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
+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"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user