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"signature": "1b245cdb-3c71-44d5-a8c6-c69bd63e4afb:toolu_013m3rxMYboLrJdCdjTgZCrJ",
|
||||
"promptSnippet": "E1 Slack D2.1 — E1: Slack DM bot for incident alerts: include, defer, or cut? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-sIEkYl on main, first of five per-candidate scope decisions (chain D2.1-D2.5, then D2.final). ELI10: Slack is the top custo",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"index": 1,
|
||||
"label": "Include (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"index": 2,
|
||||
"label": "Defer"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"index": 3,
|
||||
"label": "Cut"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"index": 4,
|
||||
"label": "Hold"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"observedAtMs": 267167,
|
||||
"preReview": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"signature": "1b245cdb-3c71-44d5-a8c6-c69bd63e4afb:toolu_01Kyp6QMmDwirvrDdGUbkyfa",
|
||||
"promptSnippet": "E2 Discord D2.2 — E2: Discord guild bot for community channels: include, defer, or cut? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-sIEkYl on main, second of five per-candidate decisions; E1 Slack is already Included (1 slot, ~2 weeks used). ELI",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"index": 1,
|
||||
"label": "Include"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"index": 2,
|
||||
"label": "Defer (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"index": 3,
|
||||
"label": "Cut"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"index": 4,
|
||||
"label": "Hold"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"observedAtMs": 340392,
|
||||
"preReview": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"signature": "1b245cdb-3c71-44d5-a8c6-c69bd63e4afb:toolu_01C5FgpC5d66cQ2rAQgeihDD",
|
||||
"promptSnippet": "E3 Teams D2.3 — E3: Microsoft Teams webhook + bot framework: include, defer, or cut? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-sIEkYl on main, third of five; E1 Slack Included (slot 1, ~2 wk), E2 Discord Deferred. ELI10: Teams is the opposite ",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"index": 1,
|
||||
"label": "Include (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"index": 2,
|
||||
"label": "Defer"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"index": 3,
|
||||
"label": "Cut"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"index": 4,
|
||||
"label": "Hold"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"observedAtMs": 445758,
|
||||
"preReview": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"signature": "1b245cdb-3c71-44d5-a8c6-c69bd63e4afb:toolu_01GDgL6zPBVNDcDyzZvwFQps",
|
||||
"promptSnippet": "E4 Telegram D2.4 — E4: Telegram bot API integration: include, defer, or cut? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-sIEkYl on main, fourth of five; E1 Slack + E3 Teams Included (2 slots, ~6 wk), E2 Discord Deferred. One slot left. ELI10: Te",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"index": 1,
|
||||
"label": "Include"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"index": 2,
|
||||
"label": "Defer (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"index": 3,
|
||||
"label": "Cut"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"index": 4,
|
||||
"label": "Hold"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"observedAtMs": 529077,
|
||||
"preReview": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"signature": "1b245cdb-3c71-44d5-a8c6-c69bd63e4afb:toolu_016sXSCQ3C8AxvZVRKPxHbgK",
|
||||
"promptSnippet": "E5 Mattermost D2.5 — E5: Mattermost REST plugin: include, defer, or cut? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-sIEkYl on main, last of five; E1 Slack + E3 Teams Included (2 slots, ~6 wk), E2 Discord + E4 Telegram Deferred. One slot open. E",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"index": 1,
|
||||
"label": "Include (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"index": 2,
|
||||
"label": "Defer"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"index": 3,
|
||||
"label": "Cut"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"index": 4,
|
||||
"label": "Hold"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"observedAtMs": 612468,
|
||||
"preReview": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"source": "491566889b47a73db0f5b20799a901a80c38d756",
|
||||
"attempt": "plan-ceo-review-1789623770412-IFVjXh",
|
||||
"actualPending": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "6496a751-5c37-48fa-bcce-c241e94c9e63",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UdqQbP1kWDeVdxDAK9DqVB",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D2.5 — E5: Include, defer or cut the Mattermost REST plugin?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md scope decision, candidate 5 of 5. E1 + E3 in (6 weeks, 2 slots), E2 + E4 deferred. This is the last open slot.\nELI10: Mattermost is the self-hosted Slack alternative used by regulated and air-gapped enterprises. Only 3% of asks, but every one of them is a high-ARR account, and self-hosted customers are locked in: they cannot switch chat tools easily, so once you support them they stay. It costs ~2 weeks as a REST plugin. Including it brings the quarter to 3 integrations and 8 engineer-weeks; the plan's cap is 2-3 integrations, so it fits on count, but total weeks are not stated in the plan and 8 may or may not fit your actual team.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Including it commits 8 weeks total this quarter, which may be more than the team has; deferring it leaves your highest-ARR-per-ask segment without a channel while E1 and E3 ship for everyone else.\nRecommendation: Include because it is the third-best demand-per-week when ARR-weighted, it fits the 2-3 cap, and E1 + E3 + E5 covers broad base, enterprise cloud and enterprise self-hosted in one quarter. Confirm the 8-week total against real capacity in D2.final; if weeks are tight, this is the item to revise.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: E5 rounds out an enterprise-complete quarter; the only argument against it is engineer-weeks, which the plan does not state.",
|
||||
"header": "E5 Mattermost",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Include (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Ship the Mattermost REST plugin this quarter. Effort: M (~2 weeks human / ~3-5 days with CC). Risk: medium (customer-hosted servers vary in version and network access; plugin compatibility matrix). Reuse: none, greenfield. Verification: plugin install on supported versions, server-unreachable and token-revoked paths, tested per Section 4. ✅ Every ask comes from a high-ARR account; locked-in segment that stays once served. ✅ Completes enterprise coverage alongside Teams; fits the 2-3 cap on count. ❌ Brings the quarter to 8 engineer-weeks total, and the plan never states how many weeks the team actually has."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Defer",
|
||||
"description": "Move Mattermost to next quarter with a TODOS.md entry naming the high-ARR accounts. Effort: S (zero work now). Risk: medium (accounts may escalate). Reuse: none consumed. Verification: none this quarter. ✅ Keeps the quarter at 6 weeks and 2 integrations, the safest capacity read. ✅ Self-hosted customers are locked in; they are unlikely to churn over a one-quarter wait. ❌ Your highest-ARR-per-ask segment watches Slack and Teams ship without them."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Cut",
|
||||
"description": "Drop Mattermost entirely; record the reason under NOT in scope, no TODO. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: high. Reuse: none. Verification: none. ✅ Avoids the long-term support burden of customer-hosted plugin compatibility. ✅ Simplest roadmap: two cloud platforms, no self-hosted matrix. ❌ Tells high-ARR self-hosted accounts they are not a target; hard to walk back."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Hold",
|
||||
"description": "Stop the chain here and discuss E5 before deciding. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: none. Reuse: none. Verification: none. ✅ Room to confirm real engineer-weeks before committing to 8. ✅ Nothing is decided or recorded until you say continue. ❌ Delays the final set validation until this is resolved."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": false,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"source": "pre_tool_use"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"visible": "│ but every one of them is a high-ARR account, and self-hosted customers are locked in: they cannot switch chat tools\n│ easily, so once you support them they stay. It costs ~2 weeks as a REST plugin. Including it brings the quarter to 3\n│ integrations and 8 engineer-weeks; the plan's cap is 2-3 integrations, so it fits on count, but total weeks are not\n│ stated in the plan and 8 may or may not fit your actual team.\n│ Stakes if we pick wrong: Including it commits 8 weeks total this quarter, which may be more than the team has;\n│ deferring it leaves your highest-ARR-per-ask segment without a channel while E1 and E3 ship for everyone else.\n│ Recommendation: Include because it is the third-best demand-per-week when ARR-weighted, it fits the 2-3 cap, and E1 +\n│ E3 + E5 covers broad base, enterprise cloud and enterprise self-hosted in one quarter. Confirm the 8-week total\n│ against real capacity in D2.final; if weeks are tight, this is the item to revise.\n│ Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\n│ Net: E5 rounds out an enterprise-complete quarter; the only argument against it is engineer-weeks, which the plan does\n│ not state.\n\n❯ 1. Include (recommended)\n Ship the Mattermost REST plugin this quarter. Effort: M (~2 weeks human / ~3-5 days with CC). Risk: medium\n (customer-hosted servers vary in version and network access; plugin compatibility matrix). Reuse: none, greenfield.\n Verification: plugin install on supported versions, server-unreachable and token-revoked paths, tested per Section\n 4. ✅ Every ask comes from a high-ARR account; locked-in segment that stays once served. ✅ Completes enterprise\n coverage alongside Teams; fits the 2-3 cap on count. ❌ Brings the quarter to 8 engineer-weeks total, and the plan\n never states how many weeks the team actually has.\n 2. Defer\n Move Mattermost to next quarter with a TODOS.md entry naming the high-ARR accounts. Effort: S (zero work now).\n Risk: medium (accounts may escalate). Reuse: none consumed. Verification: none this quarter. ✅ Keeps the quarter\n at 6 weeks and 2 integrations, the safest capacity read. ✅ Self-hosted customers are locked in; they are unlikely\n to churn over a one-quarter wait. ❌ Your highest-ARR-per-ask segment watches Slack and Teams ship without them.\n 3. Cut\n Drop Mattermost entirely; record the reason under NOT in scope, no TODO. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: high. Reuse:\n none. Verification: none. ✅ Avoids the long-term support burden of customer-hosted plugin compatibility. ✅\n Simplest roadmap: two cloud platforms, no self-hosted matrix. ❌ Tells high-ARR self-hosted accounts they are not a\n target; hard to walk back.\n 4. Hold\n Stop the chain here and discuss E5 before deciding. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: none. Reuse: none. Verification:\n none. ✅ Room to confirm real engineer-weeks before committing to 8. ✅ Nothing is decided or recorded until you\n say continue. ❌ Delays the final set validation until this is resolved.\n 5. Type something.\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n 6. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · Esc to cancel\n",
|
||||
"elapsedMs": 528352,
|
||||
"originalError": "Split actor requires the complete matched native question before selecting",
|
||||
"sourceKind": "Exact native PreToolUse pending question retained in both terminal catch and retainer; no reconstructed fields",
|
||||
"originalOutcome": "failed",
|
||||
"provenance": {
|
||||
"receiptSha256": "0abaffdb882d259fd24c3ccca2147c0ac21f760d613ddac69b8428752a294e25",
|
||||
"screenSha256": "ebcec31f506580aec2d972a2f86c414750e8c487f23e9c48e3e6d8deb9d39067",
|
||||
"observationSha256": "28bde2a047a40e4101926f326c83a890b2416e6c1794fde0189e6fbb42193e36",
|
||||
"pendingHookSha256": "48f471e0babd844dc0dc167ded7859ddcccde0ac5151fde65fa010aecfd8aaff",
|
||||
"readbackSha256": "6216965b0c2449ab2b4f7b07a19f2622540b4a463aaa52ad48efa2ed2d57d4a8",
|
||||
"nativeFields": "Exact terminal pendingQuestion; all questions and toolUseId independently equal retained PreToolUse hook. Complete latest owned Read contains the same question, header, labels and descriptions."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"source": "361c4dd7642ac03f4a35d720d263905d41db318f",
|
||||
"outcome": "THREW",
|
||||
"attempt": "plan-ceo-review-1789611721902-R6U5OT",
|
||||
"elapsedMs": 323883,
|
||||
"call": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "bdc1eac2-43e3-43a4-a415-9dd0b50dd6f0",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01QVKMEvHwVT6iVjeVps1F3E",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D2.2 — E2 Discord: Include the Discord guild bot for community channels this quarter?\nProject/branch/task: main; picking 2-3 of 5 chat integrations, candidate 2 of 5; E1 Slack already included (1 slot used).\nELI10: Discord is asked for by about 15% of requesters, mostly a vocal community rather than paying accounts. It is the second most expensive build (about three human-weeks) and starts from zero: no existing login or auth to reuse. It would take slot 2 of your 2-3, leaving at most one slot for Teams, Telegram or Mattermost. Nothing else depends on it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: including it spends 3 of your remaining weeks on the noisiest but not the most valuable segment; cutting it outright risks alienating a community that amplifies your product.\nRecommendation: Defer because it costs the most per point of demand after Teams, carries no revenue signal, and 15% is real enough to keep alive for next quarter rather than kill.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: loud is not the same as valuable; park it with the reasoning attached and revisit with Q3 data.",
|
||||
"header": "E2 Discord",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Include",
|
||||
"description": "Ship the Discord guild bot this quarter, consuming slot 2 of 2-3. Effort: L (human ~3 wk / CC+gstack ~2-3 days). Risk: medium (greenfield auth, Discord gateway/intents model is unlike Slack). Reuse: none. Verification: full path coverage and tests reviewed in later sections. ✅ Serves ~15% of asks and quiets the most vocal segment of your community. ✅ Discord traction in open-source and dev communities can be a word-of-mouth channel. ❌ Second most expensive build with no revenue signal; likely crowds out Teams or Mattermost from the last slot."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Defer (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Move E2 to TODOS.md for next quarter with demand, cost and the greenfield-auth note attached. Effort: S (zero work now). Risk: low. ✅ Keeps both remaining slots open for a revenue play (Teams/Mattermost) or a cheap win (Telegram). ✅ Community demand is recorded and can be re-scored with fresh Q3 survey data. ❌ The loud community stays loud for another quarter."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Cut",
|
||||
"description": "Drop Discord entirely; record the rejection reason in NOT in scope. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: medium. ✅ Removes a recurring debate item if Discord is not where paying customers live. ✅ Frees planning attention permanently. ❌ 15% of asks is not noise; cutting rather than deferring throws away a real signal you may want in six months."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Hold",
|
||||
"description": "Stop the chain here and discuss Discord before deciding; E3-E5 are not asked until you resume. Effort: S. Risk: low. ✅ Right call if you know something about the community segment's revenue that the plan does not state. ✅ Nothing is decided or recorded until you say continue. ❌ Delays the remaining three decisions."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": false,
|
||||
"failed": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
"screen": "\n│ D2.2 — E2 Discord: Include the Discord guild bot for community channels this quarter?\n│ Project/branch/task: main; picking 2-3 of 5 chat integrations, candidate 2 of 5; E1 Slack already included (1 slot \n│ used). \n│ ELI10: Discord is asked for by about 15% of requesters, mostly a vocal community rather than paying accounts. It is\n│ the second most expensive build (about three human-weeks) and starts from zero: no existing login or auth to reuse. It\n│ would take slot 2 of your 2-3, leaving at most one slot for Teams, Telegram or Mattermost. Nothing else depends on\n│ it.\n│ Stakes if we pick wrong: including it spends 3 of your remaining weeks on the noisiest but not the most valuable\n│ segment; cutting it outright risks alienating a community that amplifies your product.\n│ Recommendation: Defer because it costs the most per point of demand after Teams, carries no revenue signal, and 15% is\n│ real enough to keep alive for next quarter rather than kill.\n│ Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\n│ Net: loud is not the same as valuable; park it with the reasoning attached and revisit with Q3 data.\n\n❯ 1. Include\n Ship the Discord guild bot this quarter, consuming slot 2 of 2-3. Effort: L (human ~3 wk / CC+gstack ~2-3 days).\n Risk: medium (greenfield auth, Discord gateway/intents model is unlike Slack). Reuse: none. Verification: full path\n coverage and tests reviewed in later sections. ✅ Serves ~15% of asks and quiets the most vocal segment of your\n community. ✅ Discord traction in open-source and dev communities can be a word-of-mouth channel. ❌ Second most\n expensive build with no revenue signal; likely crowds out Teams or Mattermost from the last slot.\n 2. Defer (recommended)\n Move E2 to TODOS.md for next quarter with demand, cost and the greenfield-auth note attached. Effort: S (zero work\n now). Risk: low. ✅ Keeps both remaining slots open for a revenue play (Teams/Mattermost) or a cheap win\n (Telegram). ✅ Community demand is recorded and can be re-scored with fresh Q3 survey data. ❌ The loud community\n stays loud for another quarter.\n 3. Cut\n Drop Discord entirely; record the rejection reason in NOT in scope. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: medium. ✅ Removes\n a recurring debate item if Discord is not where paying customers live. ✅ Frees planning attention permanently. ❌\n 15% of asks is not noise; cutting rather than deferring throws away a real signal you may want in six months.\n 4. Hold\n Stop the chain here and discuss Discord before deciding; E3-E5 are not asked until you resume. Effort: S. Risk:\n low. ✅ Right call if you know something about the community segment's revenue that the plan does not state. ✅\n Nothing is decided or recorded until you say continue. ❌ Delays the remaining three decisions.\n 5. Type something.\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n 6. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · Esc to cancel\n",
|
||||
"provenance": {
|
||||
"observationSha256": "e7f75bdaab82d17a180677d6d4c436695d3b6b98cc2571da830b18e1fa36c032",
|
||||
"screenSha256": "06d244c2aa31f990514c7a1be9cbb18d410f794c4968554bd132bb21246b80a9",
|
||||
"qualification": "Complete original public native call already present in the throw observation and exact terminal viewport. Retry and paid outcome remain separate."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+177
@@ -0,0 +1,177 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"source": "cdd39ee07533718765a59640b58faa73f5a54135",
|
||||
"collectorSha256": "e6feb633129a25d592f71668ad4faf9f8735d5c2dd439b416289396eebf1c5d1",
|
||||
"case": "codex-offered-ceo-review",
|
||||
"cases": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"attempt": 1,
|
||||
"exitReason": "error_max_turns",
|
||||
"maxTurns": 8,
|
||||
"reportedTurns": 9,
|
||||
"cwd": "/tmp/g-fmjf7yah/gstack-paid-shard-zAeger/tmp/skill-e2e-codex-offer-63tNki",
|
||||
"tools": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "wc -l /tmp/g-fmjf7yah/gstack-paid-shard-zAeger/tmp/skill-e2e-codex-offer-63tNki/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md; grep -n -i -E \"codex|outside voice|second opinion\" /tmp/g-fmjf7yah/gstack-paid-shard-zAeger/tmp/skill-e2e-codex-offer-63tNki/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md",
|
||||
"description": "Count lines and grep for codex/outside voice/second opinion"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"resultCharacters": 860,
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "cd /tmp/g-fmjf7yah/gstack-paid-shard-zAeger/tmp/skill-e2e-codex-offer-63tNki/plan-ceo-review && grep -n -i -E \"outside|opinion|AskUserQuestion|which codex|command -v|fallback|subagent|Agent tool|skip\" SKILL.md | head -80",
|
||||
"description": "Grep for related terms in the skill"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"resultCharacters": 11345,
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/g-fmjf7yah/gstack-paid-shard-zAeger/tmp/skill-e2e-codex-offer-63tNki/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md",
|
||||
"offset": 620,
|
||||
"limit": 150
|
||||
},
|
||||
"resultCharacters": 7773,
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/g-fmjf7yah/gstack-paid-shard-zAeger/tmp/skill-e2e-codex-offer-63tNki/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md",
|
||||
"offset": 870,
|
||||
"limit": 40
|
||||
},
|
||||
"resultCharacters": 2969,
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/g-fmjf7yah/gstack-paid-shard-zAeger/tmp/skill-e2e-codex-offer-63tNki/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md",
|
||||
"offset": 1100,
|
||||
"limit": 144
|
||||
},
|
||||
"resultCharacters": 9025,
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "cd /tmp/g-fmjf7yah/gstack-paid-shard-zAeger/tmp/skill-e2e-codex-offer-63tNki && find . -type f -not -path './.git/*' | head -50; echo ---; grep -rn -i -E \"codex|outside voice|second opinion|OUTSIDE COVERAGE|CROSS-MODEL\" --include='*.md' . | grep -v \"^./plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md\" | head -60",
|
||||
"description": "List files and grep siblings for codex references"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"resultCharacters": 10939,
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/g-fmjf7yah/gstack-paid-shard-zAeger/tmp/skill-e2e-codex-offer-63tNki/plan-ceo-review/sections/review-sections.md",
|
||||
"offset": 345,
|
||||
"limit": 260
|
||||
},
|
||||
"resultCharacters": 21223,
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "grep -n -i -E \"codex|outside|cross-model\" plan-ceo-review/sections/review-sections.md | awk -F: '$1>604' | head -40; echo ---; grep -n -i -E \"codex|outside voice\" README.md | head",
|
||||
"description": "Find remaining codex/outside references after line 604"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"resultCharacters": 5617,
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"attempt": 2,
|
||||
"exitReason": "error_max_turns",
|
||||
"maxTurns": 8,
|
||||
"reportedTurns": 9,
|
||||
"cwd": "/tmp/g-fmjf7yah/gstack-paid-shard-zAeger/tmp/skill-e2e-codex-offer-63tNki",
|
||||
"tools": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "wc -l plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md && grep -n -i -E \"codex|outside voice|second opinion\" plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md",
|
||||
"description": "Locate codex-related lines in SKILL.md"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"resultCharacters": 786,
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "grep -n -i -E \"outside|second|subagent|AskUserQuestion|which codex|command -v|fallback|skip\" plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md | head -80",
|
||||
"description": "Search related terms in SKILL.md"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"resultCharacters": 11541,
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/g-fmjf7yah/gstack-paid-shard-zAeger/tmp/skill-e2e-codex-offer-63tNki/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md",
|
||||
"offset": 620,
|
||||
"limit": 70
|
||||
},
|
||||
"resultCharacters": 3607,
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/g-fmjf7yah/gstack-paid-shard-zAeger/tmp/skill-e2e-codex-offer-63tNki/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md",
|
||||
"offset": 870,
|
||||
"limit": 40
|
||||
},
|
||||
"resultCharacters": 2969,
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/g-fmjf7yah/gstack-paid-shard-zAeger/tmp/skill-e2e-codex-offer-63tNki/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md",
|
||||
"offset": 1100,
|
||||
"limit": 144
|
||||
},
|
||||
"resultCharacters": 9025,
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "find plan-ceo-review -type f | head -50; echo ---; grep -rn -i -l -E \"codex|outside voice|second opinion\" plan-ceo-review office-hours plan-design-review plan-eng-review 2>/dev/null",
|
||||
"description": "List skill files and find codex mentions across skill dirs"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"resultCharacters": 625,
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "wc -l plan-ceo-review/sections/review-sections.md; grep -n -i -E \"codex|outside voice|second opinion|OUTSIDE COVERAGE|CROSS-MODEL\" plan-ceo-review/sections/review-sections.md",
|
||||
"description": "Find codex mentions in review-sections.md"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"resultCharacters": 12222,
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/g-fmjf7yah/gstack-paid-shard-zAeger/tmp/skill-e2e-codex-offer-63tNki/plan-ceo-review/sections/review-sections.md",
|
||||
"offset": 350,
|
||||
"limit": 270
|
||||
},
|
||||
"resultCharacters": 22344,
|
||||
"isError": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
+109
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sourceRevision": "e39797c46bb1fde0abb06ca161972b6a62df680c",
|
||||
"engSectionSha256": "feba0c7ca5c3080acceb22022e369ac0c24375203bbc4f080cc983e5aff83c6f",
|
||||
"logSha256": "3161fbabf565d279e4b07248d2347e20c8302d17f5ecf62064838289e7a07163",
|
||||
"transcriptSha256": "c5496cb31e0be13be6d6b1a3d9460951cb2e0ac92c2c1e8f1c46c96bf3325d4e",
|
||||
"case": "codex-offered-eng-review",
|
||||
"cases": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"attempt": 1,
|
||||
"exitReason": "timeout",
|
||||
"timeoutMs": 120000,
|
||||
"maxTurns": 8,
|
||||
"firstToolSeconds": 10,
|
||||
"writeSeconds": 103,
|
||||
"summaryBytes": 13113,
|
||||
"summaryWords": 1646,
|
||||
"summarySha256": "16db43fb8764e74503e710c08afa277593dbe742fbf4e7d6985af535e8083780",
|
||||
"writeAcknowledged": true,
|
||||
"providerFinalResult": false,
|
||||
"tools": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"elapsedSeconds": 10,
|
||||
"acknowledged": true,
|
||||
"isError": false,
|
||||
"target": null
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"elapsedSeconds": 19,
|
||||
"acknowledged": true,
|
||||
"isError": false,
|
||||
"target": "<fixture>/plan-eng-review/sections/review-sections.md"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"elapsedSeconds": 27,
|
||||
"acknowledged": true,
|
||||
"isError": false,
|
||||
"target": "<fixture>/plan-eng-review/sections/review-sections.md"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"elapsedSeconds": 32,
|
||||
"acknowledged": true,
|
||||
"isError": false,
|
||||
"target": "<fixture>/plan-eng-review/sections/review-sections.md"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"elapsedSeconds": 39,
|
||||
"acknowledged": true,
|
||||
"isError": false,
|
||||
"target": null
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Write",
|
||||
"elapsedSeconds": 103,
|
||||
"acknowledged": true,
|
||||
"isError": false,
|
||||
"target": "<fixture>/codex-offered-eng-review-summary.md"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"attempt": 2,
|
||||
"exitReason": "timeout",
|
||||
"timeoutMs": 120000,
|
||||
"maxTurns": 8,
|
||||
"firstToolSeconds": 17,
|
||||
"writeSeconds": 105,
|
||||
"summaryBytes": 11822,
|
||||
"summaryWords": 1505,
|
||||
"summarySha256": "29f9cc50b017b0a5bd59212d5fb4fffa362a2139f6e5f2be0b9f8ce5afc81686",
|
||||
"writeAcknowledged": true,
|
||||
"providerFinalResult": false,
|
||||
"tools": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"elapsedSeconds": 17,
|
||||
"acknowledged": true,
|
||||
"isError": false,
|
||||
"target": null
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"elapsedSeconds": 24,
|
||||
"acknowledged": true,
|
||||
"isError": false,
|
||||
"target": "<fixture>/plan-eng-review/sections/review-sections.md"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"elapsedSeconds": 39,
|
||||
"acknowledged": true,
|
||||
"isError": false,
|
||||
"target": null
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Write",
|
||||
"elapsedSeconds": 105,
|
||||
"acknowledged": true,
|
||||
"isError": false,
|
||||
"target": "<fixture>/codex-offered-eng-review-summary.md"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
+121
@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"source": "Public Claude Code 2.1.263 Design UI and counting attempts, 2026-09-12; no board feedback was submitted by the original picker.",
|
||||
"cases": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"at": "2026-09-12T01:17:10.444Z",
|
||||
"nativeToolId": "toolu_013G9oqzSc2MdfhD94MCzhhQ",
|
||||
"question": {
|
||||
"header": "Mockup board",
|
||||
"question": "D2 \u2014 Comparison board is open: review the three dashboard mockups and submit feedback.\nProject/branch/task: design-ui-project on `main`, User Dashboard plan; mockups saved under ~/.gstack/projects/design-ui-project-97jhEm/designs/user-dashboard-20260912/.\nBoard URL: http://127.0.0.1:36281/boards/b-20260912-011653-w7si95/\nELI10: I generated three visual directions for the dashboard (activity feed primary, notifications secondary, quick actions under the heading) and all three passed the cross-model quality check. Rate them on the board, leave comments, remix elements you like, and click Submit. The variant you pick becomes the visual reference every review pass calibrates against.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the plan gets written around a look you do not actually want, and the implementer builds to it.\nRecommendation: Submit on the board because it captures ratings, comments and remix specs in a structured file I read directly.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: board feedback is richer; typed feedback is faster; regenerate costs about 90 seconds per round.",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Submitted on the board (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Ratings, per-variant comments and an overall direction land in feedback.json for me to read.\n\u2705 Remix lets you combine the layout of one with the type or color of another.\n\u274c Requires the local browser tab; if you cannot open the URL, pick another option."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "I'll type my preferences here",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Fastest path if you already know which direction you want.\n\u2705 Works when the board URL is not reachable from your machine.\n\u274c Less structure: I infer ratings and constraints from prose instead of a form."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "I clicked Regenerate or Remix",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 I read feedback-pending.json and generate a fresh round from your remix spec or action.\n\u2705 Board reloads in the same tab so you keep your place.\n\u274c Adds about 90 seconds and another round of review before passes begin."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"at": "2026-09-12T01:26:51.785Z",
|
||||
"nativeToolId": "toolu_01VBXEkCYnyH3EeNY4RVF1Uh",
|
||||
"question": {
|
||||
"question": "D2 \u2014 Dashboard mockups are on the comparison board\nProject/branch/task: design-ui-project on main, /dashboard plan mockups.\nELI10: I've opened a comparison board with three design variants of the dashboard:\nhttp://127.0.0.1:38671/boards/b-20260912-012630-0rdsyt/\nRate them, leave comments, remix elements you like, and click Submit when you're done. All three passed the cross-model quality check. If you clicked Regenerate or Remix on the board, tell me and I'll generate new variants. You can also paste your preferences here instead of using the board.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the approved variant becomes the visual reference every later pass and the implementer build from.\nRecommendation: A because the board captures ratings and comments in a structured file I read directly.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: board feedback is richer; typed feedback is faster.",
|
||||
"header": "Mockups",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A) Submitted on the board (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Your ratings, comments and preferred variant land in feedback.json, which I read verbatim. \u2705 Remix and regenerate requests are captured with their spec. \u274c Needs the browser tab open at the URL above."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B) I clicked Regenerate or Remix",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 I generate a new set from your remix spec or direction and reload the same board. \u2705 Keeps the loop going until a variant fits. \u274c Each round takes about 90 seconds."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "C) I'll type my preference here",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Fastest path, no browser needed. \u2705 Free-form notes still become the visual direction for the review. \u274c No per-variant ratings, so I record only what you type."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"at": "2026-09-12T03:04:41.135Z",
|
||||
"sourceRevision": "abbf3faf196ab07ff0bbe27f005054a1a3b475f9",
|
||||
"nativeToolId": "toolu_01WRaAFoQ62P35727NwWhNmX",
|
||||
"question": {
|
||||
"header": "Mockup board",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Ratings, comments, and preferred variant are captured in feedback.json for exact reading. \u2705 Remix and regenerate requests are picked up automatically. \u274c Requires the browser tab to load the local board.",
|
||||
"label": "Submitted on the board (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Works without opening the board at all. \u2705 Free-form notes on any variant or element. \u274c No per-variant ratings, so I infer the preferred direction from prose.",
|
||||
"label": "Typing my preferences here"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Gets a fresh set with adjusted direction before any review pass. \u2705 Nothing locks in until you like the base. \u274c Adds another 90 seconds of generation and a second board round.",
|
||||
"label": "Regenerate, none of these fit"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"question": "D3 \u2014 Comparison board is open, tell me when you have submitted\nProject/branch/task: Settings page redesign on main, three designer variants ready.\nELI10: I opened a comparison board with three Settings page directions at http://127.0.0.1:41329/boards/b-20260912-030424-6km7bi/ . Rate them, leave comments, remix elements you like, and click Submit when done. Let me know when you have submitted (or paste your preferences here). If you clicked Regenerate or Remix on the board, tell me and I will generate new variants.\nStakes if we pick wrong: The chosen variant becomes the visual reference for every later decision in this review, so a rushed pick propagates.\nRecommendation: A because the board captures ratings, comments, and remix requests in a structured file I can read directly.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: structured board feedback versus typed notes here."
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"at": "2026-09-12T03:18:51.125Z",
|
||||
"nativeToolId": "toolu_01US5XMh3La9GTZnfY5RdrZZ",
|
||||
"question": {
|
||||
"question": "D2 — Dashboard mockup comparison board is ready\nProject/branch/task: design-ui-project on main, User Dashboard plan review.\nELI10: I generated three visual directions for the dashboard page (Activity Feed main column, Notifications sidebar with unread badge and 'Mark all as read', Quick Actions group, one warm empty state). All three passed the cross-model quality check. I've opened a comparison board here: http://127.0.0.1:41031/boards/b-20260912-031829-qapfw0/ — rate them, leave comments, remix elements you like, and click Submit when you're done. If you clicked Regenerate or Remix on the board, tell me and I'll generate new variants. You can also just type your preferences here.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the chosen variant becomes the visual reference for every remaining review pass, so the wrong direction propagates into the plan.\nRecommendation: Submitted on the board because the board captures ratings and per-variant comments in a structured way I can read back.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) I submitted feedback on the board (recommended)\n ✅ Structured ratings and comments per variant land in feedback.json for me to read\n ✅ Remix and regenerate actions are captured so I can iterate precisely\n ❌ Requires the browser tab; if it didn't open, use the URL above\nB) I clicked Regenerate or Remix\n ✅ Lets you steer toward a different direction before committing to one\n ✅ I'll rebuild the board in place and wait again\n ❌ Another 90 seconds of generation per round\nC) I'll describe my preference here instead\n ✅ Works without the browser; type which variant and what to change\n ✅ Fastest if you already know the direction you want\n ❌ Free text is less structured than board ratings\nNet: any path works; the board gives me the most precise signal.",
|
||||
"header": "Mockup board",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "I submitted feedback on the board (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Clicked Submit on the comparison board. I'll read feedback.json."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "I clicked Regenerate or Remix",
|
||||
"description": "I'll read the pending action and generate a new round."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "I'll describe my preference here",
|
||||
"description": "Type your chosen variant and notes in Other."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"at": "2026-09-12T03:25:13.547Z",
|
||||
"nativeToolId": "toolu_01BJHNhpKv2chbWR8QiN56hH",
|
||||
"question": {
|
||||
"question": "D2 — Comparison board is open; tell me when you've submitted feedback\nProject/branch/task: design-ui-project on `main`, User Dashboard mockups (3 variants, all passed the vision quality gate).\nELI10: I've opened a comparison board with the three dashboard variants at http://127.0.0.1:43207/boards/b-20260912-032447-nnl6fw/ — rate them, leave comments, remix elements you like, and click Submit when you're done. Let me know when you've submitted your feedback (or paste your preferences here). If you clicked Regenerate or Remix on the board, tell me and I'll generate new variants. The approved variant becomes the visual reference for every review pass that follows.\nStakes if we pick wrong: nothing irreversible; we can regenerate or iterate on any variant.\nRecommendation: A because the board captures ratings, per-variant comments and remix requests in one structured file I can read directly.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) I submitted on the board (recommended)\n ✅ Structured feedback: preferred variant, star ratings and comments land in feedback.json\n ✅ Remix and Regenerate requests carry exact specs I can feed straight into iterate\n ❌ Requires the browser tab; if the daemon URL is unreachable this path fails\nB) I'll type my preference here instead\n ✅ Works without a browser; I read the mockups inline and use your text as the feedback\n ✅ Fast if you already know which direction you want\n ❌ No per-variant ratings or remix spec, so refinement is coarser\nC) I clicked Regenerate or Remix on the board\n ✅ I read the pending request and generate a new set on the same board\n ✅ Keeps the loop going until something is worth approving\n ❌ Another ~90s generation round before we can start the review passes\nNet: the board is the chooser; this question only waits for you to finish with it.",
|
||||
"header": "Mockup board",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "I submitted on the board (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Feedback.json written; I read the preferred variant, ratings and comments from it."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "I'll type my preference here",
|
||||
"description": "Tell me the variant and any notes in your reply; I'll use that as the feedback."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "I clicked Regenerate/Remix",
|
||||
"description": "I read the pending request and generate a new variant set on the same board."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
+268
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+377
@@ -0,0 +1,377 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"source": "67147822f55b911c033617f759dc472d0d348e72",
|
||||
"calls": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "0283bf0b-80ac-4203-ae8e-a69664c6543b",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01AsCtYnuM2xzLiWk5EfsBHA",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: main branch of the plan-review fixture; one-time gstack onboarding prompt fired by skill-start.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so plain requests like \"review this diff\" route to the right skill automatically instead of you typing slash commands. This is a small appended section, committed once. Note: plan mode is active, so if you pick A I will append and commit it only after this review finishes and plan mode exits.\nStakes if we pick wrong: pick A and dislike it, delete a 15-line section; pick B and skills only run when you invoke them by name.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make the skill set discoverable with zero ongoing cost.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.",
|
||||
"header": "Routing",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Natural-language requests auto-route to /investigate, /review, /ship, etc. without memorizing names. \u2705 One 15-line append, committed once, easy to revert. \u274c Adds a section to CLAUDE.md that every session loads into context."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 CLAUDE.md stays exactly as it is, nothing added to context. \u2705 Full manual control over when skills run. \u274c Skills only fire when you type the slash command; no proactive routing."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: main branch of the plan-review fixture; one-time gstack onboarding prompt fired by skill-start.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so plain requests like \"review this diff\" route to the right skill automatically instead of you typing slash commands. This is a small appended section, committed once. Note: plan mode is active, so if you pick A I will append and commit it only after this review finishes and plan mode exits.\nStakes if we pick wrong: pick A and dislike it, delete a 15-line section; pick B and skills only run when you invoke them by name.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make the skill set discoverable with zero ongoing cost.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:30:19.040Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "0283bf0b-80ac-4203-ae8e-a69664c6543b",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_012gzg2N8fMrHTieypYNSXzt",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D2 \u2014 Enable cross-project learnings search?\nProject/branch/task: main branch of the plan-review fixture; first-time gstack learnings configuration.\nELI10: gstack can search learnings from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here. This stays local (no data leaves your machine). Recommended for solo developers. Skip if you work on multiple client codebases where cross-contamination would be a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: enable it on a multi-client machine and a client A pitfall could surface in client B's review; disable it as a solo dev and you re-discover the same quirks per repo.\nRecommendation: A because this is a local-only search and the fixture has no client-separation concern.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.",
|
||||
"header": "Learnings",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Pitfalls and patterns logged in other repos on this machine inform this review. \u2705 Local-only read of ~/.gstack; nothing leaves the machine. \u274c Findings from unrelated projects could occasionally be irrelevant noise."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Keep learnings project-scoped only",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Strict isolation between codebases; nothing crosses project lines. \u2705 Zero risk of client-to-client contamination. \u274c Every repo starts from zero learnings; same quirks get re-learned per project."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D2 \u2014 Enable cross-project learnings search?\nProject/branch/task: main branch of the plan-review fixture; first-time gstack learnings configuration.\nELI10: gstack can search learnings from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here. This stays local (no data leaves your machine). Recommended for solo developers. Skip if you work on multiple client codebases where cross-contamination would be a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: enable it on a multi-client machine and a client A pitfall could surface in client B's review; disable it as a solo dev and you re-discover the same quirks per repo.\nRecommendation: A because this is a local-only search and the fixture has no client-separation concern.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:31:21.164Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "0283bf0b-80ac-4203-ae8e-a69664c6543b",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01GrZ2bFMtABqzqpSSYT8YMt",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D3 \u2014 Review all 7 design dimensions, or focus on specific areas?\nProject/branch/task: main; reviewing \"Plan: Settings Page UI redesign\" (PLAN.md) against DESIGN.md.\nELI10: I've rated this plan 6/10 on design completeness. The biggest gaps are: no primary-action hierarchy in the header (Save looks like Reset/Cancel/Export), a 2-5 second Save with no pending indicator, and error text below WCAG AA contrast. Next I run six rated passes plus the decision register. You already said text-only and all seven dimensions, so this confirms the pass scope before I start asking per-issue decisions.\nStakes if we pick wrong: narrowing skips passes where the plan is already strong, saving little; running all seven costs a few extra minutes.\nRecommendation: A because you asked for all seven and the five listed gaps span four different passes anyway.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.",
|
||||
"header": "Focus",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "All 7 dimensions (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Every listed gap gets its own decision in the pass it belongs to, nothing slips. \u2705 Matches your stated request for all seven design dimensions. \u274c A few extra minutes on passes (journey, slop) where findings are thin."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Focus on the 5 listed gaps only",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Fastest path to approving the five DESIGN.md token fixes. \u2705 Skips storyboard and state-table artifacts you may not need. \u274c Misses the ErrorSummary placement ambiguity and any journey-level finding."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D3 \u2014 Review all 7 design dimensions, or focus on specific areas?\nProject/branch/task: main; reviewing \"Plan: Settings Page UI redesign\" (PLAN.md) against DESIGN.md.\nELI10: I've rated this plan 6/10 on design completeness. The biggest gaps are: no primary-action hierarchy in the header (Save looks like Reset/Cancel/Export), a 2-5 second Save with no pending indicator, and error text below WCAG AA contrast. Next I run six rated passes plus the decision register. You already said text-only and all seven dimensions, so this confirms the pass scope before I start asking per-issue decisions.\nStakes if we pick wrong: narrowing skips passes where the plan is already strong, saving little; running all seven costs a few extra minutes.\nRecommendation: A because you asked for all seven and the five listed gaps span four different passes anyway.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.": "All 7 dimensions (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:33:30.976Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "0283bf0b-80ac-4203-ae8e-a69664c6543b",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01MK1W9HLWJiinMAdf1TcgTp",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D4 \u2014 Issue 1: How should Save be distinguished from Reset/Cancel/Export in the header?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 1 (Information Architecture) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: Right now all four header buttons look identical, so a user who just edited their email has to read four labels to find the one that commits the change. Design principle: hierarchy as service (what should the user see first). DESIGN.md already names the treatment: Save is the only filled button, the other three are ghost buttons.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users mis-click Reset or Cancel next to Save, hit a discard dialog, and lose confidence; or Save stays invisible and users leave without saving.\nRecommendation: 1A because it is the exact existing Button variant pair from DESIGN.md and needs no new styles.\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=6/10, 1C=3/10",
|
||||
"header": "Issue 1",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "1A: Filled primary Save + ghost secondaries per DESIGN.md (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Save uses the existing filled primary variant (#1d4ed8 fill, white text); Reset/Cancel/Export use the existing neutral ghost variant. \u2705 Zero new tokens; white on #1d4ed8 is ~6.7:1, well above AA. \u274c Ghost buttons rely on border/text for affordance, so the ghost variant must keep a visible border (already in the component)."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "1B: Filled Save, plus move Export to the far right with a gap",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Also separates the read-only Export from the two destructive actions spatially. \u2705 Still uses existing variants. \u274c Changes the approved DOM/visual order and the \u2264640px equal-column row, both of which the plan says to preserve."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "1C: Keep four identical buttons, bold the Save label only",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Smallest visual change. \u274c Weight alone is a weak cue at 16px and violates DESIGN.md's stated primary treatment. \u274c Still reads as a toolbar in the 3-second scan test."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D4 \u2014 Issue 1: How should Save be distinguished from Reset/Cancel/Export in the header?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 1 (Information Architecture) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: Right now all four header buttons look identical, so a user who just edited their email has to read four labels to find the one that commits the change. Design principle: hierarchy as service (what should the user see first). DESIGN.md already names the treatment: Save is the only filled button, the other three are ghost buttons.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users mis-click Reset or Cancel next to Save, hit a discard dialog, and lose confidence; or Save stays invisible and users leave without saving.\nRecommendation: 1A because it is the exact existing Button variant pair from DESIGN.md and needs no new styles.\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=6/10, 1C=3/10": "1A: Filled primary Save + ghost secondaries per DESIGN.md (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:33:51.033Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "0283bf0b-80ac-4203-ae8e-a69664c6543b",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01WwJh3dZ2c4VoTV9YzMUNyM",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D5 \u2014 Issue 2: What does the user see during the 2-5 second Save?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 2 (Interaction States) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: After pressing Save nothing on screen changes for up to five seconds, so users double-click, assume it broke, or leave. A pending state has to live somewhere the eye already is: on the button they just pressed. DESIGN.md's established pattern is a small spinner plus the word \"Saving\u2026\" inside the Save button, with aria-busy so screen readers hear it, and no spin under reduced-motion.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a skeleton would blank the form and hide the user's edits; a status-region \"Saving\u2026\" would double-announce and contradict the plan's rule that the live region stays unchanged while pending.\nRecommendation: 2A because it is the existing pattern, keeps focus and edits in place, and reserves width so the header row does not jump when the label changes.\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=5/10, 2C=2/10",
|
||||
"header": "Issue 2",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "2A: Spinner + \"Saving\u2026\" inside Save button per DESIGN.md (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Existing inline spinner beside \"Saving\u2026\" inside Save; aria-busy=true; aria-disabled + activation guard so it stays focusable; reduced-motion swaps spin for a static indicator. \u2705 Save button min-width equals its widest label state so the action row does not shift. \u274c Feedback is only on the button; the InlineStatus stays unchanged by design, which is intended."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "2B: Full-form skeleton while saving",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Very visible pending signal. \u274c Hides the user's just-typed values and the status text, exactly what they want to keep seeing. \u274c Not the DESIGN.md pending pattern; skeleton is reserved for initial load."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "2C: Add \"Saving\u2026\" text to the InlineStatus live region only",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Screen readers hear a change. \u274c Contradicts the plan's accepted rule that the status region stays unchanged while pending. \u274c Sighted users still see a Save button that looks inert."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D5 \u2014 Issue 2: What does the user see during the 2-5 second Save?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 2 (Interaction States) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: After pressing Save nothing on screen changes for up to five seconds, so users double-click, assume it broke, or leave. A pending state has to live somewhere the eye already is: on the button they just pressed. DESIGN.md's established pattern is a small spinner plus the word \"Saving\u2026\" inside the Save button, with aria-busy so screen readers hear it, and no spin under reduced-motion.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a skeleton would blank the form and hide the user's edits; a status-region \"Saving\u2026\" would double-announce and contradict the plan's rule that the live region stays unchanged while pending.\nRecommendation: 2A because it is the existing pattern, keeps focus and edits in place, and reserves width so the header row does not jump when the label changes.\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=5/10, 2C=2/10": "2A: Spinner + \"Saving\u2026\" inside Save button per DESIGN.md (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:34:30.638Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "0283bf0b-80ac-4203-ae8e-a69664c6543b",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Qa4kQBs29GT2XkZEhMNVsT",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D6 \u2014 Issue 3: How should the form's type sizes be consolidated?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 4 (AI Slop Risk) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: Labels currently use three sizes (14, 16, 18px) that are too close to read as different levels, so the eye gets no help telling a section heading from a field label, and 14px text is below the 16px floor for body text. DESIGN.md defines exactly two type roles: 16px for body, labels and helper text; 20px for section headings. Principle: specificity over vibes, and \"if everything shouts, nothing is heard\".\nStakes if we pick wrong: keeping 14px labels ships sub-16px body text on a form people fill on phones; keeping three sizes keeps the flat hierarchy the plan itself flagged.\nRecommendation: 3A because it is the existing two-role scale and removes the sub-16px text in one move.\nCompleteness: 3A=10/10, 3B=6/10, 3C=4/10",
|
||||
"header": "Issue 3",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "3A: Two roles per DESIGN.md: 16px labels/body/helper, 20px h2 (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 All field labels, helper text, status text, error text and button labels at 16px; Profile/Notifications h2 at 20px; h1 keeps its existing size. \u2705 Removes every sub-16px string on the form. \u274c Any label currently at 18px shrinks slightly, so verify the two switch labels still wrap cleanly at 320px."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "3B: Keep 14px helper text, 16px labels, 20px headings",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Preserves a smaller helper-text size some teams like. \u2705 Headings still get a clear 20px step. \u274c Violates DESIGN.md's two-role rule and the 16px body-text floor on helper/error text."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "3C: Leave 14/16/18 as-is",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 No change to the current form. \u274c Leaves the flat hierarchy and 14px text the plan itself identified as a problem. \u274c Contradicts DESIGN.md."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D6 \u2014 Issue 3: How should the form's type sizes be consolidated?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 4 (AI Slop Risk) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: Labels currently use three sizes (14, 16, 18px) that are too close to read as different levels, so the eye gets no help telling a section heading from a field label, and 14px text is below the 16px floor for body text. DESIGN.md defines exactly two type roles: 16px for body, labels and helper text; 20px for section headings. Principle: specificity over vibes, and \"if everything shouts, nothing is heard\".\nStakes if we pick wrong: keeping 14px labels ships sub-16px body text on a form people fill on phones; keeping three sizes keeps the flat hierarchy the plan itself flagged.\nRecommendation: 3A because it is the existing two-role scale and removes the sub-16px text in one move.\nCompleteness: 3A=10/10, 3B=6/10, 3C=4/10": "3A: Two roles per DESIGN.md: 16px labels/body/helper, 20px h2 (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:35:36.340Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "0283bf0b-80ac-4203-ae8e-a69664c6543b",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01LfvCdJau8WWeKksb3acYkx",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D7 \u2014 Issue 4: How should vertical spacing be normalized?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 5 (Design System Alignment) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: The form uses 16px, 24px and 32px between sections with no rule, so the gaps stop meaning anything: a user's eye cannot tell where Profile ends and Notifications begins by spacing alone. DESIGN.md defines an 8px scale with three named gaps: 32px between sections, 24px between field groups, 8px from a label to its input. Principle: related things are visually grouped, nested things visually contained (Gestalt proximity).\nStakes if we pick wrong: keep the random gaps and headings float between sections; pick a tighter scale and the 44px targets crowd on a 320px phone.\nRecommendation: 4A because it is the existing scale and the three values map one-to-one onto the page's three kinds of gap.\nCompleteness: 4A=10/10, 4B=7/10, 4C=3/10",
|
||||
"header": "Issue 4",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "4A: Apply DESIGN.md's 8px scale: 32 / 24 / 8 (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 32px between header, status area, Profile and Notifications; 24px between field groups inside a fieldset; 8px label-to-input. \u2705 More space above each h2 (32) than below it (8 to its first label), so headings sit with their content. \u274c Some current 16px gaps grow, so total page height increases slightly on phones."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "4B: Normalize to 24px everywhere",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 One number, trivially consistent. \u2705 Fits the 8px base. \u274c Loses the section/field-group distinction, so Profile and Notifications read as one continuous list; not the DESIGN.md scale."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "4C: Leave 16/24/32 as currently implemented",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 No change. \u274c Keeps the inconsistency the plan itself flagged and contradicts DESIGN.md. \u274c Headings keep floating between sections."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D7 \u2014 Issue 4: How should vertical spacing be normalized?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 5 (Design System Alignment) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: The form uses 16px, 24px and 32px between sections with no rule, so the gaps stop meaning anything: a user's eye cannot tell where Profile ends and Notifications begins by spacing alone. DESIGN.md defines an 8px scale with three named gaps: 32px between sections, 24px between field groups, 8px from a label to its input. Principle: related things are visually grouped, nested things visually contained (Gestalt proximity).\nStakes if we pick wrong: keep the random gaps and headings float between sections; pick a tighter scale and the 44px targets crowd on a 320px phone.\nRecommendation: 4A because it is the existing scale and the three values map one-to-one onto the page's three kinds of gap.\nCompleteness: 4A=10/10, 4B=7/10, 4C=3/10": "4A: Apply DESIGN.md's 8px scale: 32 / 24 / 8 (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:36:17.982Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "0283bf0b-80ac-4203-ae8e-a69664c6543b",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_013xFMVNR89fN1ydvhX2Pkco",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D8 \u2014 Issue 5: How should the error message color be fixed?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 6 (Responsive & Accessibility) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: The current red-on-pink error text measures about 3:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for text, so people with low vision or a dim phone screen may not be able to read the one message telling them why their save failed. DESIGN.md's error tokens (#991b1b on #fef2f2) measure 7.60:1, and it also requires an icon plus explicit wording so the state is never color-only. Principle: accessibility is not optional; trust is earned at the pixel level.\nStakes if we pick wrong: ship an AA failure on the most important message on the page; or fix contrast but keep a color-only signal for colorblind users.\nRecommendation: 5A because it is the exact DESIGN.md token pair, verified at 7.60:1, and includes the non-color cue.\nCompleteness: 5A=10/10, 5B=6/10, 5C=2/10",
|
||||
"header": "Issue 5",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "5A: error.text #991b1b on error.surface #fef2f2, icon + explicit text (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Measured 7.60:1, clears AA (4.5:1) and AAA (7:1) for the field messages, ErrorSummary and the network error area. \u2705 Leading error icon (aria-hidden) plus wording like \"Email address is required\" so the state does not depend on color. \u274c Slightly darker red than the current one; verify it against the existing ghost-button border in the Retry sibling."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "5B: Darken only the text until it reaches 4.5:1, keep current pink",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Minimal change to the existing surface. \u2705 Meets AA at the floor. \u274c Off-token color that diverges from DESIGN.md and needs its own measurement; no icon means status still leans on color."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "5C: Leave the ~3:1 error styling",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 No change. \u274c Ships a WCAG AA failure on the message users most need to read. \u274c Contradicts DESIGN.md's \"all text must meet WCAG AA\"."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D8 \u2014 Issue 5: How should the error message color be fixed?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 6 (Responsive & Accessibility) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: The current red-on-pink error text measures about 3:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for text, so people with low vision or a dim phone screen may not be able to read the one message telling them why their save failed. DESIGN.md's error tokens (#991b1b on #fef2f2) measure 7.60:1, and it also requires an icon plus explicit wording so the state is never color-only. Principle: accessibility is not optional; trust is earned at the pixel level.\nStakes if we pick wrong: ship an AA failure on the most important message on the page; or fix contrast but keep a color-only signal for colorblind users.\nRecommendation: 5A because it is the exact DESIGN.md token pair, verified at 7.60:1, and includes the non-color cue.\nCompleteness: 5A=10/10, 5B=6/10, 5C=2/10": "5A: error.text #991b1b on error.surface #fef2f2, icon + explicit text (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:37:05.673Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "0283bf0b-80ac-4203-ae8e-a69664c6543b",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BvWcEpYGGfcSSy9rK68Tnf",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D9 \u2014 Issue 6: Where should the ErrorSummary render when validation fails?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 7 (Unresolved decisions) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: When Save fails validation, DESIGN.md says errors appear beside the fields AND in a linked summary, with focus moving to the first invalid field. But the page's DOM-order diagram never shows where that summary lives. If the existing ErrorSummary component already has a fixed slot in the current form, keep it and just record it; if not, it needs a home. Principle: seeing the system, not the screen; the error path is part of the layout.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a summary rendered below the fieldsets is off-screen on a phone at the moment Save appears to do nothing; a summary above the h1 breaks the heading order the plan protects.\nRecommendation: 6A because it sits where the user's eye already is after pressing Save and where DESIGN.md already puts network errors.\nCompleteness: 6A=10/10, 6B=7/10, 6C=4/10",
|
||||
"header": "Issue 6",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "6A: In the existing status/error area, below the action row, above Profile (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Directly beneath Save, next to the InlineStatus, above the first fieldset; same slot DESIGN.md uses for network errors. \u2705 Each summary item links to its field via href/aria-describedby; focus still goes to the first invalid field, so the summary is not a second live region. \u274c If the existing component is currently mounted elsewhere, moving it is a small refactor (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "6B: Keep wherever the existing ErrorSummary component mounts today",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Zero layout change; honors \"preserve component behavior\". \u2705 No refactor. \u274c Leaves the position undocumented in the plan, so the 320px visibility question stays open until someone checks the code."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "6C: Below the Notifications fieldset, near the bottom of the form",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Keeps the header compact. \u274c Off-screen on phones at the moment of failure; user sees Save \"do nothing\". \u274c Save lives at the top, so the summary is far from the trigger."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D9 \u2014 Issue 6: Where should the ErrorSummary render when validation fails?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 7 (Unresolved decisions) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: When Save fails validation, DESIGN.md says errors appear beside the fields AND in a linked summary, with focus moving to the first invalid field. But the page's DOM-order diagram never shows where that summary lives. If the existing ErrorSummary component already has a fixed slot in the current form, keep it and just record it; if not, it needs a home. Principle: seeing the system, not the screen; the error path is part of the layout.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a summary rendered below the fieldsets is off-screen on a phone at the moment Save appears to do nothing; a summary above the h1 breaks the heading order the plan protects.\nRecommendation: 6A because it sits where the user's eye already is after pressing Save and where DESIGN.md already puts network errors.\nCompleteness: 6A=10/10, 6B=7/10, 6C=4/10": "6A: In the existing status/error area, below the action row, above Profile (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:37:59.358Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "0283bf0b-80ac-4203-ae8e-a69664c6543b",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_013v56sRKMjQLpWC7CwXPcxQ",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D10 \u2014 Issue 7: How do the status text and its Retry sibling lay out at 320px?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 7 (Unresolved decisions) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: After a network failure the status area shows an error sentence plus a separate 44px \"Retry\" button beside it. The plan proves the header action row fits a 320px phone but never says what this error row does there. If both stay on one line, either the text gets crushed into a column two words wide or Retry shrinks below 44px. Principle: responsive is not \"stacked on mobile\", each viewport gets an intentional layout.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the Retry target on the failure path, the moment users are most frustrated, becomes hard to tap.\nRecommendation: 7A because it keeps text and button as siblings (so Retry stays outside the live region) while guaranteeing the 44px target at every width.\nCompleteness: 7A=10/10, 7B=6/10, 7C=5/10",
|
||||
"header": "Issue 7",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "7A: Inline above 640px; at \u2264640px Retry wraps to its own full-width row below the text (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Above 640px: text and Retry on one line, Retry right-aligned, 8px gap. \u2705 At \u2264640px: Retry wraps below the message as a full-width 44px ghost button; icon and text keep their 8px gap; no horizontal scroll at 320px. \u274c Two layout rules for one row; the wrap must be tested at 320px with a long error sentence."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "7B: Always inline, let the text wrap around a fixed-width Retry",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 One rule at all widths. \u2705 Retry always visible beside the text. \u274c At 320px the message column is roughly 200px wide; a two-sentence error becomes five short lines."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "7C: Always stack Retry below the text at every width",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Simplest single rule and always 44px. \u2705 Long messages read at full measure. \u274c Above 640px it wastes a row and separates Retry from the sentence it belongs to."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D10 \u2014 Issue 7: How do the status text and its Retry sibling lay out at 320px?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 7 (Unresolved decisions) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: After a network failure the status area shows an error sentence plus a separate 44px \"Retry\" button beside it. The plan proves the header action row fits a 320px phone but never says what this error row does there. If both stay on one line, either the text gets crushed into a column two words wide or Retry shrinks below 44px. Principle: responsive is not \"stacked on mobile\", each viewport gets an intentional layout.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the Retry target on the failure path, the moment users are most frustrated, becomes hard to tap.\nRecommendation: 7A because it keeps text and button as siblings (so Retry stays outside the live region) while guaranteeing the 44px target at every width.\nCompleteness: 7A=10/10, 7B=6/10, 7C=5/10": "7A: Inline above 640px; at \u2264640px Retry wraps to its own full-width row below the text (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:38:26.962Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "0283bf0b-80ac-4203-ae8e-a69664c6543b",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01137jbiM1CrXD99Bf3ehyaK",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D11 \u2014 Issue 8: What is the Export download filename?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 7 (Unresolved decisions) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: Export saves the user's preferences as a JSON file, but nothing says what the file is called. Users judge a download by its name in the Downloads folder a week later; \"export.json\" tells them nothing. Principle: trust is earned at the pixel level, and a filename is a pixel the user keeps.\nStakes if we pick wrong: low, but an anonymous filename is the kind of carelessness Ive says people can sense; a filename with the user's email leaks PII into shared Downloads folders.\nRecommendation: 8A because it names the product area and the date, sorts chronologically, and contains no personal data.\nCompleteness: 8A=10/10, 8B=7/10, 8C=3/10",
|
||||
"header": "Issue 8",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "8A: account-settings-YYYY-MM-DD.json (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Self-describing and date-stamped in the user's local date, so repeated exports sort and never overwrite. \u2705 No personal data in the filename; safe on shared machines. \u274c Two exports on the same day collide; the browser appends (1), which is acceptable."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "8B: account-settings.json (no date)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Shortest, stable name; easy to reference in support docs. \u2705 No personal data. \u274c Repeated exports pile up as account-settings (1).json, (2).json with no way to tell which is newest."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "8C: Leave to the implementer",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 No decision needed now. \u274c Engineer ships whatever the JSON helper defaults to, typically \"download.json\". \u274c Not a design outcome anyone chose."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D11 \u2014 Issue 8: What is the Export download filename?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 7 (Unresolved decisions) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: Export saves the user's preferences as a JSON file, but nothing says what the file is called. Users judge a download by its name in the Downloads folder a week later; \"export.json\" tells them nothing. Principle: trust is earned at the pixel level, and a filename is a pixel the user keeps.\nStakes if we pick wrong: low, but an anonymous filename is the kind of carelessness Ive says people can sense; a filename with the user's email leaks PII into shared Downloads folders.\nRecommendation: 8A because it names the product area and the date, sorts chronologically, and contains no personal data.\nCompleteness: 8A=10/10, 8B=7/10, 8C=3/10": "8A: account-settings-YYYY-MM-DD.json (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:38:52.561Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "0283bf0b-80ac-4203-ae8e-a69664c6543b",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01GLSSTGGWDMaFCdvVPLgtRS",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D12 \u2014 TODO: app-wide typeface decision (replace system-ui)?\nProject/branch/task: main; post-pass TODO proposals for the Account settings plan.\nELI10: The settings form inherits the app's default system font. That is fine for this alignment pass, but it is an app-level typography gap that this plan cannot fix alone. This asks only whether to record it as debt; it changes nothing in the current plan.\nStakes if we pick wrong: record it and it costs one TODO entry; skip it and the observation is lost until someone notices again.\nRecommendation: A because it is real debt with a clear owner path (/design-consultation) and zero cost to record.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.",
|
||||
"header": "TODO",
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A: Add to TODOS.md (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Debt is recorded with context so it is picked up as its own scope later. \u2705 Zero change to this plan. \u274c TODOS.md does not exist yet; it gets created after plan mode exits, as a follow-up write."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B: Skip, not valuable enough",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Nothing to maintain. \u2705 Keeps the review output focused on this form. \u274c The typography observation is lost."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "C: Build it now in this PR",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Fixes the tell immediately. \u274c Contradicts the plan's explicit \"retain system-ui\" and \"no visual exploration\" rules. \u274c An app-wide font change does not belong in a one-form alignment PR."
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"multiSelect": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D12 \u2014 TODO: app-wide typeface decision (replace system-ui)?\nProject/branch/task: main; post-pass TODO proposals for the Account settings plan.\nELI10: The settings form inherits the app's default system font. That is fine for this alignment pass, but it is an app-level typography gap that this plan cannot fix alone. This asks only whether to record it as debt; it changes nothing in the current plan.\nStakes if we pick wrong: record it and it costs one TODO entry; skip it and the observation is lost until someone notices again.\nRecommendation: A because it is real debt with a clear owner path (/design-consultation) and zero cost to record.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.": "A: Add to TODOS.md (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:39:26.202Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
+1109
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+922
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+1019
File diff suppressed because it is too large
Load Diff
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"provenance": {
|
||||
"kind": "public native AskUserQuestion and tool_result only",
|
||||
"cliVersion": "2.1.251",
|
||||
"sourceRevision": "78c8b25820d160afb3547ff6c81ad8b1931e9991",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_012HRHG7xme8rqkTMi3jdwCS",
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T07:47:35.498Z",
|
||||
"note": "Original affirmative answer is preserved. Free controls replay this request against the explicitly declared native-only actor policy; they do not rewrite that historical outcome."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"question": {
|
||||
"question": "D3 — Want outside design voices before the detailed review?\nProject/branch/task: main, User Dashboard Page plan, Variant A approved as reference.\nELI10: Two independent second opinions before I run the 7 passes. Codex (OpenAI's CLI) grades the plan against a set of hard design rules and 7 litmus checks; a fresh Claude subagent that hasn't seen my notes does an independent completeness review. Where they agree with me, we move faster; where they disagree, you see both sides.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skipping means findings rest on one reviewer's taste; running costs a few minutes and Codex may be unavailable in this environment.\nRecommendation: A because independent voices catch blind spots and the cost is a few minutes.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: a few minutes for cross-model confidence vs. a faster single-voice review.",
|
||||
"header": "Voices",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Yes, run outside design voices (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Codex hard-rule + litmus scorecard plus an independent Claude completeness read. ✅ Disagreements surface with both perspectives in the relevant pass. ❌ Adds a few minutes; Codex may be missing here, in which case only the Claude voice runs and it's tagged single-model."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "No, proceed without",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Straight into the 7 passes with the approved mockup as anchor. ✅ Fewest steps to a fixed plan. ❌ Findings rest on one reviewer; no cross-model check on slop risk or hierarchy."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"actualAnswer": "Yes, run outside design voices (recommended)",
|
||||
"sameLineExplanation77": {
|
||||
"source": "77fd0890ddfeaf2bdd6d78183a2d989d9a4e8d4c",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01XjmV9JV3Rb4HWv6zH8eSjK",
|
||||
"question": {
|
||||
"question": "Want outside design voices before the detailed review? Codex evaluates against OpenAI's design hard rules + litmus checks; a Claude subagent does an independent completeness review.\n\nD5 — Outside design voices\nProject/branch/task: main branch, plan-design-review of the User Dashboard Page plan, Variant A approved.\nELI10: Before I walk the 7 design passes myself, I can bring in two independent reviewers: Codex (scores the plan against hard-rejection rules like generic card grids, plus 7 litmus checks) and a fresh Claude subagent that hasn't seen my notes. Where they disagree with me, both views get surfaced in the relevant pass.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skipping means my findings rest on one reviewer; running adds a few minutes and Codex may not be installed here.\nRecommendation: No, proceed without — this is a taste call, no strong preference either way; the wireframe already anchors slop risk and hierarchy for an app-UI page.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: cross-model second opinion vs. the shortest path to a fixed plan.",
|
||||
"header": "Voices",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "No, proceed without (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Straight into the 7 passes with the approved mockup as anchor. ✅ Fewest steps to a fixed plan. ❌ Findings rest on one reviewer; no cross-model check on slop risk or hierarchy."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Yes, run outside design voices",
|
||||
"description": "✅ Codex hard-rule + litmus scorecard plus an independent Claude completeness read. ✅ Disagreements surface with both perspectives in the relevant pass. ❌ Adds a few minutes; Codex may be missing here, in which case only the Claude voice runs and it's tagged single-model."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
+284
@@ -0,0 +1,284 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"source": "77fd0890ddfeaf2bdd6d78183a2d989d9a4e8d4c",
|
||||
"case": "5-finding plan emits 4-7 review-phase AskUserQuestions",
|
||||
"calls": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "3a458da6-4f65-4356-8eb4-3e1799d2104a",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_011ah7WdvtwLjQ47qm4ivSqs",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, plan-design-review of PLAN.md (Settings Page UI redesign).\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so that when you say \"review this design\" or \"ship it\" the right skill fires without you naming it. This is a one-time onboarding prompt for this project. Since we're in plan mode, if you pick A I'll append the section and commit only after the review finishes and plan mode exits.\nStakes if we pick wrong: pick B and you invoke skills by hand forever (re-enable is one config command); pick A and CLAUDE.md gains ~15 lines.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make the skill set discoverable at no runtime cost.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: convenience of auto-routing vs. a small addition to a checked-in file.",
|
||||
"header": "Routing",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Requests like \"review this plan\" auto-route to the matching skill. \u2705 One-time setup, applies to every future session in this repo. \u274c Adds a ~15-line section to CLAUDE.md and a commit (deferred until plan mode exits)."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 CLAUDE.md stays exactly as it is, nothing committed. \u2705 Re-enable any time with one gstack-config command. \u274c You have to name skills explicitly every time."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, plan-design-review of PLAN.md (Settings Page UI redesign).\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so that when you say \"review this design\" or \"ship it\" the right skill fires without you naming it. This is a one-time onboarding prompt for this project. Since we're in plan mode, if you pick A I'll append the section and commit only after the review finishes and plan mode exits.\nStakes if we pick wrong: pick B and you invoke skills by hand forever (re-enable is one config command); pick A and CLAUDE.md gains ~15 lines.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make the skill set discoverable at no runtime cost.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: convenience of auto-routing vs. a small addition to a checked-in file.": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:22:41.066Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "3a458da6-4f65-4356-8eb4-3e1799d2104a",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_019UtfahappkiZvNQTmoA3fK",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D2 \u2014 Review all 7 design dimensions, or focus on specific areas?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, plan-design-review of PLAN.md (Settings Page UI redesign).\nELI10: I've rated this plan 6/10 on design completeness. The behavior spec is excellent; the five listed visual gaps (Save hierarchy, spacing rhythm, error contrast, label sizes, Save pending state) have no committed values yet, even though DESIGN.md already defines every one of them. You asked for all seven dimensions and text-only; this confirms that scope before I start the passes, each of which will surface findings for your individual approval.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a narrower focus is faster but leaves untouched dimensions (e.g. AI-slop risk, journey) at whatever score they land.\nRecommendation: A because you asked for all seven and the plan is small enough that a full pass is cheap.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10\nNet: full coverage vs. speed on a plan small enough that speed barely matters.",
|
||||
"header": "Focus",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "All 7 dimensions (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Every dimension gets rated and every gap gets its own decision, matching your request. \u2705 Catches the states the plan text still leaves implicit, not just the five it already lists. \u274c More approval questions (roughly one per finding, expect 8-12)."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Only the 5 listed gaps",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Fastest path: resolve Visual Hierarchy, Spacing, Color, Typography, Motion against DESIGN.md tokens. \u2705 Fewer questions to answer. \u274c Skips Information Architecture, Journey, AI-slop, Interaction-state coverage beyond what's listed."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D2 \u2014 Review all 7 design dimensions, or focus on specific areas?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, plan-design-review of PLAN.md (Settings Page UI redesign).\nELI10: I've rated this plan 6/10 on design completeness. The behavior spec is excellent; the five listed visual gaps (Save hierarchy, spacing rhythm, error contrast, label sizes, Save pending state) have no committed values yet, even though DESIGN.md already defines every one of them. You asked for all seven dimensions and text-only; this confirms that scope before I start the passes, each of which will surface findings for your individual approval.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a narrower focus is faster but leaves untouched dimensions (e.g. AI-slop risk, journey) at whatever score they land.\nRecommendation: A because you asked for all seven and the plan is small enough that a full pass is cheap.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10\nNet: full coverage vs. speed on a plan small enough that speed barely matters.": "All 7 dimensions (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:24:22.777Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "3a458da6-4f65-4356-8eb4-3e1799d2104a",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_0141SB8H4NKFTgbeqitpozWJ",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D3 \u2014 Enable cross-project learnings search?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, plan-design-review of PLAN.md (Settings Page UI redesign).\nELI10: gstack can search learnings saved from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here (e.g. a form-state pitfall found in another repo). Everything stays local; no data leaves your machine. One-time setting.\nStakes if we pick wrong: enable it on a machine with multiple client codebases and one client's notes could surface while working on another; keep it scoped and you lose reuse across your own projects.\nRecommendation: A because for a solo developer the reuse is free and local.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: cross-repo pattern reuse vs. strict per-project isolation.",
|
||||
"header": "Learnings",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Pitfalls and patterns from your other repos surface in this review automatically. \u2705 Fully local; one config flag, reversible any time. \u274c Not ideal if you work across multiple client codebases where cross-contamination matters."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Keep learnings project-scoped only",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Strict isolation: only this project's learnings are ever searched. \u2705 Safe default for consultants juggling client repos. \u274c You lose reuse of lessons learned elsewhere on this machine."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D3 \u2014 Enable cross-project learnings search?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, plan-design-review of PLAN.md (Settings Page UI redesign).\nELI10: gstack can search learnings saved from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here (e.g. a form-state pitfall found in another repo). Everything stays local; no data leaves your machine. One-time setting.\nStakes if we pick wrong: enable it on a machine with multiple client codebases and one client's notes could surface while working on another; keep it scoped and you lose reuse across your own projects.\nRecommendation: A because for a solo developer the reuse is free and local.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: cross-repo pattern reuse vs. strict per-project isolation.": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:24:54.853Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "3a458da6-4f65-4356-8eb4-3e1799d2104a",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01KE9JSZJVp13prvZN47B8Lk",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "Issue 1 (Pass 1, Info Arch) \u2014 Make Save the visible primary action?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, plan-design-review of PLAN.md (Settings Page UI redesign).\nELI10: The header has four buttons that all look the same. A user scanning the page can't tell which one commits their work and which one throws it away. DESIGN.md already decides this: Save is the only filled primary (#1d4ed8, white text); Reset, Cancel and Export are neutral ghost buttons. The plan lists this gap but never commits to the token.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users mis-tap Reset or Cancel beside Save on a 320px row and hit a discard dialog they didn't want; primary action recognition is the 3-second scan test.\nPrinciple: Hierarchy as service \u2014 what should the user see first? The one button that stores their work.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already specifies the exact treatment and the Button component already has the role.\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=7/10, 1C=2/10\nEffort 1A: (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min).\nNet: one token swap on one button vs. leaving the header ambiguous.",
|
||||
"header": "Issue 1",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "1A Save filled primary, others ghost (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Save uses the existing filled primary role (#1d4ed8 bg, white text); Reset/Cancel/Export use the existing neutral ghost role. \u2705 Matches DESIGN.md exactly; no new styles, existing Button component. \u274c None beyond doing the work; disabled/pending appearance of the filled button must still read as inactive (already the existing disabled style)."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "1B Save primary, Export also emphasized",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Signals Export as a safe, non-destructive action distinct from Reset/Cancel. \u274c Violates DESIGN.md (Save is the only filled primary) and re-splits attention across two emphasized buttons."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "1C Keep all four uniform (decline)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Zero work now. \u274c Leaves the documented gap open, fails the 3-second scan test, and contradicts DESIGN.md; Pass 1 stays at 7/10."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"Issue 1 (Pass 1, Info Arch) \u2014 Make Save the visible primary action?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, plan-design-review of PLAN.md (Settings Page UI redesign).\nELI10: The header has four buttons that all look the same. A user scanning the page can't tell which one commits their work and which one throws it away. DESIGN.md already decides this: Save is the only filled primary (#1d4ed8, white text); Reset, Cancel and Export are neutral ghost buttons. The plan lists this gap but never commits to the token.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users mis-tap Reset or Cancel beside Save on a 320px row and hit a discard dialog they didn't want; primary action recognition is the 3-second scan test.\nPrinciple: Hierarchy as service \u2014 what should the user see first? The one button that stores their work.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already specifies the exact treatment and the Button component already has the role.\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=7/10, 1C=2/10\nEffort 1A: (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min).\nNet: one token swap on one button vs. leaving the header ambiguous.": "1A Save filled primary, others ghost (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:26:01.028Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "3a458da6-4f65-4356-8eb4-3e1799d2104a",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01QoZpoE9E1i3PdwA3ZmAVuK",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "Issue 2 (Pass 2, States) \u2014 Save pending feedback: which pattern?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, plan-design-review of PLAN.md (Settings Page UI redesign).\nELI10: Save takes 2-5 seconds and the page shows nothing. Users either click again (already blocked, so it feels broken) or assume it failed. DESIGN.md's established pending pattern is an inline spinner beside \u201cSaving\u2026\u201d inside the disabled Save button with aria-busy=true and reduced-motion support; it's the same pattern the plan already accepts for Export (\u201cExporting\u2026\u201d). The plan's own text \u201cdo not repeat Saving\u2026 in the status live region\u201d assumes this label exists.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a skeleton would hide the fields the user just edited (and the plan says preserve unsaved values and don't move focus), so it fights the accepted contract.\nPrinciple: Trust is earned at the pixel level \u2014 the 2-5s wait is the moment the user decides whether their preferences were stored.\nRecommendation: 2A because it is the existing pattern, matches Export exactly, and keeps focus and field values in place.\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=4/10, 2C=1/10\nEffort 2A: (human: ~2h / CC: ~10min).\nNet: reuse the exact Export pattern on Save vs. inventing a second pending idiom.",
|
||||
"header": "Issue 2",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "2A Inline spinner + \u201cSaving\u2026\u201d in Save button (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Existing spinner beside \u201cSaving\u2026\u201d inside Save, aria-busy=true, aria-disabled + activation guard, focus stays put; reduced motion swaps spinner animation for a static indicator. \u2705 Identical to the accepted Export pattern, so users learn it once. \u274c Label change widens the button above 640px unless width is reserved (surfaced as its own issue in Pass 6)."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "2B Skeleton over the form while saving",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Very visible \u201csomething is happening\u201d signal. \u274c Hides the user's edits, conflicts with \u201cpreserve unsaved values\u201d and \u201cdo not move focus\u201d, and contradicts DESIGN.md's established pending pattern."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "2C Leave as is (decline)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 No work. \u274c 2-5s frozen page remains; Pass 2 stays at 7/10 and Pass 3 (journey) keeps its trust break."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"Issue 2 (Pass 2, States) \u2014 Save pending feedback: which pattern?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, plan-design-review of PLAN.md (Settings Page UI redesign).\nELI10: Save takes 2-5 seconds and the page shows nothing. Users either click again (already blocked, so it feels broken) or assume it failed. DESIGN.md's established pending pattern is an inline spinner beside \u201cSaving\u2026\u201d inside the disabled Save button with aria-busy=true and reduced-motion support; it's the same pattern the plan already accepts for Export (\u201cExporting\u2026\u201d). The plan's own text \u201cdo not repeat Saving\u2026 in the status live region\u201d assumes this label exists.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a skeleton would hide the fields the user just edited (and the plan says preserve unsaved values and don't move focus), so it fights the accepted contract.\nPrinciple: Trust is earned at the pixel level \u2014 the 2-5s wait is the moment the user decides whether their preferences were stored.\nRecommendation: 2A because it is the existing pattern, matches Export exactly, and keeps focus and field values in place.\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=4/10, 2C=1/10\nEffort 2A: (human: ~2h / CC: ~10min).\nNet: reuse the exact Export pattern on Save vs. inventing a second pending idiom.": "2A Inline spinner + \u201cSaving\u2026\u201d in Save button (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:26:34.624Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "3a458da6-4f65-4356-8eb4-3e1799d2104a",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Hm8yQ9eHr9oYifRDwgvPXQ",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "Issue 3 (Pass 5, Design System) \u2014 Error message colors: adopt DESIGN.md error tokens?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, plan-design-review of PLAN.md (Settings Page UI redesign).\nELI10: Error text is currently red on light pink at roughly 3:1 contrast. WCAG AA needs 4.5:1 for body-size text, so low-vision users and anyone on a dim phone screen struggle to read the one message telling them why their save failed. DESIGN.md specifies error.text #991b1b on error.surface #fef2f2 (about 7.5:1) with an icon and explicit text, so status never rides on color alone.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the recovery moment in the journey (step 4/6b) stays the least legible thing on the page; it's also a straightforward AA failure.\nPrinciple: Accessibility is not optional; specify contrast in the plan or it won't exist.\nRecommendation: 3A because the tokens exist, exceed AA, and apply to field errors, ErrorSummary and the network/export error row with one change.\nCompleteness: 3A=10/10, 3B=6/10, 3C=0/10\nEffort 3A: (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min).\nNet: one token pair across every error surface vs. an AA failure at the recovery moment.",
|
||||
"header": "Issue 3",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "3A #991b1b on #fef2f2 + icon + text (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Applies DESIGN.md error.text/error.surface to field errors, ErrorSummary and the network/export error row; contrast ~7.5:1, well past AA. \u2705 Icon plus explicit text means the state never depends on color. \u274c Must be verified on every error surface including the 320px wrapped Retry row (add to verification)."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "3B Darken text only, keep current surface",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Smaller visual change from today's look. \u274c Invents a token not in DESIGN.md; still needs a measured contrast check and leaves ErrorSummary/field errors possibly inconsistent."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "3C Leave as is (decline)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 No work. \u274c Ships a WCAG AA failure on the page's most important recovery message; Pass 5 and Pass 6 stay below 8."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"Issue 3 (Pass 5, Design System) \u2014 Error message colors: adopt DESIGN.md error tokens?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, plan-design-review of PLAN.md (Settings Page UI redesign).\nELI10: Error text is currently red on light pink at roughly 3:1 contrast. WCAG AA needs 4.5:1 for body-size text, so low-vision users and anyone on a dim phone screen struggle to read the one message telling them why their save failed. DESIGN.md specifies error.text #991b1b on error.surface #fef2f2 (about 7.5:1) with an icon and explicit text, so status never rides on color alone.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the recovery moment in the journey (step 4/6b) stays the least legible thing on the page; it's also a straightforward AA failure.\nPrinciple: Accessibility is not optional; specify contrast in the plan or it won't exist.\nRecommendation: 3A because the tokens exist, exceed AA, and apply to field errors, ErrorSummary and the network/export error row with one change.\nCompleteness: 3A=10/10, 3B=6/10, 3C=0/10\nEffort 3A: (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min).\nNet: one token pair across every error surface vs. an AA failure at the recovery moment.": "3A #991b1b on #fef2f2 + icon + text (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:28:15.458Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "3a458da6-4f65-4356-8eb4-3e1799d2104a",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01SD72iADtnKhhSAkZ6JkasP",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "Issue 4 (Pass 5, Design System) \u2014 Label type sizes: adopt DESIGN.md's two roles?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, plan-design-review of PLAN.md (Settings Page UI redesign).\nELI10: Form labels currently render at 14px, 16px and 18px with no rule for which is which. Three sizes on four fields reads as noise, and the 14px ones fall under the 16px floor for body text. DESIGN.md defines exactly two roles: 16px for body, form labels and helper text; 20px for the Profile/Notifications h2 headings. The plan says \u201ctwo sizes would suffice\u201d but never names them.\nStakes if we pick wrong: an implementer picks sizes ad hoc; 14px labels stay hard to read on phones and the hierarchy between heading and label stays muddy.\nPrinciple: Specificity over vibes; name the scale or it won't exist.\nRecommendation: 4A because DESIGN.md already commits to these two roles and the font family is unchanged.\nCompleteness: 4A=10/10, 4B=5/10, 4C=0/10\nEffort 4A: (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min).\nNet: two named sizes vs. three unnamed ones.",
|
||||
"header": "Issue 4",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "4A 16px labels/body/helper, 20px h2 (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 All labels, helper text, status text, error text and inputs at 16px; Profile and Notifications h2 at 20px; h1 keeps its existing page-title size. \u2705 Removes the sub-16px labels and gives one clear step between heading and field. \u274c Any existing 18px label loses its emphasis; if one was intentional it needs a reason (none is recorded)."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "4B Keep 16/18px, drop only 14px",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Fixes the under-16px readability problem with the smallest change. \u274c Leaves a third size DESIGN.md doesn't define and keeps the label-vs-heading hierarchy unclear."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "4C Leave as is (decline)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 No work. \u274c Three sizes, 14px body text below the floor; Pass 4 and Pass 5 stay below 10."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"Issue 4 (Pass 5, Design System) \u2014 Label type sizes: adopt DESIGN.md's two roles?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, plan-design-review of PLAN.md (Settings Page UI redesign).\nELI10: Form labels currently render at 14px, 16px and 18px with no rule for which is which. Three sizes on four fields reads as noise, and the 14px ones fall under the 16px floor for body text. DESIGN.md defines exactly two roles: 16px for body, form labels and helper text; 20px for the Profile/Notifications h2 headings. The plan says \u201ctwo sizes would suffice\u201d but never names them.\nStakes if we pick wrong: an implementer picks sizes ad hoc; 14px labels stay hard to read on phones and the hierarchy between heading and label stays muddy.\nPrinciple: Specificity over vibes; name the scale or it won't exist.\nRecommendation: 4A because DESIGN.md already commits to these two roles and the font family is unchanged.\nCompleteness: 4A=10/10, 4B=5/10, 4C=0/10\nEffort 4A: (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min).\nNet: two named sizes vs. three unnamed ones.": "4A 16px labels/body/helper, 20px h2 (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:28:54.591Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "3a458da6-4f65-4356-8eb4-3e1799d2104a",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_0195NmidkNzPu9ENBWwRc7DT",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "Issue 5 (Pass 5, Design System) \u2014 Vertical rhythm: adopt DESIGN.md's 8px scale?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, plan-design-review of PLAN.md (Settings Page UI redesign).\nELI10: Gaps between parts of the form are 16px in one place, 24px in another, 32px in a third, with no rule. The eye reads inconsistent gaps as separate groups, so Profile and Notifications don't feel like siblings and fields don't clearly belong to their heading. DESIGN.md sets an 8px base: 32px between sections, 24px between field groups, 8px from label to input. The plan names the gap but not the values.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Gestalt proximity breaks; the implementer eyeballs spacing and the form keeps looking assembled rather than designed.\nPrinciple: Visual hierarchy is everything: related things visually grouped, nested things visually contained.\nRecommendation: 5A because the scale is already written down and maps directly onto the existing section/field structure.\nCompleteness: 5A=10/10, 5B=6/10, 5C=0/10\nEffort 5A: (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min).\nNet: three named values on an 8px grid vs. three arbitrary ones.",
|
||||
"header": "Issue 5",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "5A 32px sections / 24px field groups / 8px label-to-input (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Header \u2192 status slot \u2192 Profile \u2192 Notifications separated by 32px; fields within a fieldset by 24px; label to its input by 8px; error/Retry row gap stays 8px. \u2705 Every value is a multiple of 8, so the page reads as one rhythm at 320px and at 640px. \u274c The 8px error-row gap and the 640px reflow gaps need to be checked against the same scale in verification."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "5B Normalize to a single 24px gap everywhere",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 One number, trivially consistent. \u274c Flattens the section-vs-field distinction DESIGN.md wants (sections should read as bigger breaks than fields) and diverges from the written scale."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "5C Leave as is (decline)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 No work. \u274c Rhythm stays 16/24/32 at random; Pass 5 stays below 8."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"Issue 5 (Pass 5, Design System) \u2014 Vertical rhythm: adopt DESIGN.md's 8px scale?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, plan-design-review of PLAN.md (Settings Page UI redesign).\nELI10: Gaps between parts of the form are 16px in one place, 24px in another, 32px in a third, with no rule. The eye reads inconsistent gaps as separate groups, so Profile and Notifications don't feel like siblings and fields don't clearly belong to their heading. DESIGN.md sets an 8px base: 32px between sections, 24px between field groups, 8px from label to input. The plan names the gap but not the values.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Gestalt proximity breaks; the implementer eyeballs spacing and the form keeps looking assembled rather than designed.\nPrinciple: Visual hierarchy is everything: related things visually grouped, nested things visually contained.\nRecommendation: 5A because the scale is already written down and maps directly onto the existing section/field structure.\nCompleteness: 5A=10/10, 5B=6/10, 5C=0/10\nEffort 5A: (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min).\nNet: three named values on an 8px grid vs. three arbitrary ones.": "5A 32px sections / 24px field groups / 8px label-to-input (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:29:22.187Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "3a458da6-4f65-4356-8eb4-3e1799d2104a",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_019bq2P25JF4U91VeASc78m9",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "Issue 6 (Pass 6, Responsive) \u2014 Save button width during \u201cSaving\u2026\u201d above 640px?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, plan-design-review of PLAN.md (Settings Page UI redesign).\nELI10: Above 640px the four header buttons share one row. When Save's label changes to a spinner plus \u201cSaving\u2026\u201d, the button gets wider and shoves Reset, Cancel and Export to the right, then they jump back when the request settles. Neither the plan nor DESIGN.md says whether Save reserves that width. At 640px and below Save is full-width, so nothing moves there.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a 2-5 second layout jump right under the pointer, on every save, and a pointer parked over Export can land on nothing; \u201cwould I notice?\u201d says yes.\nPrinciple: Invisible is perfect: the highest compliment is not noticing the design.\nRecommendation: 6A because a reserved min-width is a one-line CSS rule that keeps the row still and needs no new pattern.\nCompleteness: 6A=10/10, 6B=8/10, 6C=3/10\nEffort 6A: (human: ~30min / CC: ~2min).\nNet: reserve a few extra pixels permanently vs. a visible jump on every save.",
|
||||
"header": "Issue 6",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "6A Reserve min-width for the pending label (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Save's min-width above 640px equals its rendered width with spinner + \u201cSaving\u2026\u201d, so Reset/Cancel/Export never move during a request. \u2705 Still fits the 640px form width; below 640px Save is already full-width. \u274c Idle Save is a few pixels wider than its text needs, and the width must be re-measured if the label copy changes."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "6B Show spinner only, keep \u201cSave\u201d label",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 Minimal width change; the row barely moves. \u274c Diverges from DESIGN.md's \u201cSaving\u2026\u201d pattern and from Export's \u201cExporting\u2026\u201d, and under reduced motion a static spinner alone is a weak signal."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "6C Accept the layout shift",
|
||||
"description": "\u2705 No extra rule to maintain. \u274c Buttons jump on every save for 2-5s and snap back; feels unpolished and can move a target from under the pointer."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"Issue 6 (Pass 6, Responsive) \u2014 Save button width during \u201cSaving\u2026\u201d above 640px?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, plan-design-review of PLAN.md (Settings Page UI redesign).\nELI10: Above 640px the four header buttons share one row. When Save's label changes to a spinner plus \u201cSaving\u2026\u201d, the button gets wider and shoves Reset, Cancel and Export to the right, then they jump back when the request settles. Neither the plan nor DESIGN.md says whether Save reserves that width. At 640px and below Save is full-width, so nothing moves there.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a 2-5 second layout jump right under the pointer, on every save, and a pointer parked over Export can land on nothing; \u201cwould I notice?\u201d says yes.\nPrinciple: Invisible is perfect: the highest compliment is not noticing the design.\nRecommendation: 6A because a reserved min-width is a one-line CSS rule that keeps the row still and needs no new pattern.\nCompleteness: 6A=10/10, 6B=8/10, 6C=3/10\nEffort 6A: (human: ~30min / CC: ~2min).\nNet: reserve a few extra pixels permanently vs. a visible jump on every save.": "6A Reserve min-width for the pending label (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:29:59.829Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"actualRecordedPhase": "before first review, first three issues are lost; original paid verdict remains separate",
|
||||
"description": "Complete actual native calls: routing, focus, learnings, five seeded visual findings and one additional responsive finding. Synthetic controls are mutations in free tests."
|
||||
}
|
||||
+17
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"source": "fd620d368a494d65ca53952b4117ea3d3337c7d3",
|
||||
"cliVersion": "2.1.263",
|
||||
"columns": 240,
|
||||
"frameSha256": "dbdea24e72875ee1ed755075b41361e4f056773eed0086f611f56df46e3f9a32",
|
||||
"frame": "\n Running 1 shell command…\n ⎿ $ cd /tmp/gstack-paid-shard-33BaXb/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-design-AzLpVt\n eval \"$(/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-33BaXb/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2495650-qXo50f/with-skills/runtime/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)\"\n TASKS_DIR=\"${HOME}/.gstack/projects/${SLUG:-unknown}\"\n mkdir -p \"$TASKS_DIR\"\n TASKS_FILE=\"$TASKS_DIR/tasks-de…\n \n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n Bash command\n \n │ cd /tmp/gstack-paid-shard-33BaXb/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-design-AzLpVt\n │ eval \"$(/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-33BaXb/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2495650-qXo50f/with-skills/runtime/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)\"\n │ TASKS_DIR=\"${HOME}/.gstack/projects/${SLUG:-unknown}\"\n │ mkdir -p \"$TASKS_DIR\"\n │ TASKS_FILE=\"$TASKS_DIR/tasks-design-review-$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S).jsonl\"\n │ COMMIT=$(git rev-parse HEAD 2>/dev/null || echo unknown)\n │ BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo unknown)\n │ RUN_ID=\"$(date -u +%Y%m%dT%H%M%SZ)-$$\"\n │ emit() { jq -nc --arg phase 'design-review' --arg run_id \"$RUN_ID\" --arg branch \"$BRANCH\" --arg commit \"$COMMIT\" --arg id \"$1\" --arg priority \"$2\" --arg component \"$3\" --arg effort_human \"$4\" --arg effort_cc \"$5\" --arg title \"$6\"\n │ --arg source_finding \"$7\" --argjson files \"$8\" '{phase:$phase, run_id:$run_id, branch:$branch, commit:$commit, id:$id, priority:$priority, component:$component, files:$files, effort_human:$effort_human, effort_cc:$effort_cc,\n │ title:$title, source_finding:$source_finding}' >> \"$TASKS_FILE\"; }\n │ emit T1 P1 \"Button (Settings scope)\" \"~2h\" \"~10min\" \"Make Save the filled variant, Reset/Cancel/Export the outline variant\" \"Pass 1 issue 1 option 1A\" '[\"settings page styles / Button custom-property overrides\"]'\n │ emit T2 P1 \"Save button in-flight state\" \"~1d\" \"~30min\" \"Add Saving… label + 16px ring, pin idle width, aria-busy/aria-disabled, reduced-motion fallback\" \"Pass 2 issue 2 option 2A; skeleton conflicts with DESIGN.md\" '[\"settings save\n │ handler\",\"Button pending state\"]'\n │ emit T3 P1 \"Error color roles\" \"~1h\" \"~5min\" \"Set error foreground #991B1B and panel background #FEF2F2\" \"Pass 6 issue 6 option 6B; two error surfaces\" '[\"settings-scoped color custom properties\"]'\n │ emit T4 P2 \"FormStack section gap\" \"~1h\" \"~5min\" \"Set Settings section-gap role to 32px including actions/panel to Profile\" \"Pass 5 issue 4 option 4A\" '[\"settings-scoped FormStack spacing property\"]'\n │ emit T5 P2 \"Field labels\" \"~1h\" \"~5min\" \"One label tier 16px/600/#1F2937; remove 14px and 18px label sizes\" \"Pass 5 issue 5 option 5A\" '[\"settings-scoped Field label properties\"]'\n │ emit T6 P2 \"Save-failure panel\" \"~30min\" \"~5min\" \"Confirm the panel has a visible edge against #FEF2F2; else raise a new decision\" \"Pass 7 conditional; panel tint 1.09:1 vs white\" '[\"failure panel component styles\"]'\n │ emit T7 P3 \"Settings markup\" \"~15min\" \"~2min\" \"Check for fieldset/legend; if present propose a ≤16px second label tier\" \"Pass 5 issue 5 conditional\" '[\"settings page markup\"]'\n │ echo \"TASKS_FILE: $TASKS_FILE\"; wc -l \"$TASKS_FILE\"\n Write implementation tasks JSONL artifact for autoplan\n\n Contains brace with quote character (expansion obfuscation)\n\n Do you want to proceed? \n ❯ 1. Yes\n 2. No\n\n Esc to cancel · Tab to amend",
|
||||
"tool": {
|
||||
"id": "toolu_01RXQDkF8TjveT7w8QqNEvc7",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-33BaXb/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-design-AzLpVt",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "cd /tmp/gstack-paid-shard-33BaXb/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-design-AzLpVt\neval \"$(/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-33BaXb/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2495650-qXo50f/with-skills/runtime/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)\"\nTASKS_DIR=\"${HOME}/.gstack/projects/${SLUG:-unknown}\"\nmkdir -p \"$TASKS_DIR\"\nTASKS_FILE=\"$TASKS_DIR/tasks-design-review-$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S).jsonl\"\nCOMMIT=$(git rev-parse HEAD 2>/dev/null || echo unknown)\nBRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo unknown)\nRUN_ID=\"$(date -u +%Y%m%dT%H%M%SZ)-$$\"\nemit() { jq -nc --arg phase 'design-review' --arg run_id \"$RUN_ID\" --arg branch \"$BRANCH\" --arg commit \"$COMMIT\" --arg id \"$1\" --arg priority \"$2\" --arg component \"$3\" --arg effort_human \"$4\" --arg effort_cc \"$5\" --arg title \"$6\" --arg source_finding \"$7\" --argjson files \"$8\" '{phase:$phase, run_id:$run_id, branch:$branch, commit:$commit, id:$id, priority:$priority, component:$component, files:$files, effort_human:$effort_human, effort_cc:$effort_cc, title:$title, source_finding:$source_finding}' >> \"$TASKS_FILE\"; }\nemit T1 P1 \"Button (Settings scope)\" \"~2h\" \"~10min\" \"Make Save the filled variant, Reset/Cancel/Export the outline variant\" \"Pass 1 issue 1 option 1A\" '[\"settings page styles / Button custom-property overrides\"]'\nemit T2 P1 \"Save button in-flight state\" \"~1d\" \"~30min\" \"Add Saving… label + 16px ring, pin idle width, aria-busy/aria-disabled, reduced-motion fallback\" \"Pass 2 issue 2 option 2A; skeleton conflicts with DESIGN.md\" '[\"settings save handler\",\"Button pending state\"]'\nemit T3 P1 \"Error color roles\" \"~1h\" \"~5min\" \"Set error foreground #991B1B and panel background #FEF2F2\" \"Pass 6 issue 6 option 6B; two error surfaces\" '[\"settings-scoped color custom properties\"]'\nemit T4 P2 \"FormStack section gap\" \"~1h\" \"~5min\" \"Set Settings section-gap role to 32px including actions/panel to Profile\" \"Pass 5 issue 4 option 4A\" '[\"settings-scoped FormStack spacing property\"]'\nemit T5 P2 \"Field labels\" \"~1h\" \"~5min\" \"One label tier 16px/600/#1F2937; remove 14px and 18px label sizes\" \"Pass 5 issue 5 option 5A\" '[\"settings-scoped Field label properties\"]'\nemit T6 P2 \"Save-failure panel\" \"~30min\" \"~5min\" \"Confirm the panel has a visible edge against #FEF2F2; else raise a new decision\" \"Pass 7 conditional; panel tint 1.09:1 vs white\" '[\"failure panel component styles\"]'\nemit T7 P3 \"Settings markup\" \"~15min\" \"~2min\" \"Check for fieldset/legend; if present propose a ≤16px second label tier\" \"Pass 5 issue 5 conditional\" '[\"settings page markup\"]'\necho \"TASKS_FILE: $TASKS_FILE\"; wc -l \"$TASKS_FILE\"",
|
||||
"description": "Write implementation tasks JSONL artifact for autoplan"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"bashPermissionRequestId": "12165970-86ce-4c81-989d-7c4fd1f98cec"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
+70
@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
|
||||
[
|
||||
{
|
||||
"attempt": 1,
|
||||
"source": "badd96db4a69f95b739066eacab5b90edbbb480e",
|
||||
"observationSha256": "35ad194c470a698ad2b5ee282dfe4f34829a967bc1762f8023e8f97c2a28f71c",
|
||||
"screenSha256": "4c57421eac0f054835c821698172da6d9fb38eeb4b1fb497f9a28354f0dfa2ba",
|
||||
"screen": " stack-plan-count-J2tnZr/designs/user-dashboard-…)\n ⎿ attempt 1 failed\n -rw-r--r-- 1 vercel-sandbox vercel-sandbox 190236 Sep 15 07:14 /tmp/gstack-owned-display-qqa21fxz/gstack-paid-\n shard-WjdzbM/tmp/gstack-native-review-state-5mGMEo/projects/gstack-plan-count-J2tnZr/designs/user-dashboard-20\n 260915/variant-C.png\n ⎿ (timeout 3m 20s)\n ⎿ Allowed by auto mode classifier\n\n Read 1 file (ctrl+o to expand)\n\n● Bash(_DD=\"/tmp/gstack-owned-display-qqa21fxz/gstack-paid-shard-WjdzbM/tmp/gstack-native-review-state-5mGMEo/projects/g\n stack-plan-count-J2tnZr/designs/user-dashboard-…)\n ⎿ --- stderr ---\n [design-daemon] spawning new daemon\n DAEMON_STARTED port=44363 version=49ed165cd23dc9f13f73e60871500c3f68f682ed\n … +16 lines (ctrl+o to expand)\n ⎿ Allowed by auto mode classifier\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\nPlanning: /tmp/gstack-owned-display-qqa21fxz/gstack-paid-shard-WjdzbM/tmp/gstack-hermetic-547345-Xrhmg1/with-skills/.cla\nude/plans/squishy-pondering-flute.md\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n ☐ Board \n\n│ I've opened a comparison board with the design variants: http://127.0.0.1:44363/boards/b-20260915-071501-9wzn0m/ — \n│ Rate them, leave comments, remix elements you like, and click Submit when you're done. Let me know when you've \n│ submitted your feedback (or paste your preferences here). If you clicked Regenerate or Remix on the board, tell me and\n│ I'll generate new variants.\n\n❯ 1. Submitted\n I submitted feedback on the comparison board. Read its final feedback and continue.\n 2. Regenerate / Remix\n I requested another round on the comparison board. Read that request and regenerate.\n 3. Type preferences\n I will provide my preferences in chat instead of using the comparison board.\n 4. Type something.\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n 5. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · Esc to cancel\n",
|
||||
"call": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "2886b0f7-eb4b-45a5-858f-f93fbb843419",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Wqza7L86rZxZUHkqLDsnKb",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "I've opened a comparison board with the design variants: http://127.0.0.1:44363/boards/b-20260915-071501-9wzn0m/ — Rate them, leave comments, remix elements you like, and click Submit when you're done. Let me know when you've submitted your feedback (or paste your preferences here). If you clicked Regenerate or Remix on the board, tell me and I'll generate new variants.",
|
||||
"header": "Board",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Submitted",
|
||||
"description": "I submitted feedback on the comparison board. Read its final feedback and continue."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Regenerate / Remix",
|
||||
"description": "I requested another round on the comparison board. Read that request and regenerate."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Type preferences",
|
||||
"description": "I will provide my preferences in chat instead of using the comparison board."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": false,
|
||||
"failed": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"attempt": 2,
|
||||
"source": "badd96db4a69f95b739066eacab5b90edbbb480e",
|
||||
"observationSha256": "d7bbcfb84d192ac4cb37c6a4f0b8931213a9e1b0d1465f2758ec849dc34ce496",
|
||||
"screenSha256": "bbfeecc19d4d5eda4d097dbd5ae5ced64ccb77594f368217b3fa914994ef6bc4",
|
||||
"screen": " Project/branch/task: main, design review of \"Plan: User Dashboard Page\"; mockup step.\n ELI10: The designer needs an OpenAI key to paint AI mockups and none is configured here. I can instead hand-build \n three HTML wireframe variants of the dashboard, screenshot them with the installed Chrome, and put them on the same\n interactive comparison board you'd normally get. Or you can add a key now and I retry the AI path.\n Stakes if we pick wrong: Text-only review means you approve a layout you never saw; waiting on a key stalls the \n review if you don't have one handy.\n Recommendation: B because it gives you real visuals to rate on the board right now, with no external dependency, \n and the layout/hierarchy decisions are what this plan is missing most.\n Completeness: A=10/10, B=8/10, C=4/10\n Net: fidelity of AI-painted mockups vs. immediate, dependency-free wireframes vs. no visuals at all. → Hand-built \n HTML wireframes on the comparison board (recommended)\n\n Read 1 file, ran 3 shell commands \n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\nPlanning: /tmp/gstack-owned-display-qqa21fxz/gstack-paid-shard-WjdzbM/tmp/gstack-hermetic-547345-Xrhmg1/with-skills/.cla\nude/plans/nifty-zooming-breeze.md\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n ☐ Board \n\n│ D4 — I've opened a comparison board with the design variants: http://127.0.0.1:38737/boards/b-20260915-072023-3yp4zo/ \n│ — Rate them, leave comments, remix elements you like, and click Submit when you're done. Let me know when you've \n│ submitted your feedback (or paste your preferences here). If you clicked Regenerate or Remix on the board, tell me and\n│ I'll generate new variants.\n│ Variants: A = notifications-first, two columns (activity + quick actions in a right rail). B = activity-first timeline\n│ with day groups, notifications as right rail, quick actions promoted into the page header. C = single narrow column, \n│ notifications grouped Unread/Earlier, compact toolbar.\n│ Recommendation: Submitted because the board captures ratings, comments and direction in one structured payload I can \n│ read directly.\n\n❯ 1. Submitted (recommended)\n I submitted feedback on the comparison board. Read its final feedback and continue.\n 2. Regenerate / Remix\n I requested another round on the comparison board. Read that request and regenerate.\n 3. Type preferences\n I will provide my preferences in chat instead of using the comparison board.\n 4. Type something. \n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n 5. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · Esc to cancel",
|
||||
"call": {
|
||||
"sessionId": "14a0e69f-99c6-40c9-b779-7d7ddfb1592c",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01XBy719xjm6KZSRoRr814FR",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D4 — I've opened a comparison board with the design variants: http://127.0.0.1:38737/boards/b-20260915-072023-3yp4zo/ — Rate them, leave comments, remix elements you like, and click Submit when you're done. Let me know when you've submitted your feedback (or paste your preferences here). If you clicked Regenerate or Remix on the board, tell me and I'll generate new variants.\nVariants: A = notifications-first, two columns (activity + quick actions in a right rail). B = activity-first timeline with day groups, notifications as right rail, quick actions promoted into the page header. C = single narrow column, notifications grouped Unread/Earlier, compact toolbar.\nRecommendation: Submitted because the board captures ratings, comments and direction in one structured payload I can read directly.",
|
||||
"header": "Board",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Submitted (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "I submitted feedback on the comparison board. Read its final feedback and continue."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Regenerate / Remix",
|
||||
"description": "I requested another round on the comparison board. Read that request and regenerate."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "Type preferences",
|
||||
"description": "I will provide my preferences in chat instead of using the comparison board."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": false,
|
||||
"failed": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
+127
@@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sourceRevision": "fd620d368a494d65ca53952b4117ea3d3337c7d3",
|
||||
"sourceEvidence": ".context/sep12-independent-native-validation/dx-acknowledged-decisions-compact.json",
|
||||
"originalOutcome": "FAILED at final handoff before semantic judge",
|
||||
"cases": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "TODO 1/5",
|
||||
"nativeId": "toolu_01Ndeg4UM5CWnkTxSntFvAFP",
|
||||
"question": {
|
||||
"header": "TODO 1/5",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"description": "✅ Captured with context for whoever picks it up after the beta announce. ✅ Does not extend release checks now; the beta plan stays docs plus the D7 change. ❌ Nothing alarms on a first-run time regression until someone builds it.",
|
||||
"label": "Add to TODOS.md (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"description": "✅ No new release-check policy, now or later. ✅ Keeps measurement to the single approved human study. ❌ A regression in install or first-run time goes unnoticed until a developer reports it.",
|
||||
"label": "Skip"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"description": "✅ Regression alarm ships with the beta. ✅ Calibrated immediately against the D11 baseline. ❌ Extends the release checks inside this change, which the review input scoped as not otherwise redesign work.",
|
||||
"label": "Build it now"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"question": "TODO 1 of 5 — Add a fresh-virtualenv scripted first-run timer to the existing release checks, as a labeled proxy?\nProject/branch/task: eval-sdk public beta onboarding plan on main, DX POLISH review, TODOS.md phase.\nWhat: a release-check step that creates a fresh venv, installs the built package, runs the two-case quick start, and records wall-clock time, labeled as an automated proxy.\nWhy: the D11 human study runs once; nothing afterwards notices if install or first-run time regresses (for example if the conformance check creeps back onto the path).\nPros: catches first-run time regressions on every release; cheap; gives /devex-review a trend line.\nCons: measures the warm automated path only, never the human clock; extends the existing release checks, which the plan otherwise leaves alone; needs a threshold policy someone must own.\nContext: D5 fixed the human clock; D11 measures it once. This proxy was offered in D11 and not chosen as the measurement, so it can only ever be a regression alarm, never the benchmark. The plan's fixture cannot run the real SDK, so the step lands in the product's own release checks.\nDepends on / blocked by: D7 shipped; D11 baseline recorded so the proxy can be calibrated against a real number.\nRecommendation: A because a one-time study with no follow-up alarm lets the gate quietly return; adding it to TODOS.md keeps it out of the beta's critical path.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: A future regression alarm versus keeping release checks untouched."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"originalAnswer": "Add to TODOS.md (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "TODO 2/5",
|
||||
"nativeId": "toolu_01Xi5cHNoWvAhoJXPqxkcQTR",
|
||||
"question": {
|
||||
"header": "TODO 2/5",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"description": "✅ Preserves the idea with its dependency spelled out for after the beta. ✅ Keeps D6's approved JSON output contract stable for this change. ❌ The quick start stays three lines longer than it needs to be through beta.",
|
||||
"label": "Add to TODOS.md (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"description": "✅ The JSON projection is deterministic and honest about not assuming the repr. ✅ No dependency on capturing runtime output. ❌ Developers never see the SDK's own readable output in docs.",
|
||||
"label": "Skip"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"description": "✅ Shortest possible hello world ships with the beta. ✅ Docs and pytest failures show the same text. ❌ Cannot be done in this fixture; blocks the D6 docs change on capturing output the release checks do not produce today.",
|
||||
"label": "Build it now"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"question": "TODO 2 of 5 — Capture the real print(result) text in release checks and show it in the quick start instead of the manual JSON projection?\nProject/branch/task: eval-sdk public beta onboarding plan on main, DX POLISH review, TODOS.md phase.\nWhat: have the product's offline release checks capture Result.__str__ output for the two-case example, then replace the two-line json.dumps projection in README and getting-started with print(result) and the captured text.\nWhy: the review input says Result and Failure already print readable per-case scores and expected/actual summaries. The quick start hides that behind a json.dumps projection because this fixture could not capture the real repr. Three of the fourteen quick-start lines exist only to work around that.\nPros: shorter hello world; the developer sees the SDK's own output, which is what they will see in pytest failures too; Speed is a feature.\nCons: depends on capturing runtime output the fixture cannot produce; the readable summary truncates, so the doc must say where full values live; changes the documented output contract that the release checks verify today.\nContext: Deferred at the Hello World stage of the journey trace. D6's two-case output is currently specified as the JSON projection; this TODO would swap the display form only, not the two-case content.\nDepends on / blocked by: access to the SDK release checks; D6 landed first.\nRecommendation: A because it is a real simplification of the first five minutes but cannot be written until the real output is captured, so it belongs in TODOS.md rather than the beta change.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: A shorter hello world later versus keeping today's deterministic projection."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"originalAnswer": "Add to TODOS.md (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "TODO 3/5",
|
||||
"nativeId": "toolu_01W3AYZWjXYpH5HVQUFQeS1w",
|
||||
"question": {
|
||||
"header": "TODO 3/5",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"description": "✅ Lands as a verification plus one README line inside the beta docs change. ✅ The persona sees platform support next to the install command on first read. ❌ Blocked until someone with access reads the release matrix; the line cannot be written from this fixture.",
|
||||
"label": "Build it now (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"description": "✅ Captured for after the beta with the verification step spelled out. ✅ Keeps the beta docs change smaller. ❌ Beta developers on Windows or in containers still guess.",
|
||||
"label": "Add to TODOS.md"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"description": "✅ No verification work. ✅ README stays as short as it is. ❌ Platform support stays unstated for the whole beta.",
|
||||
"label": "Skip"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"question": "TODO 3 of 5 — Verify the supported operating systems from the existing release matrix and state them in README?\nProject/branch/task: eval-sdk public beta onboarding plan on main, DX POLISH review, TODOS.md phase.\nWhat: confirm which platforms the existing release checks actually run on (macOS, Linux, Windows, containers) and add one line to README next to the Python 3.10+ requirement.\nWhy: Python 3.10+ is the only stated requirement. A Python app developer on Windows, or one running CI in a slim container, cannot tell from the docs whether the first run will work. Pass 6 recorded this as unknown, not assumed.\nPros: one verified line removes a whole class of first-run surprise; zero behavior change; cheap.\nCons: needs access to the product's release matrix, which this fixture does not include; if the matrix is narrower than expected, stating it may surface a gap the beta has to own.\nContext: Cross-platform support is a Pass 6 checklist item. The bounded-client example uses subprocess and sys.executable, which behave the same across platforms, so no example needs to change.\nDepends on / blocked by: read access to the release-check configuration.\nRecommendation: C because it is a one-line factual statement once verified, belongs beside the install command the persona reads first, and fits inside the beta docs change.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: State the platforms in this change, park it, or leave the requirement as Python-version-only."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"originalAnswer": "Build it now (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "TODO 4/5",
|
||||
"nativeId": "toolu_01PGpg9ey8fX3pA8wYjaERgB",
|
||||
"question": {
|
||||
"header": "TODO 4/5",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"description": "✅ One verified README line lands inside the beta docs change. ✅ Employed developers clear their dependency check without leaving README. ❌ Cannot be written from this fixture; needs the real LICENSE file.",
|
||||
"label": "Build it now (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"description": "✅ Captured with the verification step for later. ✅ Keeps the beta change minimal. ❌ Beta developers still hunt for the license outside README.",
|
||||
"label": "Add to TODOS.md"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"description": "✅ PyPI classifiers may already answer it. ✅ No verification work. ❌ The README the persona reads first stays silent on a common adoption gate.",
|
||||
"label": "Skip"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"question": "TODO 4 of 5 — Verify the open-source license and surface it in README?\nProject/branch/task: eval-sdk public beta onboarding plan on main, DX POLISH review, TODOS.md phase.\nWhat: confirm the license the repository already ships under and name it in one README line with a link to the LICENSE file.\nWhy: the review input says the SDK is already open source, but no inspected doc names the license. A Python app developer at a company checks the license before adding a dependency to a production repo; if they cannot find it in thirty seconds they move on or open a ticket with legal.\nPros: removes a silent adoption blocker for employed developers; zero behavior change; one line.\nCons: needs the real repository to verify; if the license is unusual, naming it prominently may prompt questions the beta must be ready to answer.\nContext: Pass 7 recorded license as a verification item. PyPI usually shows the classifier, but the persona reads README first and the plan's docs never mention it.\nDepends on / blocked by: read access to the repository's LICENSE file and package metadata.\nRecommendation: C because it is a verified one-liner beside the install command, and Credible is one of the seven DX characteristics this beta is judged on.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: Name the license in this change, park it, or rely on PyPI metadata alone."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"originalAnswer": "Build it now (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "TODO 5/5",
|
||||
"nativeId": "toolu_01JaG92uCzwTMoMsomoBB8tb",
|
||||
"question": {
|
||||
"header": "TODO 5/5",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"description": "✅ One verified README line under the beta compatibility paragraph, inside the beta docs change. ✅ Developers find the scheme and changelog where they read about compatibility. ❌ If no changelog exists, this task stops and raises a separate policy question instead of shipping a link.",
|
||||
"label": "Build it now (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"description": "✅ Captured with its verification and the possible changelog policy question. ✅ Keeps the beta docs change smaller. ❌ Beta developers infer the version scheme from the reference prose.",
|
||||
"label": "Add to TODOS.md"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"description": "✅ The reference already states the notice period and migration rule. ✅ No verification work. ❌ Changelog discoverability stays at zero in the docs.",
|
||||
"label": "Skip"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"question": "TODO 5 of 5 — State the version scheme explicitly and link the CHANGELOG from README, once both are verified?\nProject/branch/task: eval-sdk public beta onboarding plan on main, DX POLISH review, TODOS.md phase.\nWhat: confirm whether the existing release policy is semantic versioning and whether a CHANGELOG exists, then add one README line under the beta compatibility paragraph naming the scheme and linking the changelog.\nWhy: the upgrade contract says two minor releases of notice and a breaking release, which implies semver without saying it, and no doc mentions a changelog. Upgrade fear is what stops a Python app developer from bumping a beta dependency in a production repo; a changelog link is the first thing they look for.\nPros: makes the already strong upgrade contract discoverable; zero behavior change; one line.\nCons: needs the real repository to verify; if no CHANGELOG exists, maintaining one is a separate policy the beta must decide on, not a docs line.\nContext: Pass 5 scored 8/10 on the strength of the deprecation and migration policy; the only gaps are that the scheme is implied and the changelog is unmentioned. Changelog exists and is maintained is a checklist item in the DX implementation checklist.\nDepends on / blocked by: read access to the repository; if no changelog exists, a separate decision about starting one.\nRecommendation: C because the line itself is a verified factual statement that fits the beta docs change; if the changelog turns out not to exist, that returns as its own finding rather than being invented here.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: Surface the upgrade contract in README now, park it, or leave it implied in the reference."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"originalAnswer": "Build it now (recommended)"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
+80
@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
|
||||
# eval-sdk
|
||||
|
||||
Synthetic product documentation for this review fixture. The eval-sdk implementation
|
||||
is not included or installed here; the commands below describe its assumed existing
|
||||
interface. They are not claims that this fixture can execute an SDK evaluation.
|
||||
|
||||
Evaluate an application's outputs against caller-supplied cases. Python 3.10 or
|
||||
later; install the assumed package with `pip install eval-sdk`. The library is
|
||||
`eval_sdk`; the companion command is `eval-sdk`.
|
||||
|
||||
Confirm the installed package version with `python -m pip show eval-sdk` and
|
||||
the interpreter with `python --version`; neither command starts an evaluation.
|
||||
|
||||
During beta the published API and configuration contract remain compatible.
|
||||
Breaking changes need a versioned migration guide and deprecation notice for two
|
||||
minor releases before removal in a breaking release. See [upgrades](docs/reference-v1.md#upgrades).
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick start
|
||||
|
||||
This neutral example is mirrored in the getting-started guide. The existing
|
||||
product's offline release checks verify both copies and their output contract.
|
||||
The fixture does not run those product checks.
|
||||
|
||||
```python
|
||||
from eval_sdk import evaluate
|
||||
import json
|
||||
|
||||
def target(inputs):
|
||||
return {"ready": inputs["enabled"]}
|
||||
|
||||
def exact_match(actual, expected):
|
||||
# This application's structured-output rule.
|
||||
if not isinstance(actual, dict):
|
||||
return 0.0
|
||||
return float(actual == expected)
|
||||
|
||||
cases = [{"inputs": {"enabled": True}, "expected": {"ready": True}}]
|
||||
result = evaluate(target, cases, exact_match)
|
||||
print(json.dumps([{"score": case.score, "actual": case.actual, "expected": case.expected}
|
||||
for case in result.cases], sort_keys=True))
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Shown application output (JSON from the documented structured fields, not SDK repr):
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
[{"actual": {"ready": true}, "expected": {"ready": true}, "score": 1.0}]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The application supplies the metric and decides what scores are acceptable;
|
||||
the SDK has no default quality bar. Fixture checks reproduce this text with an
|
||||
explicit assumed-contract double; they do not execute the absent SDK.
|
||||
|
||||
To use this same example in pytest, put it inside `test_ready()` in a `test_*.py`
|
||||
file and add the application's own assertion:
|
||||
|
||||
```python
|
||||
assert all(case.score == 1.0 for case in result.cases)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
This assertion is the application's exact-match acceptance rule, not an SDK
|
||||
default. See the [API and pytest reference](docs/reference-v1.md#api-and-pytest).
|
||||
The example remains one ordinary passing case; it has no staged regression.
|
||||
|
||||
Before substituting a real callable, read [deadlines and provider costs](docs/reference-v1.md#configuration).
|
||||
The SDK cannot cap spending by arbitrary application code; that code must use a
|
||||
bounded provider client or enforce its own limits. The [worked application client](docs/getting-started.md#bounded-application-calls)
|
||||
shows separate request timeouts, retry limits and cost reservations; the reference
|
||||
distinguishes these from SDK-managed configuration.
|
||||
|
||||
**Current first-run requirement:** both the library and CLI block the first eval
|
||||
for the mandatory five-minute compatibility/conformance check. There is no skip.
|
||||
The diagnostic report is not consumed by evaluation. No first-run duration has
|
||||
been measured, and no time-to-hello-world promise is made here.
|
||||
|
||||
[Getting started and free-text example](docs/getting-started.md).
|
||||
[Stuck while getting started?](docs/feedback.md).
|
||||
[CLI, configuration, errors, and upgrades](docs/reference-v1.md).
|
||||
|
||||
This is ordinary documentation, with no interactive demo or designed aha sequence.
|
||||
The beta launch still has no selected primary developer persona or peer-DX study.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
|
||||
# Getting-started feedback
|
||||
|
||||
The assumed existing open-source SDK uses its public repository's issue templates
|
||||
and pinned getting-started thread in Discussions. README already links this page.
|
||||
Use either path; ordinary CONTRIBUTING and support routes remain available.
|
||||
|
||||
Find the installed SDK version with `python -m pip show eval-sdk` and the Python
|
||||
version with `python --version`; neither triggers the first-run check.
|
||||
|
||||
The existing friction template and thread ask for:
|
||||
|
||||
- the step where you got stuck and the SDK/Python versions;
|
||||
- what you expected and what happened, with a redacted minimal reproducer;
|
||||
- an optional estimate of time spent at that step.
|
||||
|
||||
Do not attach secrets, API keys, private prompts or unredacted application data.
|
||||
This is voluntary support feedback through existing channels, not telemetry.
|
||||
Reports are not aggregated into a measured onboarding benchmark or a TTHW target.
|
||||
No new hosted service, automatic collection or mandatory feedback is proposed.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,199 @@
|
||||
# Getting started
|
||||
|
||||
These are documentation examples for the assumed existing SDK. The SDK source,
|
||||
package and release-check implementation are absent from this review fixture.
|
||||
Do not run an install or infer a successful execution from these documents.
|
||||
|
||||
Install the assumed Python package with `pip install eval-sdk`. The mandatory
|
||||
five-minute first-run compatibility check applies to both CLI and library evals,
|
||||
including these examples, with no skip. It is not needed by the evaluator itself.
|
||||
|
||||
## Neutral first evaluation
|
||||
|
||||
```python
|
||||
from eval_sdk import evaluate
|
||||
import json
|
||||
|
||||
def target(inputs):
|
||||
return {"ready": inputs["enabled"]}
|
||||
|
||||
def exact_match(actual, expected):
|
||||
# This application's structured-output rule.
|
||||
if not isinstance(actual, dict):
|
||||
return 0.0
|
||||
return float(actual == expected)
|
||||
|
||||
cases = [{"inputs": {"enabled": True}, "expected": {"ready": True}}]
|
||||
result = evaluate(target, cases, exact_match)
|
||||
print(json.dumps([{"score": case.score, "actual": case.actual, "expected": case.expected}
|
||||
for case in result.cases], sort_keys=True))
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Shown application output (JSON from the documented structured fields, not SDK repr):
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
[{"actual": {"ready": true}, "expected": {"ready": true}, "score": 1.0}]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Fixture checks reproduce this text with an explicit assumed-contract double and
|
||||
keep the README copy synchronized. They do not run the absent SDK or measure
|
||||
onboarding duration.
|
||||
|
||||
## Caller-owned metric for free text
|
||||
|
||||
This separate reference example supplies a real callable, cases and metric. The
|
||||
simple whitespace-insensitive metric demonstrates the API; applications choose
|
||||
their own metric and acceptance rule. It is not a production quality threshold.
|
||||
|
||||
```python
|
||||
from eval_sdk import evaluate
|
||||
import json
|
||||
|
||||
def text_metric(actual, expected):
|
||||
return float(" ".join(actual.split()) == " ".join(expected.split()))
|
||||
|
||||
def prose_target(inputs):
|
||||
return inputs["reply"]
|
||||
|
||||
cases = [
|
||||
{"inputs": {"reply": "The lamp is green."}, "expected": "The lamp is green."},
|
||||
]
|
||||
result = evaluate(prose_target, cases, text_metric)
|
||||
print(json.dumps([{"score": case.score, "actual": case.actual, "expected": case.expected}
|
||||
for case in result.cases], sort_keys=True))
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Shown free-text application output (the same explicit field projection):
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
[{"actual": "The lamp is green.", "expected": "The lamp is green.", "score": 1.0}]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The public example returns one normal matching result with score 1.0. Fixture
|
||||
checks reproduce this text with the contract double, not the absent SDK. Separately,
|
||||
the existing product's offline checks exercise this complete callable/metric path
|
||||
with matching and mismatching prose and verify scores 1.0 and 0.0 plus the latter
|
||||
case's expected/actual failure summary.
|
||||
Structured result fields retain full values; displayed summaries may truncate.
|
||||
This reference check already exists in the revised synthetic baseline. It adds
|
||||
no launch gate, evaluator default, telemetry or designed onboarding delight beat.
|
||||
No executable SDK or assertion of its execution is supplied in this fixture.
|
||||
|
||||
## Bounded application calls
|
||||
|
||||
This is a complete **application-owned** example, separate from the SDK. The
|
||||
local transport below is free and makes no network requests. To substitute a
|
||||
paid transport, first establish a **verified upper bound** on its charge per
|
||||
invocation; this example reserves two cents per attempt. A provider without such
|
||||
a bound cannot use that reservation as a spending guarantee.
|
||||
|
||||
Save as `fixture_transport.py`:
|
||||
|
||||
```python
|
||||
import json
|
||||
import sys
|
||||
|
||||
inputs = json.load(sys.stdin)
|
||||
print(json.dumps({"ready": inputs["enabled"]}))
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Save as `bounded_client.py`:
|
||||
|
||||
```python
|
||||
import json
|
||||
import math
|
||||
import subprocess
|
||||
import threading
|
||||
|
||||
class BoundedClient:
|
||||
def __init__(self, command, *, timeout_seconds, max_attempts,
|
||||
total_cents, attempt_cents):
|
||||
if (not math.isfinite(timeout_seconds) or timeout_seconds <= 0
|
||||
or any(type(n) is not int for n in (max_attempts, total_cents, attempt_cents))
|
||||
or max_attempts < 1 or total_cents < 0 or attempt_cents < 1):
|
||||
raise ValueError("Use a positive timeout, finite attempts and integer-cent bounds")
|
||||
self.command = list(command)
|
||||
self.timeout_seconds, self.max_attempts = timeout_seconds, max_attempts
|
||||
self.total_cents, self.attempt_cents = total_cents, attempt_cents
|
||||
self.reserved_cents = 0
|
||||
self.lock = threading.Lock()
|
||||
|
||||
def __call__(self, inputs):
|
||||
for attempt in range(self.max_attempts):
|
||||
with self.lock:
|
||||
if self.reserved_cents + self.attempt_cents > self.total_cents:
|
||||
raise RuntimeError("Application spending limit reached before request")
|
||||
self.reserved_cents += self.attempt_cents
|
||||
try:
|
||||
response = subprocess.run(self.command, input=json.dumps(inputs),
|
||||
text=True, capture_output=True, check=True, timeout=self.timeout_seconds)
|
||||
return json.loads(response.stdout)
|
||||
except (subprocess.TimeoutExpired, subprocess.CalledProcessError) as error:
|
||||
if isinstance(error, subprocess.CalledProcessError) and error.returncode != 75:
|
||||
raise # Only the application's explicit temporary-failure status retries.
|
||||
if attempt + 1 == self.max_attempts:
|
||||
raise RuntimeError("Application attempt limit reached") from error
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Each transport process gets a per-attempt timeout and at most two attempts below.
|
||||
`subprocess.run` kills and waits for a timed-out direct child. This local transport
|
||||
starts no descendant processes. Killing it **does not prove that a remote provider cancelled**
|
||||
a request: its reservation is **not refunded**, even on timeout or failure. The
|
||||
shared counter refuses an attempt before the six-cent total would be exceeded;
|
||||
concurrent calls in this process share that counter. Separate application processes
|
||||
would need a shared external spending limit.
|
||||
|
||||
Use the application client in the callable (save these files together):
|
||||
|
||||
```python
|
||||
import sys
|
||||
from eval_sdk import evaluate
|
||||
from bounded_client import BoundedClient
|
||||
|
||||
client = BoundedClient([sys.executable, "fixture_transport.py"],
|
||||
timeout_seconds=2, max_attempts=2, total_cents=6, attempt_cents=2)
|
||||
|
||||
def target(inputs):
|
||||
return client(inputs)
|
||||
|
||||
def metric(actual, expected):
|
||||
return float(isinstance(actual, dict) and actual == expected)
|
||||
|
||||
cases = [{"inputs": {"enabled": True}, "expected": {"ready": True}}]
|
||||
result = evaluate(target, cases, metric, deadline_seconds=20, max_cost_usd=0.25)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The client's timeout, attempts and reservation govern its own transport. The
|
||||
`evaluate` keywords still govern only SDK-managed scheduling/provider requests;
|
||||
they neither interrupt this application client nor add to its six-cent allowance.
|
||||
The local client/files run in fixture checks, including timeouts, retries and
|
||||
refusal before overspending. The `evaluate` call is checked with an explicit
|
||||
contract double because the SDK is absent. This is reference safety code, not a
|
||||
new metric default, launch gate, first-run benchmark or onboarding delight step.
|
||||
|
||||
## Handling errors
|
||||
|
||||
The assumed SDK's existing release checks produce this malformed-case example:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
SDK_E001: case 0 is missing 'expected'
|
||||
Cause: CaseValidationError at cases[0].expected
|
||||
Next: add the expected output for this case and retry.
|
||||
Reference: docs/reference-v1.md#sdk-e001
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
This is an authored synthetic output contract, not output obtained by executing
|
||||
the SDK here. Error codes, originating causes, actionable next steps, secret
|
||||
redaction, and versioned reference anchors are existing contracts.
|
||||
|
||||
## Next steps
|
||||
|
||||
- Use the same callable and cases in [pytest](reference-v1.md#api-and-pytest), with
|
||||
the application's own acceptance assertion.
|
||||
- Before substituting a provider-backed callable, configure [deadlines and cost
|
||||
limits](reference-v1.md#configuration). Arbitrary application requests require
|
||||
their own bounds; SDK-managed limits do not intercept them.
|
||||
- Run the [noninteractive CLI](reference-v1.md#cli) locally or in CI; the same
|
||||
invocation and exit codes apply to both.
|
||||
- Find [error codes](reference-v1.md#errors), the [beta upgrade contract](reference-v1.md#upgrades),
|
||||
and the existing [support path](feedback.md).
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,160 @@
|
||||
# Existing SDK reference, version 1
|
||||
|
||||
These are explicitly authored contracts for the revised synthetic fixture.
|
||||
The SDK, package, and release-check implementation are absent. SDK invocation
|
||||
examples describe its assumed interface; those calls have not been executed against
|
||||
the SDK here. Fixture checks execute the local application files and explicit
|
||||
contract doubles. This reference supplies baseline documentation, not launch remedies.
|
||||
|
||||
## API and pytest
|
||||
|
||||
`evaluate(target, cases, metric)` invokes the application's callable on each
|
||||
case's `inputs` and calls its metric with actual and expected outputs.
|
||||
`result.cases` contains per-case `score`, `actual`, and `expected` fields.
|
||||
The application supplies its acceptance rule; no score is a universal pass bar.
|
||||
|
||||
```python
|
||||
from eval_sdk import evaluate
|
||||
|
||||
def test_ready():
|
||||
def target(inputs):
|
||||
return {"ready": inputs["enabled"]}
|
||||
|
||||
def exact_match(actual, expected):
|
||||
return float(isinstance(actual, dict) and actual == expected)
|
||||
|
||||
cases = [{"inputs": {"enabled": True}, "expected": {"ready": True}}]
|
||||
result = evaluate(target, cases, exact_match)
|
||||
assert all(case.score == 1.0 for case in result.cases)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
`python -m pytest` runs this application-owned test. Public type hints and
|
||||
`py.typed` ship; the assumed release checks type-check the examples and run their
|
||||
documented outputs. This reference test remains a neutral passing example.
|
||||
|
||||
## Configuration
|
||||
|
||||
The existing optional library keywords are `deadline_seconds`, `max_cost_usd`,
|
||||
and `reporter` (`"auto"`, `"on"`, or `"off"`). For example:
|
||||
|
||||
```python
|
||||
result = evaluate(target, cases, metric, deadline_seconds=20,
|
||||
max_cost_usd=0.25, reporter="on")
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The deadline stops new case scheduling and is forwarded to SDK-managed provider
|
||||
requests. Their request timeouts and finite retries remain bounded by it.
|
||||
The cost ceiling covers only requests through that managed provider client.
|
||||
It cannot interrupt arbitrary application code or cap requests made by a separate
|
||||
client inside `target`; configure that client's timeout, retries, and spending
|
||||
limit before substituting the callable. The [worked application client](getting-started.md#bounded-application-calls)
|
||||
materializes all three bounds with a local transport and explains its verified
|
||||
per-attempt cost assumption. These boundaries apply locally and in CI.
|
||||
|
||||
Before work the CLI reports case count, deadline, and cost ceiling (or "none set")
|
||||
on stderr. The library does so on a TTY by default; `reporter` overrides that
|
||||
choice. Library reporting never writes to stdout. Values and scores are not
|
||||
persisted in a shared cache. No settings define an onboarding-time target.
|
||||
|
||||
## CLI
|
||||
|
||||
The existing noninteractive invocation uses the application's importable target
|
||||
and metric plus a JSON list of cases. The following complete files are explicit
|
||||
synthetic baseline examples; the SDK/CLI is absent, so fixture checks validate the
|
||||
files, import paths and arguments with an assumed-contract double, not the real CLI.
|
||||
This documents the shown JSON-list form only, not any other possible SDK format.
|
||||
|
||||
Save as `app.py`:
|
||||
|
||||
```python
|
||||
def target(inputs):
|
||||
return {"ready": inputs["enabled"]}
|
||||
|
||||
def metric(actual, expected):
|
||||
return float(isinstance(actual, dict) and actual == expected)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Save as `cases.json`:
|
||||
|
||||
```json
|
||||
[
|
||||
{"inputs": {"enabled": true}, "expected": {"ready": true}}
|
||||
]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Run with the assumed SDK from the directory containing both files:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
eval-sdk run --target app:target --cases cases.json --metric app:metric --deadline-seconds 20 --max-cost-usd 0.25 --no-input
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The CLI accepts the same bounds and prints readable per-case results. Exit 0
|
||||
means evaluation completed, not that an application's quality bar was met;
|
||||
the application-owned pytest assertion enforces that bar. Usage or malformed
|
||||
inputs exit 2; execution failures exit 1, with the actionable error on stderr.
|
||||
`eval-sdk --help` lists these options and noninteractive behavior.
|
||||
|
||||
Both CLI and library still block their first evaluation for the existing
|
||||
mandatory five-minute conformance check. There is no skip. This reference does
|
||||
not bypass, remove, or time that prerequisite.
|
||||
|
||||
## Errors
|
||||
|
||||
Errors expose a stable code, original cause, actionable next step, and versioned
|
||||
reference anchor. Secret values are redacted; displayed values may truncate
|
||||
while structured fields retain full values. Existing release checks verify the
|
||||
code-to-anchor mapping and example output.
|
||||
|
||||
### SDK E001
|
||||
|
||||
Missing required case input: identify the case index and missing `inputs` or
|
||||
`expected` field, then add it and retry. See the shown malformed-case output in
|
||||
[getting started](getting-started.md#handling-errors).
|
||||
|
||||
### SDK E002
|
||||
|
||||
The application metric returned a non-number: change it to return a numeric
|
||||
score. The application still chooses its own acceptable score.
|
||||
|
||||
The following E002 and E003 blocks are newly authored synthetic output contracts,
|
||||
not captured output from the absent SDK or its release checks. They make the
|
||||
existing code/cause/next-step/reference contract concrete without changing it.
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
SDK_E002: case 0 metric returned a non-number
|
||||
Cause: MetricTypeError at cases[0].score (received str)
|
||||
Next: return a numeric score from the application's metric and retry.
|
||||
Reference: docs/reference-v1.md#sdk-e002
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### SDK E003
|
||||
|
||||
A configured deadline or managed-provider cost limit was reached: inspect the
|
||||
reported bound and cause, then reduce the cases or explicitly change that bound.
|
||||
Unmanaged application requests have the separate limits described above.
|
||||
|
||||
Deadline example:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
SDK_E003: evaluation deadline reached before case 2
|
||||
Cause: DeadlineExceeded at deadline_seconds=20
|
||||
Next: reduce the cases or explicitly choose a longer evaluation deadline.
|
||||
Reference: docs/reference-v1.md#sdk-e003
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Managed-provider cost example:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
SDK_E003: managed-provider cost ceiling reached before case 2
|
||||
Cause: ManagedProviderCostLimit at max_cost_usd=0.25
|
||||
Next: reduce managed-provider work or explicitly choose a higher managed-provider limit.
|
||||
Reference: docs/reference-v1.md#sdk-e003
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Upgrades
|
||||
|
||||
Beta releases preserve the published API and configuration contract. Breaking
|
||||
changes require a versioned migration guide and call-site `DeprecationWarning`
|
||||
naming the replacement, removal version, and migration anchor. Removal requires
|
||||
two minor releases of notice and a breaking release. No AST migration tool,
|
||||
plugin, new hosted documentation service, or new CI provider is part of the beta.
|
||||
+78
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"source": "cab3edc8b24f873b55f6edc6d98b60981eda52cb",
|
||||
"provenance": "Complete public D4/D5 native questions and acknowledgments from actual first DX attempt. Historical paid failure remains a failure; free replay confers no paid credit.",
|
||||
"calls": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "8d685f5b-82af-4def-811d-615bd465ce90",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01XZxtcyAq9dRMxfaPcDewyj",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D4 — Journey stage DISCOVER/INSTALL: the README quickstart points at a file that isn't shipped. Which remedy?\nProject/branch/task: EvalKit SDK beta polish on main, DX POLISH.\nEvidence: README.md line 11 says \"follow the quickstart's command: `python examples/first_eval.py`\". docs/package-contents.txt lines 8-9: that file \"is absent from both the published package and the release examples archive\". The working command, `python -m evalkit.demo`, appears three lines later and IS shipped (package-contents.txt lines 4-5, 10).\nELI10: The very first command the developer copies fails with a file-not-found. That is a T0 failure on the settled persona's first minute. The fix is either point the README at the command that exists, or ship the file the README promises.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Ship as-is and every fresh install opens with `python: can't open file 'examples/first_eval.py'`.\nRecommendation: A because the demo is the approved delivery vehicle and already works; shipping a second quickstart script adds a parallel path to maintain and both paths hit the same CI gate.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=10/10, C=8/10\nA) Make `python -m evalkit.demo` the quickstart command; drop the `first_eval.py` reference (recommended)\n ✅ Zero packaging change; README edit plus a release-checklist check that every README command resolves in the built wheel\n ✅ One first-run path, the one the benchmark study and README already call the chosen experience\n ❌ Developers who want a from-scratch script (not a module) get no shipped example until later\nB) Ship `examples/first_eval.py` in the wheel and examples archive, and keep both commands\n ✅ README becomes true without editing it; developers get an editable starting script\n ✅ Gives a real-code template for the `run_eval` call, not just a canned demo\n ❌ Two first-run paths to keep in sync; adds a packaging item to the beta (human: ~half day / CC: ~10 min)\nC) Rewrite the README to name only the demo, and add a one-line note that an example script is coming\n ✅ Honest about the gap and sets expectations\n ❌ \"Coming soon\" in a quickstart reads as unfinished to a chef-for-chefs audience\nNet: one true command now, versus a second shipped artifact.",
|
||||
"header": "Quickstart",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A) Point README at python -m evalkit.demo (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Remove the first_eval.py reference; add a release-check that README commands resolve in the built package."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B) Ship examples/first_eval.py too",
|
||||
"description": "Add the file to the wheel and examples archive; keep both commands."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "C) Demo only, plus a 'coming soon' note",
|
||||
"description": "README names only the demo and flags the example script as future work."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "D) Acceptable friction, skip",
|
||||
"description": "Leave the README as written."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D4 — Journey stage DISCOVER/INSTALL: the README quickstart points at a file that isn't shipped. Which remedy?\nProject/branch/task: EvalKit SDK beta polish on main, DX POLISH.\nEvidence: README.md line 11 says \"follow the quickstart's command: `python examples/first_eval.py`\". docs/package-contents.txt lines 8-9: that file \"is absent from both the published package and the release examples archive\". The working command, `python -m evalkit.demo`, appears three lines later and IS shipped (package-contents.txt lines 4-5, 10).\nELI10: The very first command the developer copies fails with a file-not-found. That is a T0 failure on the settled persona's first minute. The fix is either point the README at the command that exists, or ship the file the README promises.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Ship as-is and every fresh install opens with `python: can't open file 'examples/first_eval.py'`.\nRecommendation: A because the demo is the approved delivery vehicle and already works; shipping a second quickstart script adds a parallel path to maintain and both paths hit the same CI gate.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=10/10, C=8/10\nA) Make `python -m evalkit.demo` the quickstart command; drop the `first_eval.py` reference (recommended)\n ✅ Zero packaging change; README edit plus a release-checklist check that every README command resolves in the built wheel\n ✅ One first-run path, the one the benchmark study and README already call the chosen experience\n ❌ Developers who want a from-scratch script (not a module) get no shipped example until later\nB) Ship `examples/first_eval.py` in the wheel and examples archive, and keep both commands\n ✅ README becomes true without editing it; developers get an editable starting script\n ✅ Gives a real-code template for the `run_eval` call, not just a canned demo\n ❌ Two first-run paths to keep in sync; adds a packaging item to the beta (human: ~half day / CC: ~10 min)\nC) Rewrite the README to name only the demo, and add a one-line note that an example script is coming\n ✅ Honest about the gap and sets expectations\n ❌ \"Coming soon\" in a quickstart reads as unfinished to a chef-for-chefs audience\nNet: one true command now, versus a second shipped artifact.": "A) Point README at python -m evalkit.demo (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T19:12:12.308Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "8d685f5b-82af-4def-811d-615bd465ce90",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01DY2MywHTAaZ4FKKfvqRayc",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D5 — Journey stage HELLO WORLD: the mandatory 5-minute CI check makes the approved < 2 min target arithmetically impossible. What ships in the beta?\nProject/branch/task: EvalKit SDK beta polish on main, DX POLISH.\nEvidence: docs/current-contracts.md lines 3-5: first local evaluation \"requires a successful remote CI check and blocks for five minutes\", \"no skip flag or offline first-run path\", \"the beta plan retains this gate\". README lines 20-23: the demo uses the mock transport, needs no key, yet \"still waits for that CI check\". docs/benchmarks.md: EvalKit 6 min vs peers 2-4 min; approved target under 2 min. 300s > 120s, so the gate alone busts the target. This is a concrete contradiction between two approved values, which is why I'm reopening it rather than treating the gate as fixed.\nELI10: The demo evaluates bundled sample data through a mock transport; the CI check verifies a sample-project binding the demo's own scores don't depend on. Developers wait five minutes staring at 'Waiting for CI check: 90s elapsed of 300s' for numbers the SDK could print instantly. Peers print theirs in 2-4 minutes end to end.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Keep the gate and the beta ships at 3x the target; per the TTHW table a > 5 min hello world loses a large share of first-run developers.\nRecommendation: A because it uses only existing capabilities (mock transport, sample data), keeps the CI check where it verifies something real (the first live evaluation), and is the only option that reaches the approved target.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=7/10, C=8/10, D=3/10\nA) Exempt the bundled demo from the CI check; keep the check on the first live (keyed) evaluation (recommended)\n ✅ Demo returns real scores in seconds; install + demo lands well under 2 min on the study's own clock\n ✅ The check still runs where the binding matters, before any real result leaves the machine; existing progress and EVALKIT_CI_TIMEOUT messages stay as-is\n ❌ The benchmark endpoint 'first real evaluation result' must be restated: demo result (< 2 min) vs first live result (still gated); docs/benchmarks.md needs that split recorded\nB) Add an explicit `--skip-ci-check` / `EVALKIT_SKIP_CI_CHECK=1` escape hatch, default still blocks\n ✅ Opt-in, smallest change to the documented contract\n ✅ Also useful for air-gapped or offline first runs\n ❌ Default path still misses the target; developers only find the flag after they've already waited or read docs (human: ~1 day / CC: ~15 min)\nC) Make the check non-blocking: print demo scores immediately, run the check in the background and report its result at exit\n ✅ Scores in seconds and the binding is still verified on first run\n ❌ Changes 'success required before first local result' into 'reported after'; needs a documented state for 'demo printed, check failed' (human: ~2 days / CC: ~30 min)\nD) Keep the gate as documented and formally lower the target to 'current trajectory' (~6 min)\n ✅ No runtime change\n ❌ Abandons the approved < 2 min target and ships 3x slower than the slowest peer measured\nNet: where the CI check runs decides whether the approved target is reachable at all.",
|
||||
"header": "CI gate",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A) Exempt the demo; gate the first live eval (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Keyless mock-transport demo skips the CI check; the check runs before the first keyed evaluation, with today's progress/timeout messages."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B) Add an opt-in skip flag/env var",
|
||||
"description": "Default still blocks 5 min; --skip-ci-check and EVALKIT_SKIP_CI_CHECK=1 bypass it."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "C) Non-blocking background check",
|
||||
"description": "Print demo scores immediately; verify the binding in the background and report at exit."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "D) Keep the gate, lower the target",
|
||||
"description": "Retain the 5-min block and revise the target to current trajectory."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D5 — Journey stage HELLO WORLD: the mandatory 5-minute CI check makes the approved < 2 min target arithmetically impossible. What ships in the beta?\nProject/branch/task: EvalKit SDK beta polish on main, DX POLISH.\nEvidence: docs/current-contracts.md lines 3-5: first local evaluation \"requires a successful remote CI check and blocks for five minutes\", \"no skip flag or offline first-run path\", \"the beta plan retains this gate\". README lines 20-23: the demo uses the mock transport, needs no key, yet \"still waits for that CI check\". docs/benchmarks.md: EvalKit 6 min vs peers 2-4 min; approved target under 2 min. 300s > 120s, so the gate alone busts the target. This is a concrete contradiction between two approved values, which is why I'm reopening it rather than treating the gate as fixed.\nELI10: The demo evaluates bundled sample data through a mock transport; the CI check verifies a sample-project binding the demo's own scores don't depend on. Developers wait five minutes staring at 'Waiting for CI check: 90s elapsed of 300s' for numbers the SDK could print instantly. Peers print theirs in 2-4 minutes end to end.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Keep the gate and the beta ships at 3x the target; per the TTHW table a > 5 min hello world loses a large share of first-run developers.\nRecommendation: A because it uses only existing capabilities (mock transport, sample data), keeps the CI check where it verifies something real (the first live evaluation), and is the only option that reaches the approved target.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=7/10, C=8/10, D=3/10\nA) Exempt the bundled demo from the CI check; keep the check on the first live (keyed) evaluation (recommended)\n ✅ Demo returns real scores in seconds; install + demo lands well under 2 min on the study's own clock\n ✅ The check still runs where the binding matters, before any real result leaves the machine; existing progress and EVALKIT_CI_TIMEOUT messages stay as-is\n ❌ The benchmark endpoint 'first real evaluation result' must be restated: demo result (< 2 min) vs first live result (still gated); docs/benchmarks.md needs that split recorded\nB) Add an explicit `--skip-ci-check` / `EVALKIT_SKIP_CI_CHECK=1` escape hatch, default still blocks\n ✅ Opt-in, smallest change to the documented contract\n ✅ Also useful for air-gapped or offline first runs\n ❌ Default path still misses the target; developers only find the flag after they've already waited or read docs (human: ~1 day / CC: ~15 min)\nC) Make the check non-blocking: print demo scores immediately, run the check in the background and report its result at exit\n ✅ Scores in seconds and the binding is still verified on first run\n ❌ Changes 'success required before first local result' into 'reported after'; needs a documented state for 'demo printed, check failed' (human: ~2 days / CC: ~30 min)\nD) Keep the gate as documented and formally lower the target to 'current trajectory' (~6 min)\n ✅ No runtime change\n ❌ Abandons the approved < 2 min target and ships 3x slower than the slowest peer measured\nNet: where the CI check runs decides whether the approved target is reachable at all.": "A) Exempt the demo; gate the first live eval (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T19:12:36.853Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
|
||||
/** Synthetic semantic calibrations. Reference facts are supplied, not live web claims. */
|
||||
import type { AskUserQuestionFingerprint } from '../helpers/claude-pty-runner';
|
||||
import type { NativeQuestion } from '../helpers/plan-skill-questions';
|
||||
import { DEVEX_FINDINGS } from '../helpers/plan-review-cases';
|
||||
import type { PlanReviewDecisionInput, PlanReviewDecision, DevexPeerComparisonJudgment } from '../helpers/plan-review-decisions';
|
||||
|
||||
type Expected = Pick<PlanReviewDecision, 'kind' | 'targetIds' | 'independentDecisions'>;
|
||||
export interface DevexPeerCalibration {
|
||||
name: string;
|
||||
input: Omit<PlanReviewDecisionInput, 'deadlineAt'>;
|
||||
expected: Record<string, Expected>;
|
||||
rejection?: string;
|
||||
count: number;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
const plan = `# Public SDK beta review
|
||||
Four launch decisions remain open: target developer persona, first-run duration
|
||||
measurement, the mandatory five-minute conformance block, and the first-run aha.
|
||||
The SDK already accepts a Python callable and caller-owned cases/metric; readable
|
||||
results and offline examples exist. No hosted service or new evaluator is planned.
|
||||
The selected persona and all four actual answers are in the supplied native calls.
|
||||
|
||||
## Frozen synthetic reference excerpts
|
||||
These are fictional peers for calibration, not claims about real products. The
|
||||
references below completely describe the available benchmark evidence. None
|
||||
contains measured onboarding times or measured current-product timing.
|
||||
- refs/pythonpeer.md: PythonPeer targets Python application developers. Install a
|
||||
package, paste a callable and cases, run evaluate, then print a result.
|
||||
- refs/clipeer.md: CliPeer targets terminal users. Install its CLI, run init to
|
||||
write a sample, then run the sample. Its sample is not the user's application.
|
||||
- refs/hostedpeer.md: HostedPeer requires an account and API key before uploading
|
||||
cases and running an evaluation. Its quickstart provides no elapsed duration.
|
||||
Our SDK: install, supply an existing Python callable/cases/metric, then wait for
|
||||
the mandatory five-minute prerequisite before the first evaluation can run.
|
||||
The review must compare these onboarding paths and explain their significance
|
||||
for this plan. Research and reporting do not themselves need another approval.`;
|
||||
|
||||
export const groundedPeerEvidence: DevexPeerComparisonJudgment = {
|
||||
status: 'complete',
|
||||
peers: [
|
||||
{ name: 'PythonPeer', quote: 'PythonPeer: install, paste callable/cases, evaluate and print; estimated 3-5 minutes from these steps. Source: refs/pythonpeer.md.' },
|
||||
{ name: 'CliPeer', quote: 'CliPeer: install, init a sample, then run it; estimated 2-3 minutes, but the result is on a scaffold rather than the application. Source: refs/clipeer.md.' },
|
||||
{ name: 'HostedPeer', quote: 'HostedPeer: account and key, upload cases, then evaluate; elapsed duration unknown. Source: refs/hostedpeer.md.' },
|
||||
],
|
||||
productQuote: 'Our SDK shares PythonPeer\'s callable-and-cases path, but its required five-minute precheck blocks the first result; current total duration remains unmeasured.',
|
||||
groundingQuote: 'All peer durations above are reviewer estimates from the cited frozen quickstart steps, not measurements. HostedPeer and our total duration have no timing evidence.',
|
||||
implicationQuote: 'For the chosen Python app developer, PythonPeer is the closest comparison. Remove the unrelated block as approved and measure that real-callable path; do not copy CliPeer\'s scaffold or HostedPeer\'s account requirement merely to match their onboarding.',
|
||||
reason: 'The comparison distinguishes three relevant journeys, their sources and uncertainty, and the implication for the selected persona and existing SDK.',
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
function brief(id: string, title: string, context: string, labels: [string, string], descriptions: [string, string]): AskUserQuestionFingerprint {
|
||||
const options = labels.map((label, i) => ({ label, description: descriptions[i]! }));
|
||||
const question: NativeQuestion = { header: title, multiSelect: false, options, question: [
|
||||
title, 'Project/branch/task: SDK beta on calibration-fixture; one pending launch decision.',
|
||||
`ELI10: ${context}`, 'Stakes if we pick wrong: The chosen developer journey may remain slow or fail to demonstrate useful evaluation.',
|
||||
`Recommendation: ${labels[0]} because ${descriptions[0]}`, 'Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.',
|
||||
'Pros / cons:', ...options.flatMap((option, index) => [`${String.fromCharCode(65 + index)}) ${option.label}`,
|
||||
` ✅ ${option.description}`, ' ❌ This choice leaves the other approach unselected; revisit it only on new evidence.']),
|
||||
'Net: Decide this obligation; all other approved or pending dispositions remain unchanged.',
|
||||
].join('\n') };
|
||||
return { toolUseId: id, signature: id, questions: [question], selectedOptions: [1],
|
||||
promptSnippet: question.question.slice(0, 240), options: options.map((option, i) => ({ index: i + 1, label: option.label })),
|
||||
observedAtMs: 0, preReview: true };
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
export function devexPeerAnalysisCalibrations(): DevexPeerCalibration[] {
|
||||
const fingerprints = [
|
||||
brief('persona', 'D1 — Target developer', 'The SDK beta currently targets everyone. Choose the primary audience.',
|
||||
['Python application developer (recommended)', 'Platform engineer'],
|
||||
['Optimize for developers evaluating an LLM-backed callable already in their application.', 'Optimize for platform teams integrating evaluation into shared infrastructure.']),
|
||||
brief('first-run-benchmark', 'D2 — Measure first-run duration', 'The first-run duration is unknown. Choose a measurement method, keeping the target and product capabilities unchanged.',
|
||||
['Maintainer fresh-install measurement (recommended)', 'Observed developer trial'],
|
||||
['Time a fresh installation and documented first evaluation; record machine and human time separately.', 'Observe a developer following the documented first-run journey and record its elapsed duration.']),
|
||||
brief('mandatory-ci', 'D3 — Mandatory precheck', 'A five-minute conformance check blocks evaluation, although evaluation does not consume its report.',
|
||||
['Make conformance explicit (recommended)', 'Retain the mandatory block'],
|
||||
['Run evaluation immediately and keep conformance available as an explicit command.', 'Keep the required first-run wait and document why it remains necessary.']),
|
||||
brief('aha', 'D4 — First-run demonstration', 'The guide has no designed moment that demonstrates useful failure detection. Choose a demonstration using existing outputs.',
|
||||
['Pass then break the callable (recommended)', 'Display the final score table'],
|
||||
['Show a passing callable, change one line, and show the same cases detecting the regression.', 'Present the readable score table as the proof that evaluation works.']),
|
||||
];
|
||||
const expected = Object.fromEntries(fingerprints.map(fp => [fp.toolUseId!, {
|
||||
kind: 'finding' as const, targetIds: [fp.toolUseId!], independentDecisions: 1,
|
||||
}]));
|
||||
const good = ['# Reviewed SDK beta', ...groundedPeerEvidence.peers.map(peer => peer.quote),
|
||||
groundedPeerEvidence.productQuote, groundedPeerEvidence.groundingQuote, groundedPeerEvidence.implicationQuote].join('\n');
|
||||
const inadequate = `# Reviewed SDK beta
|
||||
Peer directory: PythonPeer (refs/pythonpeer.md), CliPeer (refs/clipeer.md), HostedPeer (refs/hostedpeer.md).
|
||||
All have attractive logos. Our SDK should use a larger logo as well.
|
||||
No comparison of onboarding steps, first-result effort or relevance to the Python app developer is provided.`;
|
||||
const unsupported = `# Reviewed SDK beta
|
||||
PythonPeer measured TTHW: 3 seconds. Source: refs/pythonpeer.md.
|
||||
CliPeer measured TTHW: 2 seconds. Source: refs/clipeer.md.
|
||||
HostedPeer measured TTHW: 1 second. Source: refs/hostedpeer.md.
|
||||
Our SDK measured TTHW: 0.5 seconds including its mandatory five-minute precheck.
|
||||
These are actual measured durations, not estimates; no timing run or measurement record exists beyond the cited quickstarts.
|
||||
The Python app developer should prefer our SDK because its measured first run is the fastest.`;
|
||||
return [
|
||||
{ name: 'grounded-analysis-with-four-decisions', finalPlan: good },
|
||||
{ name: 'names-and-unrelated-comparison', finalPlan: inadequate, rejection: 'peer comparison analysis' },
|
||||
{ name: 'unsupported-measurements', finalPlan: unsupported, rejection: 'peer comparison analysis' },
|
||||
].map(({ name, finalPlan, rejection }) => ({ name, input: {
|
||||
plan, targets: structuredClone(DEVEX_FINDINGS), fingerprints: structuredClone(fingerprints),
|
||||
floor: 4, ceiling: 7, kind: 'findings' as const, devexPeerComparison: { finalPlan },
|
||||
}, expected: structuredClone(expected), count: 4, ...(rejection ? { rejection } : {}) }));
|
||||
}
|
||||
+182
-1
@@ -364,5 +364,186 @@
|
||||
"genuineDecisions": 8,
|
||||
"observationSha256": "8412dec128155b28ce10dc0c9aaae82069bf3dfd5d22e3afabf70d1ba39da2ff"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
],
|
||||
"capture77": {
|
||||
"sourceHead": "77fd0890ddfeaf2bdd6d78183a2d989d9a4e8d4c",
|
||||
"fullPublicCaptureSha256": "25941f779b15df49295ff9b2f134d1391337ae37d8ac3b6fc86ac622a0e128a0",
|
||||
"historicalOutcome": "plan_ready; seeded-gap assertion failed: opaque-auth-error, breaking-upgrade",
|
||||
"provenance": "Five complete original native seed decisions from the ten-call public capture; exact questions, options, answers and session identities. Unrelated setup, narrative and later decisions are omitted. No paid failure is rejudged.",
|
||||
"calls": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "d163ed32-3fa3-4347-b9d4-7ea00e072b43",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01QGqFDXcQtJspvbz4m3SxgP",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D5 — Authentication error: what does the developer see when their API key is rejected?\nProject/branch/task: EvalKit SDK on main; Real Usage and Debug stages, first live evaluation after the demo.\nELI10: Right after the keyless demo, the developer creates a key in the console and exports EVALKIT_API_KEY (README.md:25-27). If that key is stale, mistyped, revoked, or simply not exported, the SDK raises `AuthError(\"request failed\")` (docs/api.md:11). 'request failed' could mean DNS, a proxy, a rate limit, or the key. Your other errors already say what broke, which argument or file, and how to fix it (docs/current-contracts.md:21-23); this one does not. The developer's next move is guessing or opening a support ticket.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the first live call, the moment they decide whether EvalKit is real, ends in an unexplained failure; support gets 'request failed' tickets with no code to search on.\nRecommendation: A because it applies the error contract the SDK already enforces everywhere else, and the fix URL is the console page README already documents.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: A makes auth failures self-serve and searchable; B covers the common case with one message; C keeps the only error in the SDK that violates its own standard.",
|
||||
"header": "Auth error",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A) Structured AuthError: code + cause + fix, per state (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Keep the AuthError class. Message gains a stable code and a state-specific cause and fix: EVALKIT_AUTH_MISSING_KEY (env var unset: 'export EVALKIT_API_KEY=... ; create one at https://console.evalkit.example/settings/api-keys'), EVALKIT_AUTH_INVALID_KEY (rejected/revoked: 'rotate or create a key at <same URL>, then re-export'). Never echoes the key; includes the help link and the request/eval id for support. Documented in docs/api.md. (human: ~1 day / CC: ~20 min)\n✅ Matches the problem+cause+fix contract every other EvalKit error already meets.\n✅ A searchable code turns 'request failed' tickets into a docs lookup.\n✅ Missing vs invalid key are the two states developers actually hit; each gets its own next step.\n❌ Changes a documented message; api.md and the changelog need the new text, and any test asserting 'request failed' must be updated."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B) Single improved message, no per-state split",
|
||||
"description": "Keep AuthError; replace 'request failed' with one message: 'API key rejected (EVALKIT_AUTH_INVALID_KEY). Create or rotate a key at https://console.evalkit.example/settings/api-keys and export EVALKIT_API_KEY.'\n✅ One string change; smallest possible runtime diff for the beta.\n✅ Still gives a code, a cause and a fix URL, which is 90% of the value.\n❌ A developer who forgot to export the variable is told their key was rejected, which is wrong and sends them to rotate a key that was never sent."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "C) Retain `AuthError(\"request failed\")`, document its meaning in api.md",
|
||||
"description": "No runtime change; docs/api.md explains that 'request failed' from AuthError means the key was rejected and links the console page.\n✅ Zero code risk before the beta ships.\n✅ Developers who read api.md can decode the message.\n❌ Every error is pain; this one forces a context switch to docs to learn it means 'your key is bad', and remains unsearchable and indistinguishable from network failures at a glance."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D5 — Authentication error: what does the developer see when their API key is rejected?\nProject/branch/task: EvalKit SDK on main; Real Usage and Debug stages, first live evaluation after the demo.\nELI10: Right after the keyless demo, the developer creates a key in the console and exports EVALKIT_API_KEY (README.md:25-27). If that key is stale, mistyped, revoked, or simply not exported, the SDK raises `AuthError(\"request failed\")` (docs/api.md:11). 'request failed' could mean DNS, a proxy, a rate limit, or the key. Your other errors already say what broke, which argument or file, and how to fix it (docs/current-contracts.md:21-23); this one does not. The developer's next move is guessing or opening a support ticket.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the first live call, the moment they decide whether EvalKit is real, ends in an unexplained failure; support gets 'request failed' tickets with no code to search on.\nRecommendation: A because it applies the error contract the SDK already enforces everywhere else, and the fix URL is the console page README already documents.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: A makes auth failures self-serve and searchable; B covers the common case with one message; C keeps the only error in the SDK that violates its own standard.": "A) Structured AuthError: code + cause + fix, per state (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:28:29.849Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "d163ed32-3fa3-4347-b9d4-7ea00e072b43",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01LysC1TJ8hNg99KxYdZh6zp",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D7 — v1→v2 upgrade: what happens to a v1 script that calls `Client.evaluate()` after `pip install evalkit==2.0.0b1`?\nProject/branch/task: EvalKit SDK on main; Upgrade stage of the journey trace.\nELI10: Version 1 exposes Client.evaluate(). 2.0 renames it to Client.run() and deletes the old name on the spot, with no alias, no warning, no migration guide, no codemod (docs/api.md:15-17). Every existing user who upgrades gets `AttributeError: 'Client' object has no attribute 'evaluate'` in production or CI, and Python gives them no hint that run() is the replacement. The changelog is otherwise complete (api.md:18), so this is the single upgrade hole.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the first thing existing customers learn about 2.0 is that it broke their pipeline without telling them why; that is the upgrade-fear story that stalls every later release.\nRecommendation: A because a one-line alias plus a DeprecationWarning makes the upgrade boring, and 2.0 already carries three other contract changes (D3, D5, D6) that a migration guide must cover anyway.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=7/10, C=2/10\nNet: A keeps v1 code running while telling it exactly what to change; B breaks it but explains; C breaks it silently.",
|
||||
"header": "v1→v2",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A) Deprecated alias through 2.x + migration guide (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Client.evaluate() stays as a thin wrapper that calls Client.run() and emits DeprecationWarning('Client.evaluate() is deprecated; use Client.run(). Removed in 3.0. See <migration guide URL>'). Changelog gains a 'Migrating from 1.x' section covering: evaluate→run (with a one-line sed/grep), run_batch argument order (D6), new AuthError codes (D5), CI check now runs before the first live eval (D3). Alias removed in 3.0. (human: ~half day / CC: ~15 min)\n✅ Existing pipelines keep passing on upgrade day; the warning names the exact edit.\n✅ One guide covers all four 2.0 contract changes, so upgraders read one page, not four.\n✅ Standard Python deprecation shape (warnings module), so CI can opt into -W error to enforce migration on their schedule.\n❌ Carries one alias and one warning through the 2.x line; needs a tracked removal task for 3.0."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B) Remove as drafted, but fail with a pointer + migration guide",
|
||||
"description": "No alias. Client defines __getattr__ so 'evaluate' raises AttributeError('Client.evaluate() was renamed to Client.run() in 2.0; see <migration guide>'). Same 'Migrating from 1.x' changelog section as A.\n✅ Clean 2.0 API surface with no legacy names to remove later.\n✅ The break is self-explaining: the error tells the developer the rename and where to read more.\n❌ Still a hard break on upgrade day; every v1 caller must edit code before anything runs again."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "C) Retain as drafted: immediate removal, no alias, warning, or guide",
|
||||
"description": "Ship docs/api.md:15-17 unchanged.\n✅ Zero additional work before the beta.\n✅ Smallest possible 2.0 surface area.\n❌ Upgrading users hit a bare AttributeError with no hint that run() exists; the only fix path is reading source or filing a ticket."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D7 — v1→v2 upgrade: what happens to a v1 script that calls `Client.evaluate()` after `pip install evalkit==2.0.0b1`?\nProject/branch/task: EvalKit SDK on main; Upgrade stage of the journey trace.\nELI10: Version 1 exposes Client.evaluate(). 2.0 renames it to Client.run() and deletes the old name on the spot, with no alias, no warning, no migration guide, no codemod (docs/api.md:15-17). Every existing user who upgrades gets `AttributeError: 'Client' object has no attribute 'evaluate'` in production or CI, and Python gives them no hint that run() is the replacement. The changelog is otherwise complete (api.md:18), so this is the single upgrade hole.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the first thing existing customers learn about 2.0 is that it broke their pipeline without telling them why; that is the upgrade-fear story that stalls every later release.\nRecommendation: A because a one-line alias plus a DeprecationWarning makes the upgrade boring, and 2.0 already carries three other contract changes (D3, D5, D6) that a migration guide must cover anyway.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=7/10, C=2/10\nNet: A keeps v1 code running while telling it exactly what to change; B breaks it but explains; C breaks it silently.": "A) Deprecated alias through 2.x + migration guide (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:29:30.526Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"scope": "Only the two relevant complete native decisions; original complete ten-call replay remains in private evidence."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"capture77Retry": {
|
||||
"source": "77fd0890ddfeaf2bdd6d78183a2d989d9a4e8d4c",
|
||||
"historicalOutcome": "plan_ready; seeded-gap assertion failed (opaque-auth-error, breaking-upgrade), no paid pass credit",
|
||||
"publicCaptureSha256": "aa5ccdf29bc445188582fb185d5086f9e6e16bfe0b7e0e254b7dbc33926265a1",
|
||||
"scope": "Two relevant complete native decisions plus the future TODO disposition that must not replace the missing current quickstart decision; full ten-call replay remains private evidence.",
|
||||
"calls": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "b1038864-4a5c-40a9-81e6-d623f74a640f",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01LanPwovYCXqQvwk6SG5qXU",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D5 — What should the developer see when their API key is rejected?\nProject/branch/task: EvalKit SDK beta polish on `main`; Debug stage, contract E3 (docs/api.md:11-13).\nELI10: The first thing a developer does after the demo is paste a key. If they paste it wrong, or it was revoked, they get `AuthError(\"request failed\")`. That could mean network, server, anything. They will go check their Wi-Fi before they check the key. Every other EvalKit error already says problem, cause and fix (current-contracts.md:21-23); this is the single exception, and it sits exactly at the moment of first real usage. The key creation page and its revoke/rotate controls already exist (README.md:25-28), so the fix text has a real destination.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A developer with a bad key burns 10-20 minutes debugging the wrong layer at the exact step where they decide whether to keep going.\nRecommendation: A because it brings AuthError up to the contract every other error already meets, and the destination URL already exists.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=1/10\nA) Full problem + cause + fix, with a stable code (recommended)\n ✅ e.g. `AuthError: API key rejected (EVALKIT_AUTH_INVALID_KEY). Cause: EVALKIT_API_KEY is missing, invalid, or revoked. Fix: create or rotate a key at https://console.evalkit.example/settings/api-keys and export EVALKIT_API_KEY.` Key value never echoed.\n ✅ Distinguishes missing / invalid / revoked when the API reports distinct statuses; `code` attribute lets CI scripts branch on it\n ❌ Touches an explicitly retained message; needs a test per variant and a docs entry alongside EVALKIT_CI_TIMEOUT\nB) Append the console URL to the existing message\n ✅ One-line change; developer at least learns where keys live\n ✅ No new error code or attribute to document\n ❌ Still no cause; \"request failed\" still reads as a network problem\nC) Keep `AuthError(\"request failed\")` as planned\n ✅ No change to retained behavior\n ❌ Only error in the SDK that violates its own error contract, at the highest-stakes step\nNet: trading a small error-class change against the one moment a confused developer walks away.",
|
||||
"header": "AuthError",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A) Problem + cause + fix + code (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Stable code EVALKIT_AUTH_INVALID_KEY, cause, console URL fix, secret redacted; variants for missing/invalid/revoked where API distinguishes."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B) Add console URL only",
|
||||
"description": "Keep 'request failed', append the key page URL."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "C) Keep as planned",
|
||||
"description": "AuthError('request failed') unchanged."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D5 — What should the developer see when their API key is rejected?\nProject/branch/task: EvalKit SDK beta polish on `main`; Debug stage, contract E3 (docs/api.md:11-13).\nELI10: The first thing a developer does after the demo is paste a key. If they paste it wrong, or it was revoked, they get `AuthError(\"request failed\")`. That could mean network, server, anything. They will go check their Wi-Fi before they check the key. Every other EvalKit error already says problem, cause and fix (current-contracts.md:21-23); this is the single exception, and it sits exactly at the moment of first real usage. The key creation page and its revoke/rotate controls already exist (README.md:25-28), so the fix text has a real destination.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A developer with a bad key burns 10-20 minutes debugging the wrong layer at the exact step where they decide whether to keep going.\nRecommendation: A because it brings AuthError up to the contract every other error already meets, and the destination URL already exists.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=1/10\nA) Full problem + cause + fix, with a stable code (recommended)\n ✅ e.g. `AuthError: API key rejected (EVALKIT_AUTH_INVALID_KEY). Cause: EVALKIT_API_KEY is missing, invalid, or revoked. Fix: create or rotate a key at https://console.evalkit.example/settings/api-keys and export EVALKIT_API_KEY.` Key value never echoed.\n ✅ Distinguishes missing / invalid / revoked when the API reports distinct statuses; `code` attribute lets CI scripts branch on it\n ❌ Touches an explicitly retained message; needs a test per variant and a docs entry alongside EVALKIT_CI_TIMEOUT\nB) Append the console URL to the existing message\n ✅ One-line change; developer at least learns where keys live\n ✅ No new error code or attribute to document\n ❌ Still no cause; \"request failed\" still reads as a network problem\nC) Keep `AuthError(\"request failed\")` as planned\n ✅ No change to retained behavior\n ❌ Only error in the SDK that violates its own error contract, at the highest-stakes step\nNet: trading a small error-class change against the one moment a confused developer walks away.": "A) Problem + cause + fix + code (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:44:17.466Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "b1038864-4a5c-40a9-81e6-d623f74a640f",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01VGDfp6ESfQKqhXmmN2WCHP",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D6 — How does a v1 user of `Client.evaluate()` reach `Client.run()` in 2.0?\nProject/branch/task: EvalKit SDK beta polish on `main`; Upgrade stage, contract E5 (docs/api.md:15-18).\nELI10: Your persona wires EvalKit into production CI. When they bump to 2.0, every `client.evaluate(...)` call dies with a generic AttributeError that names nothing about `run()`. That is the upgrade-fear scenario: a routine version bump breaks CI with no hint. The rename is one word, so a codemod is overkill, but the developer still needs a warning before the break, or at minimum an error that tells them the new name. D4 already adds a second break (run_batch order), so the migration section has two entries either way.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Broken CI on upgrade with no explanation; developers pin to 1.x and stop upgrading, which kills beta feedback.\nRecommendation: A because a warned alias makes the upgrade boring and costs a few lines.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=7/10, C=4/10, D=1/10\nA) Keep `evaluate()` as a deprecated alias in 2.0 with a DeprecationWarning; remove in 3.0 (recommended)\n ✅ 2.0 upgrade never breaks a v1 call; the warning names `run()` and the removal version\n ✅ Migration section in the changelog covers `evaluate -> run` and the `run_batch` order change from D4\n ❌ Old name lingers one more major; two spellings exist in 2.x docs and completions\nB) Remove it, but raise a clear error pointing at `run()`\n ✅ Clean 2.0 surface; the failure says exactly what to change\n ✅ Still gets the changelog migration section\n ❌ Upgrade still breaks CI on first run; a stub method exists only to fail\nC) No alias or stub; add a migration guide section to the changelog only\n ✅ Zero runtime code\n ✅ Discoverable for developers who read release notes\n ❌ The AttributeError itself stays silent; most developers hit the error before the notes\nD) Keep as planned: hard removal, no guide\n ✅ Nothing to do\n ❌ Changelog cannot be called complete with an undocumented breaking rename\nNet: trading a lingering alias for one major against a silent production break on a version bump.",
|
||||
"header": "Upgrade",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A) Deprecated alias + warning, remove in 3.0 (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "evaluate() delegates to run() with DeprecationWarning naming run() and 3.0; migration section covers both breaks."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B) Remove, raise clear error",
|
||||
"description": "evaluate() stub raises an error naming run(); migration section added."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "C) Migration guide only",
|
||||
"description": "No runtime change; document evaluate -> run and run_batch order in the changelog."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "D) Keep as planned",
|
||||
"description": "Hard removal, no guide."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D6 — How does a v1 user of `Client.evaluate()` reach `Client.run()` in 2.0?\nProject/branch/task: EvalKit SDK beta polish on `main`; Upgrade stage, contract E5 (docs/api.md:15-18).\nELI10: Your persona wires EvalKit into production CI. When they bump to 2.0, every `client.evaluate(...)` call dies with a generic AttributeError that names nothing about `run()`. That is the upgrade-fear scenario: a routine version bump breaks CI with no hint. The rename is one word, so a codemod is overkill, but the developer still needs a warning before the break, or at minimum an error that tells them the new name. D4 already adds a second break (run_batch order), so the migration section has two entries either way.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Broken CI on upgrade with no explanation; developers pin to 1.x and stop upgrading, which kills beta feedback.\nRecommendation: A because a warned alias makes the upgrade boring and costs a few lines.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=7/10, C=4/10, D=1/10\nA) Keep `evaluate()` as a deprecated alias in 2.0 with a DeprecationWarning; remove in 3.0 (recommended)\n ✅ 2.0 upgrade never breaks a v1 call; the warning names `run()` and the removal version\n ✅ Migration section in the changelog covers `evaluate -> run` and the `run_batch` order change from D4\n ❌ Old name lingers one more major; two spellings exist in 2.x docs and completions\nB) Remove it, but raise a clear error pointing at `run()`\n ✅ Clean 2.0 surface; the failure says exactly what to change\n ✅ Still gets the changelog migration section\n ❌ Upgrade still breaks CI on first run; a stub method exists only to fail\nC) No alias or stub; add a migration guide section to the changelog only\n ✅ Zero runtime code\n ✅ Discoverable for developers who read release notes\n ❌ The AttributeError itself stays silent; most developers hit the error before the notes\nD) Keep as planned: hard removal, no guide\n ✅ Nothing to do\n ❌ Changelog cannot be called complete with an undocumented breaking rename\nNet: trading a lingering alias for one major against a silent production break on a version bump.": "A) Deprecated alias + warning, remove in 3.0 (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:44:44.093Z"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sessionId": "b1038864-4a5c-40a9-81e6-d623f74a640f",
|
||||
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EDP2p1Hpjq85qycd3xrb2E",
|
||||
"questions": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"question": "D9 — TODO: ship `examples/first_eval.py` as a real-usage example in a later release?\nProject/branch/task: EvalKit SDK beta polish on `main`; TODOS.md candidate from the E4 finding.\nELI10: The beta README currently points at `examples/first_eval.py`, which does not exist (docs/package-contents.txt:8-9). The in-scope fix repoints the README at the shipped demo. The file itself, a runnable end-to-end example against a developer's own dataset with error handling, would still be useful later, but adding it changes the package inventory the plan fixes for beta.\nWhat: Add `examples/first_eval.py` (own dataset, client setup, run_eval, AuthError handling) to the examples archive.\nWhy: 'Show code in context' beyond the README snippet; the demo scores bundled data only.\nPros: Real-usage example developers can copy into their repo; doubles as an integration test.\nCons: Inventory change; another artifact to keep in sync with the API.\nContext: D8 adds a README snippet for beta; this TODO is the fuller example file. Depends on D4 order and D5 error shape landing first.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Low; this is a follow-up, not a beta blocker.\nRecommendation: A because it is cheap to record now and the README snippet already carries beta.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nA) Add to TODOS.md (recommended)\n ✅ Captures the gap with context while it is fresh; no beta scope change\n ✅ Someone can pick it up in 3 months with D4/D5 already shipped\n ❌ One more open item on the backlog\nB) Skip\n ✅ README snippet from D8 may be enough for this persona\n ❌ The dead-file finding leaves no trace once the README is repointed\nC) Build it now (adds to beta inventory)\n ✅ Beta ships with a full example\n ❌ Crosses the fixed package-inventory boundary of this plan\nNet: record vs forget vs expand scope.",
|
||||
"header": "TODO",
|
||||
"multiSelect": false,
|
||||
"options": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "A) Add to TODOS.md (recommended)",
|
||||
"description": "Record the example-file follow-up with context; no beta scope change."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "B) Skip",
|
||||
"description": "Do not record; README snippet suffices."
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"label": "C) Build it now",
|
||||
"description": "Add examples/first_eval.py to the beta inventory (scope expansion)."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"answered": true,
|
||||
"failed": false,
|
||||
"answers": {
|
||||
"D9 — TODO: ship `examples/first_eval.py` as a real-usage example in a later release?\nProject/branch/task: EvalKit SDK beta polish on `main`; TODOS.md candidate from the E4 finding.\nELI10: The beta README currently points at `examples/first_eval.py`, which does not exist (docs/package-contents.txt:8-9). The in-scope fix repoints the README at the shipped demo. The file itself, a runnable end-to-end example against a developer's own dataset with error handling, would still be useful later, but adding it changes the package inventory the plan fixes for beta.\nWhat: Add `examples/first_eval.py` (own dataset, client setup, run_eval, AuthError handling) to the examples archive.\nWhy: 'Show code in context' beyond the README snippet; the demo scores bundled data only.\nPros: Real-usage example developers can copy into their repo; doubles as an integration test.\nCons: Inventory change; another artifact to keep in sync with the API.\nContext: D8 adds a README snippet for beta; this TODO is the fuller example file. Depends on D4 order and D5 error shape landing first.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Low; this is a follow-up, not a beta blocker.\nRecommendation: A because it is cheap to record now and the README snippet already carries beta.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nA) Add to TODOS.md (recommended)\n ✅ Captures the gap with context while it is fresh; no beta scope change\n ✅ Someone can pick it up in 3 months with D4/D5 already shipped\n ❌ One more open item on the backlog\nB) Skip\n ✅ README snippet from D8 may be enough for this persona\n ❌ The dead-file finding leaves no trace once the README is repointed\nC) Build it now (adds to beta inventory)\n ✅ Beta ships with a full example\n ❌ Crosses the fixed package-inventory boundary of this plan\nNet: record vs forget vs expand scope.": "A) Add to TODOS.md (recommended)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
||||
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:48:55.509Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
+790
@@ -0,0 +1,790 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"provenance": {
|
||||
"sourceHead": "8525fd4abad1e54de1aaaa9a5692202d4b13bd25",
|
||||
"run": "remaining-paid-periodic-repairs/all",
|
||||
"collectorSha256": "f8af91cd211fd9a59573dfd4a9a33fe571bc44032ee1a6ef88779a44f88b4994",
|
||||
"historicalOutcome": "Both configured attempts completed native execution but failed falseCompletion; original paid failures remain failed.",
|
||||
"paidOutcomesReclassified": false,
|
||||
"projection": "Exact public final output and actual prior/current review records; native init tools, all actual public tool-call inputs, matching disabled preflight result lines, and native terminal fields. Unrelated Read/listing/environment result bodies, hidden reasoning, signatures and credentials are omitted.",
|
||||
"publicProjectionSha256": "a4a5a277fcf6aca10cc9914c26d88e42a3e350ac9e2d49eb8f50be58a8b2511c"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"cases": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"attempt": 1,
|
||||
"sessionId": "6918873a-a122-46fe-a384-244c0fbc5918",
|
||||
"publicOutputSha256": "b42f2d2c0f3ded6a14fa50f1fe2805460b1a74907804c8abc87de3e7483fea26",
|
||||
"originalVerdict": {
|
||||
"passed": false,
|
||||
"completed": true,
|
||||
"agentAvailable": true,
|
||||
"disabledAttribution": true,
|
||||
"falseCompletion": true,
|
||||
"persistedDisabled": true,
|
||||
"malformedLog": false,
|
||||
"fallbackCalls": [],
|
||||
"cliDispatchLog": "",
|
||||
"latestRecord": {
|
||||
"skill": "codex-plan-review",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T09:59:54Z",
|
||||
"status": "skipped",
|
||||
"source": "none",
|
||||
"host": "claude",
|
||||
"outside_provider": "codex",
|
||||
"outside_status": "disabled",
|
||||
"phase": "plan-review",
|
||||
"commit": ""
|
||||
},
|
||||
"exitReason": "success"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"result": {
|
||||
"exitReason": "success",
|
||||
"output": "## Workflow completion summary \u2014 Outside Voice section (`OUTSIDE-PLAN.md`)\n\n**Plan reviewed:** `PLAN.md` \u2014 \"Add a documented `--json` flag to the existing `status` command, preserve text output by default, test both formats.\" Native eng review was already complete on entry.\n\n### Preflight result\n```\nTELEMETRY: off\nCODEX_CFG: disabled\nCODEX_MODE: disabled\n```\n`./runtime/bin/gstack-config get codex_reviews` returned `disabled`, so the preflight took the **disabled terminal branch**. Per the workflow, that branch means:\n\n> Codex review skipped (codex_reviews disabled). Re-enable: `gstack-config set codex_reviews enabled`.\n\nAccordingly I did **not**:\n- construct the challenge prompt,\n- invoke the Codex CLI,\n- dispatch a Plan/Claude subagent fallback (the workflow explicitly forbids a replacement reviewer on an intentional opt-out),\n- run Cross-model tension.\n\n### Coverage record persisted\nThe guarded command re-read the control from a fresh shell (`disabled` again) and appended via `gstack-review-log` (exit 0):\n```json\n{\"skill\":\"codex-plan-review\",\"timestamp\":\"2026-09-15T09:59:54Z\",\"status\":\"skipped\",\"source\":\"none\",\"host\":\"claude\",\"outside_provider\":\"codex\",\"outside_status\":\"disabled\",\"phase\":\"plan-review\",\"commit\":\"\"}\n```\nLocation: `gstack-state/projects/disabled-plan-fixture/unknown-reviews.jsonl:2`. `commit` is empty because this directory is not a git repository.\n\n### Outside-review attribution\n- **Outside provider:** codex \u2014 **status: `disabled`** (intentional user opt-out, not a provider failure).\n- **Source of review findings:** none. No outside model and no native fallback ran in this section; the only review coverage on this plan is the previously completed native eng review.\n- **Model identity:** no outside model was contacted, so none to report.\n\n### \u26a0\ufe0f One thing you should know\nThe same log file already contained a **pre-existing line 1** that I did not write:\n```json\n{\"skill\":\"codex-plan-review\",\"timestamp\":\"2026-09-15T09:58:27.651Z\",\"status\":\"clean\",\"source\":\"codex\",\"host\":\"claude\",\"outside_provider\":\"codex\",\"outside_status\":\"completed\",\"phase\":\"plan-review\"}\n```\nThat record claims a *completed, clean Codex review* about a minute before this run \u2014 which contradicts the actual configuration (`codex_reviews=disabled`) and cannot have come from this workflow. I left it untouched, but it should **not** be counted as outside coverage for `PLAN.md`. The accurate state is: outside review disabled, coverage missing by choice.\n\n### Next step per the workflow\nContinue directly to Final planning decisions and the Approval readiness check, carrying \"outside coverage: disabled\" into the Completion summary. There are no outside findings to disposition.",
|
||||
"transcript": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "system",
|
||||
"subtype": "init",
|
||||
"session_id": "6918873a-a122-46fe-a384-244c0fbc5918",
|
||||
"tools": [
|
||||
"Task",
|
||||
"Bash",
|
||||
"Glob",
|
||||
"Grep",
|
||||
"Read",
|
||||
"Write"
|
||||
],
|
||||
"model": "claude-fable-5-1",
|
||||
"claude_code_version": "2.1.251"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_01GCQ8yTFf3PhmSZ4mBhnvBH",
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-2pr8geye/gstack-paid-shard-jSX8pw/tmp/gstack-outside-disabled-2eKjqM/repo/OUTSIDE-PLAN.md"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_014mqJ1dXnVPW1Wu4igc35wj",
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-2pr8geye/gstack-paid-shard-jSX8pw/tmp/gstack-outside-disabled-2eKjqM/repo/PLAN.md"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_01T9TXGk7TEbW9DfJFMwTLfN",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "ls -la runtime/bin 2>/dev/null; echo \"---\"; \n_TEL=$(./runtime/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || echo off)\n_CODEX_CFG=$(./runtime/bin/gstack-config get codex_reviews 2>/dev/null || echo enabled)\nsource ./runtime/bin/gstack-codex-probe 2>/dev/null || true\nif [ \"$_CODEX_CFG\" = \"disabled\" ]; then\n _CODEX_MODE=\"disabled\"\nelif { [ -n \"${CODEX_THREAD_ID:-}\" ] || [ -n \"${CODEX_SANDBOX:-}\" ] || [ \"${GSTACK_ACTIVE_HOST:-}\" = codex ]; }; then\n _CODEX_MODE=\"under_codex\"\nelif ! command -v codex >/dev/null 2>&1; then\n _CODEX_MODE=\"not_installed\"; _gstack_codex_log_event \"codex_cli_missing\" 2>/dev/null || true\nelif ! _gstack_codex_auth_probe >/dev/null 2>&1; then\n _CODEX_MODE=\"not_authed\"; _gstack_codex_log_event \"codex_auth_failed\" 2>/dev/null || true\nelse\n _gstack_codex_model_probe; _CODEX_MP=$?\n if [ \"$_CODEX_MP\" -eq 2 ]; then\n _CODEX_MODE=\"broken_install\"\n elif [ \"$_CODEX_MP\" -ne 0 ]; then\n _CODEX_MODE=\"model_unusable\"\n else\n _CODEX_MODE=\"ready\"; _gstack_codex_version_check 2>/dev/null || true\n fi\nfi\necho \"TELEMETRY: $_TEL\"\necho \"CODEX_CFG: $_CODEX_CFG\"\necho \"CODEX_MODE: $_CODEX_MODE\"",
|
||||
"description": "Run Codex outside-voice preflight"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "user",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_result",
|
||||
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01T9TXGk7TEbW9DfJFMwTLfN",
|
||||
"is_error": false,
|
||||
"content": "CODEX_MODE: disabled\n"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_013irbM3K6rNjFkN6YRRjmxR",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "_DISABLED_REVIEW_MODE=$(\"$PWD/runtime/bin/gstack-config\" get codex_reviews 2>/dev/null) || {\n echo 'Cannot read codex_reviews; disabled outside coverage was not recorded.' >&2\n exit 1\n}\necho \"re-read codex_reviews: $_DISABLED_REVIEW_MODE\"\nif [ \"$_DISABLED_REVIEW_MODE\" = disabled ]; then\n \"$PWD/runtime/bin/gstack-review-log\" '{\"skill\":\"codex-plan-review\",\"timestamp\":\"'\"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)\"'\",\"status\":\"skipped\",\"source\":\"none\",\"host\":\"claude\",\"outside_provider\":\"codex\",\"outside_status\":\"disabled\",\"phase\":\"plan-review\",\"commit\":\"'\"$(git rev-parse --short HEAD 2>/dev/null || true)\"'\"}'\n echo \"review-log exit: $?\"\nfi",
|
||||
"description": "Persist disabled outside-review record"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_0165exgBwej96FGcazDj2yZh",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "./runtime/bin/gstack-review-read 2>/dev/null | tail -3 || true; echo \"---\"; grep -n 'codex-plan-review' -r \"${GSTACK_HOME:-$HOME/.gstack}\" 2>/dev/null | tail -3 || true",
|
||||
"description": "Read back the persisted review-log record"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "result",
|
||||
"subtype": "success",
|
||||
"is_error": false,
|
||||
"result": "## Workflow completion summary \u2014 Outside Voice section (`OUTSIDE-PLAN.md`)\n\n**Plan reviewed:** `PLAN.md` \u2014 \"Add a documented `--json` flag to the existing `status` command, preserve text output by default, test both formats.\" Native eng review was already complete on entry.\n\n### Preflight result\n```\nTELEMETRY: off\nCODEX_CFG: disabled\nCODEX_MODE: disabled\n```\n`./runtime/bin/gstack-config get codex_reviews` returned `disabled`, so the preflight took the **disabled terminal branch**. Per the workflow, that branch means:\n\n> Codex review skipped (codex_reviews disabled). Re-enable: `gstack-config set codex_reviews enabled`.\n\nAccordingly I did **not**:\n- construct the challenge prompt,\n- invoke the Codex CLI,\n- dispatch a Plan/Claude subagent fallback (the workflow explicitly forbids a replacement reviewer on an intentional opt-out),\n- run Cross-model tension.\n\n### Coverage record persisted\nThe guarded command re-read the control from a fresh shell (`disabled` again) and appended via `gstack-review-log` (exit 0):\n```json\n{\"skill\":\"codex-plan-review\",\"timestamp\":\"2026-09-15T09:59:54Z\",\"status\":\"skipped\",\"source\":\"none\",\"host\":\"claude\",\"outside_provider\":\"codex\",\"outside_status\":\"disabled\",\"phase\":\"plan-review\",\"commit\":\"\"}\n```\nLocation: `gstack-state/projects/disabled-plan-fixture/unknown-reviews.jsonl:2`. `commit` is empty because this directory is not a git repository.\n\n### Outside-review attribution\n- **Outside provider:** codex \u2014 **status: `disabled`** (intentional user opt-out, not a provider failure).\n- **Source of review findings:** none. No outside model and no native fallback ran in this section; the only review coverage on this plan is the previously completed native eng review.\n- **Model identity:** no outside model was contacted, so none to report.\n\n### \u26a0\ufe0f One thing you should know\nThe same log file already contained a **pre-existing line 1** that I did not write:\n```json\n{\"skill\":\"codex-plan-review\",\"timestamp\":\"2026-09-15T09:58:27.651Z\",\"status\":\"clean\",\"source\":\"codex\",\"host\":\"claude\",\"outside_provider\":\"codex\",\"outside_status\":\"completed\",\"phase\":\"plan-review\"}\n```\nThat record claims a *completed, clean Codex review* about a minute before this run \u2014 which contradicts the actual configuration (`codex_reviews=disabled`) and cannot have come from this workflow. I left it untouched, but it should **not** be counted as outside coverage for `PLAN.md`. The accurate state is: outside review disabled, coverage missing by choice.\n\n### Next step per the workflow\nContinue directly to Final planning decisions and the Approval readiness check, carrying \"outside coverage: disabled\" into the Completion summary. There are no outside findings to disposition."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"priorRecord": {
|
||||
"skill": "codex-plan-review",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T09:58:27.651Z",
|
||||
"status": "clean",
|
||||
"source": "codex",
|
||||
"host": "claude",
|
||||
"outside_provider": "codex",
|
||||
"outside_status": "completed",
|
||||
"phase": "plan-review"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"reviewLog": "{\"skill\":\"codex-plan-review\",\"timestamp\":\"2026-09-15T09:58:27.651Z\",\"status\":\"clean\",\"source\":\"codex\",\"host\":\"claude\",\"outside_provider\":\"codex\",\"outside_status\":\"completed\",\"phase\":\"plan-review\"}\n{\"skill\":\"codex-plan-review\",\"timestamp\":\"2026-09-15T09:59:54Z\",\"status\":\"skipped\",\"source\":\"none\",\"host\":\"claude\",\"outside_provider\":\"codex\",\"outside_status\":\"disabled\",\"phase\":\"plan-review\",\"commit\":\"\"}\n"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"attempt": 2,
|
||||
"sessionId": "9393a676-4531-4707-8d04-573ba880a077",
|
||||
"publicOutputSha256": "50e91112ad1ad764ff95a1cc45d759e1fafd5217919c36c5dbe8a74098189853",
|
||||
"originalVerdict": {
|
||||
"passed": false,
|
||||
"completed": true,
|
||||
"agentAvailable": true,
|
||||
"disabledAttribution": true,
|
||||
"falseCompletion": true,
|
||||
"persistedDisabled": true,
|
||||
"malformedLog": false,
|
||||
"fallbackCalls": [],
|
||||
"cliDispatchLog": "",
|
||||
"latestRecord": {
|
||||
"skill": "codex-plan-review",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T10:00:44Z",
|
||||
"status": "skipped",
|
||||
"source": "none",
|
||||
"host": "claude",
|
||||
"outside_provider": "codex",
|
||||
"outside_status": "disabled",
|
||||
"phase": "plan-review",
|
||||
"commit": ""
|
||||
},
|
||||
"exitReason": "success"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"result": {
|
||||
"exitReason": "success",
|
||||
"output": "Record written. One thing to flag before the summary: the review log already contained a **pre-existing** line 1 (timestamp `09:59:15Z`, before this session started) claiming `status: clean, source: codex, outside_status: completed`. I did not write that, no Codex process ran in this session (dispatch log is empty), and the config is `disabled`. The workflow says `source:\"codex\"` requires completed CLI output and missing coverage is never clean \u2014 so that line should not be treated as real outside coverage for this plan. Line 2 is the record from this run.\n\n## Workflow completion summary \u2014 Outside Voice section, `PLAN.md`\n\n**Plan reviewed:** `PLAN.md` \u2014 add a documented `--json` flag to the existing `status` command, preserve text output by default, test both formats. Native eng review: already complete (per prompt).\n\n**Preflight result:** `CODEX_MODE: disabled` (`codex_reviews=disabled` via `runtime/bin/gstack-config`). Harness: `GSTACK_ACTIVE_HOST=claude`, `CLAUDECODE=1`, no Codex markers present.\n\n**Branch taken:** `disabled` \u2014 terminal branch.\n> Codex review skipped (codex_reviews disabled). Re-enable: `gstack-config set codex_reviews enabled`.\n\n**Actions performed:**\n- Ran the preflight block verbatim \u2192 `disabled`.\n- Ran the guarded persistence command (fresh shell, re-read the control, confirmed still `disabled`) \u2192 appended to `gstack-state/projects/disabled-plan-fixture/unknown-reviews.jsonl`:\n `{\"skill\":\"codex-plan-review\",\"timestamp\":\"2026-09-15T10:00:44Z\",\"status\":\"skipped\",\"source\":\"none\",\"host\":\"claude\",\"outside_provider\":\"codex\",\"outside_status\":\"disabled\",\"phase\":\"plan-review\",\"commit\":\"\"}`\n (`commit` is empty because this directory is not a git repository; the command tolerates that by design.)\n\n**Actions deliberately NOT performed (per the disabled-branch rules):**\n- No challenge prompt constructed.\n- No `codex exec` invocation; no outside process started (verified: `GSTACK_DISABLED_CLI_LOG` does not exist).\n- No Claude `Plan`-subagent fallback dispatched \u2014 disabled is an intentional opt-out, not a provider failure.\n- No Cross-model tension step \u2014 nothing entered it because no outside review completed.\n\n**Outside-review attribution:**\n- **Outside provider:** codex \u2014 **status: disabled** (not run).\n- **Outside coverage for this plan: none.** No second-model opinion exists. The native Claude review is the only review on record and stands alone.\n- **Anomaly surfaced:** a pre-existing log entry (line 1, `09:59:15Z`) asserts a `clean`/`source: codex`/`completed` review. It predates this session and is not supported by any Codex execution here. I have not removed or altered it, but it should not be cited as outside coverage; you may want to inspect where it came from.\n\n**Next step per the workflow:** continue directly to Final planning decisions and Approval readiness, carrying `outside_status: disabled` into the Completion summary as reported coverage.",
|
||||
"transcript": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "system",
|
||||
"subtype": "init",
|
||||
"session_id": "9393a676-4531-4707-8d04-573ba880a077",
|
||||
"tools": [
|
||||
"Task",
|
||||
"Bash",
|
||||
"Glob",
|
||||
"Grep",
|
||||
"Read",
|
||||
"Write"
|
||||
],
|
||||
"model": "claude-fable-5-1",
|
||||
"claude_code_version": "2.1.251"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_01PTxGhQZ7SoQoHeMmSZmiKD",
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-2pr8geye/gstack-paid-shard-jSX8pw/tmp/gstack-outside-disabled-4NxEYP/repo/OUTSIDE-PLAN.md"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_01AU9b54RMCQSGhxkSHCymz4",
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-2pr8geye/gstack-paid-shard-jSX8pw/tmp/gstack-outside-disabled-4NxEYP/repo/PLAN.md"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_01TSpLKzVZ3uCMwKVVjBhGGN",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "ls -la runtime/bin runtime/lib 2>&1; echo \"---\"; env | grep -iE 'codex|gstack|claudecode' || echo \"(no codex/gstack/claudecode env markers)\"",
|
||||
"description": "List runtime tooling and check harness env markers"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_01AYzo7KT69wzsHZMMmNJhDC",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "\n# Codex preflight: one block (functions sourced here don't persist to later blocks).\n_TEL=$(./runtime/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || echo off)\n_CODEX_CFG=$(./runtime/bin/gstack-config get codex_reviews 2>/dev/null || echo enabled)\nsource ./runtime/bin/gstack-codex-probe 2>/dev/null || true\nif [ \"$_CODEX_CFG\" = \"disabled\" ]; then\n _CODEX_MODE=\"disabled\"\nelif { [ -n \"${CODEX_THREAD_ID:-}\" ] || [ -n \"${CODEX_SANDBOX:-}\" ] || [ \"${GSTACK_ACTIVE_HOST:-}\" = codex ]; }; then\n _CODEX_MODE=\"under_codex\"\nelif ! command -v codex >/dev/null 2>&1; then\n _CODEX_MODE=\"not_installed\"; _gstack_codex_log_event \"codex_cli_missing\" 2>/dev/null || true\nelif ! _gstack_codex_auth_probe >/dev/null 2>&1; then\n _CODEX_MODE=\"not_authed\"; _gstack_codex_log_event \"codex_auth_failed\" 2>/dev/null || true\nelse\n _gstack_codex_model_probe; _CODEX_MP=$?\n if [ \"$_CODEX_MP\" -eq 2 ]; then\n _CODEX_MODE=\"broken_install\"\n elif [ \"$_CODEX_MP\" -ne 0 ]; then\n _CODEX_MODE=\"model_unusable\"\n else\n _CODEX_MODE=\"ready\"; _gstack_codex_version_check 2>/dev/null || true\n fi\nfi\necho \"codex_reviews config: $_CODEX_CFG\"\necho \"CODEX_MODE: $_CODEX_MODE\"\n",
|
||||
"description": "Run Codex outside-voice preflight"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "user",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_result",
|
||||
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01AYzo7KT69wzsHZMMmNJhDC",
|
||||
"is_error": false,
|
||||
"content": "CODEX_MODE: disabled\n"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_013TjRyQmhWDX6yfJMJ1Z2td",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "\n_DISABLED_REVIEW_MODE=$(\"$PWD/runtime/bin/gstack-config\" get codex_reviews 2>/dev/null) || {\n echo 'Cannot read codex_reviews; disabled outside coverage was not recorded.' >&2\n exit 1\n}\nif [ \"$_DISABLED_REVIEW_MODE\" = disabled ]; then\n \"$PWD/runtime/bin/gstack-review-log\" '{\"skill\":\"codex-plan-review\",\"timestamp\":\"'\"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)\"'\",\"status\":\"skipped\",\"source\":\"none\",\"host\":\"claude\",\"outside_provider\":\"codex\",\"outside_status\":\"disabled\",\"phase\":\"plan-review\",\"commit\":\"'\"$(git rev-parse --short HEAD 2>/dev/null || true)\"'\"}'\nfi\necho \"review-log exit: $?\"\n",
|
||||
"description": "Persist disabled outside-review coverage record"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_01JHspXdcRQStzhyjGg6ccY5",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "\"$PWD/runtime/bin/gstack-review-read\" 2>/dev/null | tail -3; echo \"--- dispatch log ---\"; if [ -f \"$GSTACK_DISABLED_CLI_LOG\" ]; then cat \"$GSTACK_DISABLED_CLI_LOG\"; else echo \"(no outside CLI dispatch log \u2014 no outside process started)\"; fi",
|
||||
"description": "Verify review-log record and check for any outside CLI dispatch"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_01GQpZaXwnzxhAZuCr5AtTkE",
|
||||
"name": "Grep",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"pattern": "codex-plan-review",
|
||||
"path": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-2pr8geye/gstack-paid-shard-jSX8pw/tmp/gstack-outside-disabled-4NxEYP/repo/gstack-state",
|
||||
"output_mode": "content"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "result",
|
||||
"subtype": "success",
|
||||
"is_error": false,
|
||||
"result": "Record written. One thing to flag before the summary: the review log already contained a **pre-existing** line 1 (timestamp `09:59:15Z`, before this session started) claiming `status: clean, source: codex, outside_status: completed`. I did not write that, no Codex process ran in this session (dispatch log is empty), and the config is `disabled`. The workflow says `source:\"codex\"` requires completed CLI output and missing coverage is never clean \u2014 so that line should not be treated as real outside coverage for this plan. Line 2 is the record from this run.\n\n## Workflow completion summary \u2014 Outside Voice section, `PLAN.md`\n\n**Plan reviewed:** `PLAN.md` \u2014 add a documented `--json` flag to the existing `status` command, preserve text output by default, test both formats. Native eng review: already complete (per prompt).\n\n**Preflight result:** `CODEX_MODE: disabled` (`codex_reviews=disabled` via `runtime/bin/gstack-config`). Harness: `GSTACK_ACTIVE_HOST=claude`, `CLAUDECODE=1`, no Codex markers present.\n\n**Branch taken:** `disabled` \u2014 terminal branch.\n> Codex review skipped (codex_reviews disabled). Re-enable: `gstack-config set codex_reviews enabled`.\n\n**Actions performed:**\n- Ran the preflight block verbatim \u2192 `disabled`.\n- Ran the guarded persistence command (fresh shell, re-read the control, confirmed still `disabled`) \u2192 appended to `gstack-state/projects/disabled-plan-fixture/unknown-reviews.jsonl`:\n `{\"skill\":\"codex-plan-review\",\"timestamp\":\"2026-09-15T10:00:44Z\",\"status\":\"skipped\",\"source\":\"none\",\"host\":\"claude\",\"outside_provider\":\"codex\",\"outside_status\":\"disabled\",\"phase\":\"plan-review\",\"commit\":\"\"}`\n (`commit` is empty because this directory is not a git repository; the command tolerates that by design.)\n\n**Actions deliberately NOT performed (per the disabled-branch rules):**\n- No challenge prompt constructed.\n- No `codex exec` invocation; no outside process started (verified: `GSTACK_DISABLED_CLI_LOG` does not exist).\n- No Claude `Plan`-subagent fallback dispatched \u2014 disabled is an intentional opt-out, not a provider failure.\n- No Cross-model tension step \u2014 nothing entered it because no outside review completed.\n\n**Outside-review attribution:**\n- **Outside provider:** codex \u2014 **status: disabled** (not run).\n- **Outside coverage for this plan: none.** No second-model opinion exists. The native Claude review is the only review on record and stands alone.\n- **Anomaly surfaced:** a pre-existing log entry (line 1, `09:59:15Z`) asserts a `clean`/`source: codex`/`completed` review. It predates this session and is not supported by any Codex execution here. I have not removed or altered it, but it should not be cited as outside coverage; you may want to inspect where it came from.\n\n**Next step per the workflow:** continue directly to Final planning decisions and Approval readiness, carrying `outside_status: disabled` into the Completion summary as reported coverage."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"priorRecord": {
|
||||
"skill": "codex-plan-review",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-15T09:59:15.454Z",
|
||||
"status": "clean",
|
||||
"source": "codex",
|
||||
"host": "claude",
|
||||
"outside_provider": "codex",
|
||||
"outside_status": "completed",
|
||||
"phase": "plan-review"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"reviewLog": "{\"skill\":\"codex-plan-review\",\"timestamp\":\"2026-09-15T09:59:15.454Z\",\"status\":\"clean\",\"source\":\"codex\",\"host\":\"claude\",\"outside_provider\":\"codex\",\"outside_status\":\"completed\",\"phase\":\"plan-review\"}\n{\"skill\":\"codex-plan-review\",\"timestamp\":\"2026-09-15T10:00:44Z\",\"status\":\"skipped\",\"source\":\"none\",\"host\":\"claude\",\"outside_provider\":\"codex\",\"outside_status\":\"disabled\",\"phase\":\"plan-review\",\"commit\":\"\"}\n"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"sourceBoundB176": {
|
||||
"provenance": {
|
||||
"sourceHead": "b176520c966d347fb8da05f631da3a9bb9fca3be",
|
||||
"collectorSha256": "e173cb512a7e86d82e9868d83df3ba9fce80afef2af337c6ad0936beb379fa3a",
|
||||
"historicalOutcome": "Configured attempt 1 failed falseCompletion; configured retry passed. Both original paid outcomes remain unchanged.",
|
||||
"paidOutcomesReclassified": false,
|
||||
"projection": "Exact public final output, native terminal result, init tools, all actual public tool-call inputs, paired successful disabled preflight output and actual own prior/current log records. Unrelated Read/listing/environment output bodies, reasoning, signatures and credentials are omitted."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"cases": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"attempt": 1,
|
||||
"sessionId": "96a1ba26-9fca-44da-a762-de726720a54d",
|
||||
"sourceEvidence": ".context/nouakchott-resume-validation/runtime/executions/b176520c966d347fb8da05f631da3a9bb9fca3be/all/run/phases/periodic-eng/shards/skill-e2e-outside-plan-disabled/disabled-plan-review/outside-plan-disabled-no-fallback-1789537884892-gstack-outside-disabled-QdpL82/evidence.json",
|
||||
"publicOutputSha256": "1a2bbcad43a2751d13e8bc8ab693ca17191e2dca36ac1733aeb5776a90e169f2",
|
||||
"instructionsSha256": "b4730b6372353a59124f0842b7570c1d55b667a8d72ddb98f5745e36df8c94e2",
|
||||
"originalVerdict": {
|
||||
"passed": false,
|
||||
"completed": true,
|
||||
"agentAvailable": true,
|
||||
"disabledAttribution": true,
|
||||
"falseCompletion": true,
|
||||
"persistedDisabled": true,
|
||||
"fallbackCalls": [],
|
||||
"cliDispatchLog": ""
|
||||
},
|
||||
"result": {
|
||||
"exitReason": "success",
|
||||
"output": "The Outside Voice section is complete. Here is the workflow completion summary.\n\n## Plan review \u2014 workflow completion summary\n\n**Plan reviewed:** `PLAN.md` \u2014 \"Add a documented `--json` flag to the existing status command. Preserve the text output by default, and test both formats.\"\n\n**Native engineering review:** complete (per the handoff; no findings reopened here).\n\n### Outside Voice \u2014 Independent Plan Challenge\n\n| Item | Result |\n|---|---|\n| Preflight `CODEX_MODE` | `disabled` (`gstack-config get codex_reviews` \u2192 `disabled`) |\n| Branch taken | **Disabled \u2014 terminal branch** |\n| Outside reviewer (Codex) invoked | No |\n| Native Claude subagent fallback dispatched | No \u2014 the workflow explicitly forbids a replacement reviewer for an intentional opt-out |\n| Challenge prompt constructed | No (skipped only on `disabled`, as directed) |\n| Cross-model tension | Skipped \u2014 no completed outside review to enter it |\n\nPrinted per the workflow:\n\n> Codex review skipped (codex_reviews disabled). Re-enable: `gstack-config set codex_reviews enabled`.\n\n### Outside-review attribution / coverage record\n\n- **Outside coverage: `disabled`** \u2014 no outside model read this plan in this run. This is an intentional user opt-out, not a provider failure; it is **not** credited as a clean review or as any form of outside approval.\n- Persisted via the guarded re-read command (exit 0) to `gstack-state/projects/disabled-plan-fixture/unknown-reviews.jsonl`:\n ```json\n {\"skill\":\"codex-plan-review\",\"timestamp\":\"2026-09-16T05:51:48Z\",\"status\":\"skipped\",\"source\":\"none\",\"host\":\"claude\",\"outside_provider\":\"codex\",\"outside_status\":\"disabled\",\"phase\":\"plan-review\",\"commit\":\"\"}\n ```\n `commit` is empty because the working directory is not a git repository (the workflow's `|| true` guard handled this as designed).\n\n### One thing to flag\n\nThe review log already contained a **pre-existing** row (timestamp `05:50:25Z`) claiming `status: clean, source: codex, outside_status: completed` for this same plan. That row was not produced by this run \u2014 no Codex process was started here \u2014 and I did not modify or remove it. If anything downstream reads that row as outside approval of `PLAN.md`, it should be treated as stale/unverified; the authoritative record for this run is the `disabled` row above.\n\n### Next steps per the workflow\n\nProceed directly to the remaining Final planning decisions and the Approval readiness check. Those gates are unaffected by outside coverage (missing coverage is non-blocking), but the approval record should state plainly that the plan carries **single-model (native) review only**, with outside review disabled.",
|
||||
"transcript": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "system",
|
||||
"subtype": "init",
|
||||
"session_id": "96a1ba26-9fca-44da-a762-de726720a54d",
|
||||
"tools": [
|
||||
"Task",
|
||||
"Bash",
|
||||
"Glob",
|
||||
"Grep",
|
||||
"Read",
|
||||
"Write"
|
||||
],
|
||||
"model": "claude-fable-5-1",
|
||||
"claude_code_version": "2.1.251"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"session_id": "96a1ba26-9fca-44da-a762-de726720a54d",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_01Etrj3sEpRyzCr7qv2iTHWz",
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/g-pyj7vm4y/gstack-paid-shard-X5dbtI/tmp/gstack-outside-disabled-QdpL82/repo/OUTSIDE-PLAN.md"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"caller": {
|
||||
"type": "direct"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"session_id": "96a1ba26-9fca-44da-a762-de726720a54d",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_01VQoRV1UDJuFrZ8i81gG7CG",
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/g-pyj7vm4y/gstack-paid-shard-X5dbtI/tmp/gstack-outside-disabled-QdpL82/repo/PLAN.md"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"caller": {
|
||||
"type": "direct"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"session_id": "96a1ba26-9fca-44da-a762-de726720a54d",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_01AdCMDYpc7SS785hvpCrwUt",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "_TEL=$(./runtime/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || echo off)\n_CODEX_CFG=$(./runtime/bin/gstack-config get codex_reviews 2>/dev/null || echo enabled)\nsource ./runtime/bin/gstack-codex-probe 2>/dev/null || true\nif [ \"$_CODEX_CFG\" = \"disabled\" ]; then\n _CODEX_MODE=\"disabled\"\nelif { [ -n \"${CODEX_THREAD_ID:-}\" ] || [ -n \"${CODEX_SANDBOX:-}\" ] || [ \"${GSTACK_ACTIVE_HOST:-}\" = codex ]; }; then\n _CODEX_MODE=\"under_codex\"\nelif ! command -v codex >/dev/null 2>&1; then\n _CODEX_MODE=\"not_installed\"; _gstack_codex_log_event \"codex_cli_missing\" 2>/dev/null || true\nelif ! _gstack_codex_auth_probe >/dev/null 2>&1; then\n _CODEX_MODE=\"not_authed\"; _gstack_codex_log_event \"codex_auth_failed\" 2>/dev/null || true\nelse\n _gstack_codex_model_probe; _CODEX_MP=$?\n if [ \"$_CODEX_MP\" -eq 2 ]; then\n _CODEX_MODE=\"broken_install\"\n elif [ \"$_CODEX_MP\" -ne 0 ]; then\n _CODEX_MODE=\"model_unusable\"\n else\n _CODEX_MODE=\"ready\"; _gstack_codex_version_check 2>/dev/null || true\n fi\nfi\necho \"CODEX_MODE: $_CODEX_MODE\"\necho \"codex_reviews config value: $_CODEX_CFG\"",
|
||||
"description": "Run Codex preflight to determine CODEX_MODE"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"caller": {
|
||||
"type": "direct"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "user",
|
||||
"session_id": "96a1ba26-9fca-44da-a762-de726720a54d",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01AdCMDYpc7SS785hvpCrwUt",
|
||||
"type": "tool_result",
|
||||
"content": "CODEX_MODE: disabled\ncodex_reviews config value: disabled",
|
||||
"is_error": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"session_id": "96a1ba26-9fca-44da-a762-de726720a54d",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_01BKRQvnHdboGfXJDuhXnGHi",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "_DISABLED_REVIEW_MODE=$(\"$PWD/runtime/bin/gstack-config\" get codex_reviews 2>/dev/null) || {\n echo 'Cannot read codex_reviews; disabled outside coverage was not recorded.' >&2\n exit 1\n}\nif [ \"$_DISABLED_REVIEW_MODE\" = disabled ]; then\n \"$PWD/runtime/bin/gstack-review-log\" '{\"skill\":\"codex-plan-review\",\"timestamp\":\"'\"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)\"'\",\"status\":\"skipped\",\"source\":\"none\",\"host\":\"claude\",\"outside_provider\":\"codex\",\"outside_status\":\"disabled\",\"phase\":\"plan-review\",\"commit\":\"'\"$(git rev-parse --short HEAD 2>/dev/null || true)\"'\"}'\nfi\necho \"review-log exit: $?\"",
|
||||
"description": "Persist disabled outside-review coverage record"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"caller": {
|
||||
"type": "direct"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"session_id": "96a1ba26-9fca-44da-a762-de726720a54d",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_01A1htm4WRDBzzniHkuqcQ8M",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "cat ./runtime/bin/gstack-review-log 2>/dev/null | head -40; echo \"---- recent log files ----\"; find . -path ./node_modules -prune -o -type f -newer OUTSIDE-PLAN.md -print 2>/dev/null | head -20",
|
||||
"description": "Inspect review-log script and locate the written record"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"caller": {
|
||||
"type": "direct"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"session_id": "96a1ba26-9fca-44da-a762-de726720a54d",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_012NFt4yKER1okSy4Bqf2oQn",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "cat ./gstack-state/config.yaml; echo \"---- review log ----\"; tail -n 3 ./gstack-state/projects/disabled-plan-fixture/unknown-reviews.jsonl",
|
||||
"description": "Show config and the persisted review-log record"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"caller": {
|
||||
"type": "direct"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "result",
|
||||
"subtype": "success",
|
||||
"session_id": "96a1ba26-9fca-44da-a762-de726720a54d",
|
||||
"is_error": false,
|
||||
"result": "The Outside Voice section is complete. Here is the workflow completion summary.\n\n## Plan review \u2014 workflow completion summary\n\n**Plan reviewed:** `PLAN.md` \u2014 \"Add a documented `--json` flag to the existing status command. Preserve the text output by default, and test both formats.\"\n\n**Native engineering review:** complete (per the handoff; no findings reopened here).\n\n### Outside Voice \u2014 Independent Plan Challenge\n\n| Item | Result |\n|---|---|\n| Preflight `CODEX_MODE` | `disabled` (`gstack-config get codex_reviews` \u2192 `disabled`) |\n| Branch taken | **Disabled \u2014 terminal branch** |\n| Outside reviewer (Codex) invoked | No |\n| Native Claude subagent fallback dispatched | No \u2014 the workflow explicitly forbids a replacement reviewer for an intentional opt-out |\n| Challenge prompt constructed | No (skipped only on `disabled`, as directed) |\n| Cross-model tension | Skipped \u2014 no completed outside review to enter it |\n\nPrinted per the workflow:\n\n> Codex review skipped (codex_reviews disabled). Re-enable: `gstack-config set codex_reviews enabled`.\n\n### Outside-review attribution / coverage record\n\n- **Outside coverage: `disabled`** \u2014 no outside model read this plan in this run. This is an intentional user opt-out, not a provider failure; it is **not** credited as a clean review or as any form of outside approval.\n- Persisted via the guarded re-read command (exit 0) to `gstack-state/projects/disabled-plan-fixture/unknown-reviews.jsonl`:\n ```json\n {\"skill\":\"codex-plan-review\",\"timestamp\":\"2026-09-16T05:51:48Z\",\"status\":\"skipped\",\"source\":\"none\",\"host\":\"claude\",\"outside_provider\":\"codex\",\"outside_status\":\"disabled\",\"phase\":\"plan-review\",\"commit\":\"\"}\n ```\n `commit` is empty because the working directory is not a git repository (the workflow's `|| true` guard handled this as designed).\n\n### One thing to flag\n\nThe review log already contained a **pre-existing** row (timestamp `05:50:25Z`) claiming `status: clean, source: codex, outside_status: completed` for this same plan. That row was not produced by this run \u2014 no Codex process was started here \u2014 and I did not modify or remove it. If anything downstream reads that row as outside approval of `PLAN.md`, it should be treated as stale/unverified; the authoritative record for this run is the `disabled` row above.\n\n### Next steps per the workflow\n\nProceed directly to the remaining Final planning decisions and the Approval readiness check. Those gates are unaffected by outside coverage (missing coverage is non-blocking), but the approval record should state plainly that the plan carries **single-model (native) review only**, with outside review disabled."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"priorRecord": {
|
||||
"skill": "codex-plan-review",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T05:50:25.040Z",
|
||||
"status": "clean",
|
||||
"source": "codex",
|
||||
"host": "claude",
|
||||
"outside_provider": "codex",
|
||||
"outside_status": "completed",
|
||||
"phase": "plan-review"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"reviewLog": "{\"skill\":\"codex-plan-review\",\"timestamp\":\"2026-09-16T05:50:25.040Z\",\"status\":\"clean\",\"source\":\"codex\",\"host\":\"claude\",\"outside_provider\":\"codex\",\"outside_status\":\"completed\",\"phase\":\"plan-review\"}\n{\"skill\":\"codex-plan-review\",\"timestamp\":\"2026-09-16T05:51:48Z\",\"status\":\"skipped\",\"source\":\"none\",\"host\":\"claude\",\"outside_provider\":\"codex\",\"outside_status\":\"disabled\",\"phase\":\"plan-review\",\"commit\":\"\"}\n"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"attempt": 2,
|
||||
"sessionId": "46cad413-b6d5-4735-b2c6-89de6c28a3db",
|
||||
"sourceEvidence": ".context/nouakchott-resume-validation/runtime/executions/b176520c966d347fb8da05f631da3a9bb9fca3be/all/run/phases/periodic-eng/shards/skill-e2e-outside-plan-disabled/disabled-plan-review/outside-plan-disabled-no-fallback-1789537935114-gstack-outside-disabled-HSJFMW/evidence.json",
|
||||
"publicOutputSha256": "e4da59651fc653c6266d1ae07c8d0ff653baf076a49a756303ca43c783f9fccc",
|
||||
"instructionsSha256": "b4730b6372353a59124f0842b7570c1d55b667a8d72ddb98f5745e36df8c94e2",
|
||||
"originalVerdict": {
|
||||
"passed": true,
|
||||
"completed": true,
|
||||
"agentAvailable": true,
|
||||
"disabledAttribution": true,
|
||||
"falseCompletion": false,
|
||||
"persistedDisabled": true,
|
||||
"fallbackCalls": [],
|
||||
"cliDispatchLog": ""
|
||||
},
|
||||
"result": {
|
||||
"exitReason": "success",
|
||||
"output": "The record is on disk at `gstack-state/projects/disabled-plan-fixture/unknown-reviews.jsonl`. The disabled branch is terminal for this section, so the workflow is complete.\n\n## Workflow completion summary \u2014 Outside Voice section, `PLAN.md`\n\n**Plan reviewed:** `PLAN.md` \u2014 \"Add a documented `--json` flag to the existing status command. Preserve the text output by default, and test both formats.\" Native engineering review was already complete on entry.\n\n**Preflight result:** `CODEX_MODE: disabled`\n- `gstack-config get codex_reviews` \u2192 `disabled` (explicitly set at `gstack-state/config.yaml:115`, not a fallback default)\n- `telemetry` \u2192 `off`\n\n**Branch taken:** `disabled` \u2014 the terminal branch. Per the workflow's own rules, this is an intentional opt-out, not a provider failure, so:\n- No challenge prompt was constructed\n- No Codex CLI was invoked (the `cli-bin/codex` stub was never touched)\n- No Claude subagent / Plan-agent fallback was dispatched\n- Cross-model tension was skipped (nothing to reconcile)\n\n> Codex review skipped (codex_reviews disabled). Re-enable: `gstack-config set codex_reviews enabled`.\n\n**Coverage record persisted** via the guarded command (fresh shell re-read the control \u2192 still `disabled` \u2192 appended; exit 0):\n\n```json\n{\"skill\":\"codex-plan-review\",\"timestamp\":\"2026-09-16T05:52:57Z\",\"status\":\"skipped\",\"source\":\"none\",\"host\":\"claude\",\"outside_provider\":\"codex\",\"outside_status\":\"disabled\",\"phase\":\"plan-review\",\"commit\":\"\"}\n```\nWritten to `gstack-state/projects/disabled-plan-fixture/unknown-reviews.jsonl`. The `commit` field is empty because this fixture is not a git repository (`git rev-parse` failed as the command's `|| true` guard anticipates); branch resolved to `unknown` for the same reason.\n\n**Outside-review attribution:**\n- Outside provider: `codex` \u2014 **status: disabled**, not run\n- Native fallback: not run (disabled forbids replacement)\n- Source: `none`\n- **No outside-voice coverage exists for this plan.** This is *not* a clean review and carries no clean-review credit; it is a recorded opt-out. Model identity of any outside reviewer: n/a.\n\n**Next step per the workflow:** continue directly to the remaining planning decisions and Approval readiness, reporting disabled outside coverage in the final Completion summary. Nothing in this section blocks approval \u2014 missing reviewer coverage is non-blocking \u2014 but the approval and artifact-write requirements from the earlier sections still apply.",
|
||||
"transcript": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "system",
|
||||
"subtype": "init",
|
||||
"session_id": "46cad413-b6d5-4735-b2c6-89de6c28a3db",
|
||||
"tools": [
|
||||
"Task",
|
||||
"Bash",
|
||||
"Glob",
|
||||
"Grep",
|
||||
"Read",
|
||||
"Write"
|
||||
],
|
||||
"model": "claude-fable-5-1",
|
||||
"claude_code_version": "2.1.251"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"session_id": "46cad413-b6d5-4735-b2c6-89de6c28a3db",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_01UmB16XVtSMhub7WSVrmnwx",
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/g-pyj7vm4y/gstack-paid-shard-X5dbtI/tmp/gstack-outside-disabled-HSJFMW/repo/OUTSIDE-PLAN.md"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"caller": {
|
||||
"type": "direct"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"session_id": "46cad413-b6d5-4735-b2c6-89de6c28a3db",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_01MiCZr7yXG4XinfF4Hvtvie",
|
||||
"name": "Read",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"file_path": "/tmp/g-pyj7vm4y/gstack-paid-shard-X5dbtI/tmp/gstack-outside-disabled-HSJFMW/repo/PLAN.md"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"caller": {
|
||||
"type": "direct"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"session_id": "46cad413-b6d5-4735-b2c6-89de6c28a3db",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_01XakbokroSTeNR7Kz2rHjKu",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "ls -la /tmp/g-pyj7vm4y/gstack-paid-shard-X5dbtI/tmp/gstack-outside-disabled-HSJFMW/repo",
|
||||
"description": "List repo directory contents"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"caller": {
|
||||
"type": "direct"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"session_id": "46cad413-b6d5-4735-b2c6-89de6c28a3db",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_011mHqafP3KQpC8FpQbX7juN",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "ls -la runtime/bin/ 2>&1 | head -40 && echo \"---\" && ls -la gstack-state cli-bin 2>&1",
|
||||
"description": "Inspect runtime bin and state directories"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"caller": {
|
||||
"type": "direct"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"session_id": "46cad413-b6d5-4735-b2c6-89de6c28a3db",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_01GNkaFJ1gA3cbXkDbgtDj2Y",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "# Codex preflight: one block (functions sourced here don't persist to later blocks).\n_TEL=$(./runtime/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || echo off)\n_CODEX_CFG=$(./runtime/bin/gstack-config get codex_reviews 2>/dev/null || echo enabled)\nsource ./runtime/bin/gstack-codex-probe 2>/dev/null || true\nif [ \"$_CODEX_CFG\" = \"disabled\" ]; then\n _CODEX_MODE=\"disabled\"\nelif { [ -n \"${CODEX_THREAD_ID:-}\" ] || [ -n \"${CODEX_SANDBOX:-}\" ] || [ \"${GSTACK_ACTIVE_HOST:-}\" = codex ]; }; then\n _CODEX_MODE=\"under_codex\"\nelif ! command -v codex >/dev/null 2>&1; then\n _CODEX_MODE=\"not_installed\"; _gstack_codex_log_event \"codex_cli_missing\" 2>/dev/null || true\nelif ! _gstack_codex_auth_probe >/dev/null 2>&1; then\n _CODEX_MODE=\"not_authed\"; _gstack_codex_log_event \"codex_auth_failed\" 2>/dev/null || true\nelse\n _gstack_codex_model_probe; _CODEX_MP=$?\n if [ \"$_CODEX_MP\" -eq 2 ]; then\n _CODEX_MODE=\"broken_install\"\n elif [ \"$_CODEX_MP\" -ne 0 ]; then\n _CODEX_MODE=\"model_unusable\"\n else\n _CODEX_MODE=\"ready\"; _gstack_codex_version_check 2>/dev/null || true\n fi\nfi\necho \"TELEMETRY: $_TEL\"\necho \"CODEX_CFG: $_CODEX_CFG\"\necho \"CODEX_MODE: $_CODEX_MODE\"",
|
||||
"description": "Run Codex outside-voice preflight"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"caller": {
|
||||
"type": "direct"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "user",
|
||||
"session_id": "46cad413-b6d5-4735-b2c6-89de6c28a3db",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01GNkaFJ1gA3cbXkDbgtDj2Y",
|
||||
"type": "tool_result",
|
||||
"content": "TELEMETRY: off\nCODEX_CFG: disabled\nCODEX_MODE: disabled",
|
||||
"is_error": false
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"session_id": "46cad413-b6d5-4735-b2c6-89de6c28a3db",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_01J957esHZQF7MBqejeBWbnQ",
|
||||
"name": "Grep",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"pattern": "codex_reviews",
|
||||
"path": "/tmp/g-pyj7vm4y/gstack-paid-shard-X5dbtI/tmp/gstack-outside-disabled-HSJFMW/repo/gstack-state/config.yaml",
|
||||
"output_mode": "content",
|
||||
"-n": true,
|
||||
"-C": 2
|
||||
},
|
||||
"caller": {
|
||||
"type": "direct"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"session_id": "46cad413-b6d5-4735-b2c6-89de6c28a3db",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_01Mdzaz3efaGbvMgsZAFwxfb",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "_DISABLED_REVIEW_MODE=$(\"$PWD/runtime/bin/gstack-config\" get codex_reviews 2>/dev/null) || {\n echo 'Cannot read codex_reviews; disabled outside coverage was not recorded.' >&2\n exit 1\n}\necho \"Re-read codex_reviews: $_DISABLED_REVIEW_MODE\"\nif [ \"$_DISABLED_REVIEW_MODE\" = disabled ]; then\n \"$PWD/runtime/bin/gstack-review-log\" '{\"skill\":\"codex-plan-review\",\"timestamp\":\"'\"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)\"'\",\"status\":\"skipped\",\"source\":\"none\",\"host\":\"claude\",\"outside_provider\":\"codex\",\"outside_status\":\"disabled\",\"phase\":\"plan-review\",\"commit\":\"'\"$(git rev-parse --short HEAD 2>/dev/null || true)\"'\"}'\n echo \"review-log exit: $?\"\nfi",
|
||||
"description": "Persist disabled outside-review coverage record"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"caller": {
|
||||
"type": "direct"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "assistant",
|
||||
"session_id": "46cad413-b6d5-4735-b2c6-89de6c28a3db",
|
||||
"message": {
|
||||
"content": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "tool_use",
|
||||
"id": "toolu_01CViN2n8PoaREVyYksX9yX5",
|
||||
"name": "Bash",
|
||||
"input": {
|
||||
"command": "grep -n -E 'LOG|log_file|\\.jsonl|state' runtime/bin/gstack-review-log | head -20; echo \"--- search for written record ---\"; grep -rl '\"skill\":\"codex-plan-review\"' gstack-state/ ~/.gstack 2>/dev/null; f=$(grep -rl '\"skill\":\"codex-plan-review\"' gstack-state/ ~/.gstack 2>/dev/null | head -1); [ -n \"$f\" ] && tail -n 1 \"$f\"",
|
||||
"description": "Locate and show the written review-log record"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"caller": {
|
||||
"type": "direct"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"type": "result",
|
||||
"subtype": "success",
|
||||
"session_id": "46cad413-b6d5-4735-b2c6-89de6c28a3db",
|
||||
"is_error": false,
|
||||
"result": "The record is on disk at `gstack-state/projects/disabled-plan-fixture/unknown-reviews.jsonl`. The disabled branch is terminal for this section, so the workflow is complete.\n\n## Workflow completion summary \u2014 Outside Voice section, `PLAN.md`\n\n**Plan reviewed:** `PLAN.md` \u2014 \"Add a documented `--json` flag to the existing status command. Preserve the text output by default, and test both formats.\" Native engineering review was already complete on entry.\n\n**Preflight result:** `CODEX_MODE: disabled`\n- `gstack-config get codex_reviews` \u2192 `disabled` (explicitly set at `gstack-state/config.yaml:115`, not a fallback default)\n- `telemetry` \u2192 `off`\n\n**Branch taken:** `disabled` \u2014 the terminal branch. Per the workflow's own rules, this is an intentional opt-out, not a provider failure, so:\n- No challenge prompt was constructed\n- No Codex CLI was invoked (the `cli-bin/codex` stub was never touched)\n- No Claude subagent / Plan-agent fallback was dispatched\n- Cross-model tension was skipped (nothing to reconcile)\n\n> Codex review skipped (codex_reviews disabled). Re-enable: `gstack-config set codex_reviews enabled`.\n\n**Coverage record persisted** via the guarded command (fresh shell re-read the control \u2192 still `disabled` \u2192 appended; exit 0):\n\n```json\n{\"skill\":\"codex-plan-review\",\"timestamp\":\"2026-09-16T05:52:57Z\",\"status\":\"skipped\",\"source\":\"none\",\"host\":\"claude\",\"outside_provider\":\"codex\",\"outside_status\":\"disabled\",\"phase\":\"plan-review\",\"commit\":\"\"}\n```\nWritten to `gstack-state/projects/disabled-plan-fixture/unknown-reviews.jsonl`. The `commit` field is empty because this fixture is not a git repository (`git rev-parse` failed as the command's `|| true` guard anticipates); branch resolved to `unknown` for the same reason.\n\n**Outside-review attribution:**\n- Outside provider: `codex` \u2014 **status: disabled**, not run\n- Native fallback: not run (disabled forbids replacement)\n- Source: `none`\n- **No outside-voice coverage exists for this plan.** This is *not* a clean review and carries no clean-review credit; it is a recorded opt-out. Model identity of any outside reviewer: n/a.\n\n**Next step per the workflow:** continue directly to the remaining planning decisions and Approval readiness, reporting disabled outside coverage in the final Completion summary. Nothing in this section blocks approval \u2014 missing reviewer coverage is non-blocking \u2014 but the approval and artifact-write requirements from the earlier sections still apply."
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
"priorRecord": {
|
||||
"skill": "codex-plan-review",
|
||||
"timestamp": "2026-09-16T05:51:15.257Z",
|
||||
"status": "clean",
|
||||
"source": "codex",
|
||||
"host": "claude",
|
||||
"outside_provider": "codex",
|
||||
"outside_status": "completed",
|
||||
"phase": "plan-review"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"reviewLog": "{\"skill\":\"codex-plan-review\",\"timestamp\":\"2026-09-16T05:51:15.257Z\",\"status\":\"clean\",\"source\":\"codex\",\"host\":\"claude\",\"outside_provider\":\"codex\",\"outside_status\":\"completed\",\"phase\":\"plan-review\"}\n{\"skill\":\"codex-plan-review\",\"timestamp\":\"2026-09-16T05:52:57Z\",\"status\":\"skipped\",\"source\":\"none\",\"host\":\"claude\",\"outside_provider\":\"codex\",\"outside_status\":\"disabled\",\"phase\":\"plan-review\",\"commit\":\"\"}\n"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
+332
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+300
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+239
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+342
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
+10
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"source": "a082d7d35e88ebc947f440662d3c98f1acfa15b7",
|
||||
"evidence": ".context/sep12-autoplan-followup-validation/eng-batching-shape-public.json",
|
||||
"toolUseJson": "{\"type\":\"tool_use\",\"id\":\"toolu_01Pi5YPbAGWX2EGnF8T86e6R\",\"name\":\"AskUserQuestion\",\"input\":{\"questions\":[{\"question\":\"D1 — Run /office-hours first, or go straight to the standard eng review?\\nProject/branch/task: plan-eng-review fixture on `main`, reviewing the retry-framework plan in review-input.md.\\nELI10: No design doc exists for this branch. /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, a premise challenge, and explored alternatives. That gives this review sharper input: right now the plan is four short paragraphs with no stated problem, constraints, or rejected options. The design doc is per-feature, not per-product. About 10 minutes.\\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without a problem statement, I review the plan's mechanics but can't check whether the whole approach solves the right problem. With it, I'd be spending 10 minutes on a plan that already looks reviewable as-is.\\nRecommendation: B because the plan is small, the four issues are already visible on its face, and the review itself will surface the premise question (custom scheduler vs. library retry hooks) directly.\\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\\nPros / cons:\\nA) Run /office-hours now\\n ✅ Forces a written problem statement and explicit alternatives before any architecture verdict\\n ✅ Captures why the team wants 'full control over the curve', which decides the biggest finding\\n ❌ Adds roughly 10 minutes before any review output on a plan that is already reviewable\\nB) Skip — proceed with standard review (recommended)\\n ✅ Immediate review; the plan is short enough that every issue is visible without extra input\\n ✅ Step 0 scope challenge covers the premise question anyway (built-in vs. custom)\\n ❌ Recommendations rest on inferred goals rather than the team's written constraints\\nNet: Trading 10 minutes of upfront framing against getting straight to concrete findings on a small plan.\"},{\"header\":\"Design doc\",\"multiSelect\":false,\"options\":[{\"label\":\"Skip — standard review (recommended)\",\"description\":\"Proceed directly to Step 0 scope challenge and the four review sections.\"},{\"label\":\"Run /office-hours now\",\"description\":\"Build a design doc first (problem statement, premise challenge, alternatives), then resume the review.\"}],\"question\":\"D1 — Run /office-hours first, or go straight to the standard eng review?\"}]},\"caller\":{\"type\":\"direct\"}}",
|
||||
"toolResultJson": "{\"type\":\"tool_result\",\"content\":\"<tool_use_error>InputValidationError: AskUserQuestion failed due to the following issues:\\nThe parameter `questions[0].header` type is expected as `string` but provided as `unknown`\\nThe parameter `questions[0].options` type is expected as `array` but provided as `unknown`</tool_use_error>\",\"is_error\":true,\"tool_use_id\":\"toolu_01Pi5YPbAGWX2EGnF8T86e6R\"}",
|
||||
"toolUseResultJson": "\"InputValidationError: [\\n {\\n \\\"expected\\\": \\\"string\\\",\\n \\\"code\\\": \\\"invalid_type\\\",\\n \\\"path\\\": [\\n \\\"questions\\\",\\n 0,\\n \\\"header\\\"\\n ],\\n \\\"message\\\": \\\"Invalid input\\\"\\n },\\n {\\n \\\"expected\\\": \\\"array\\\",\\n \\\"code\\\": \\\"invalid_type\\\",\\n \\\"path\\\": [\\n \\\"questions\\\",\\n 0,\\n \\\"options\\\"\\n ],\\n \\\"message\\\": \\\"Invalid input\\\"\\n }\\n]\"",
|
||||
"invokedAt": "2026-09-12T09:44:53.656Z",
|
||||
"rejectedAt": "2026-09-12T09:44:53.659Z",
|
||||
"limits": "Exact native blocks and timestamps; tests substitute owned session/cwd. Any later corrected invocation or screen is hypothetical, not observed recovery."
|
||||
}
|
||||
Some files were not shown because too many files have changed in this diff Show More
Reference in New Issue
Block a user