v1.84.1.0 fix: default Codex and Claude to frontier models (#2835)

* fix: default cross-model workflows to frontier models * chore: bump version and changelog (v1.82.1.0) Co-Authored-By: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * fix: repair frontier eval budgets and workflow instructions Preserve frontier models and quality thresholds while fixing truncated judge output, ordered section expansion, consent checks, QA scoring, and ship audit gates. Add regression coverage and refresh generated docs. Co-Authored-By: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * fix: resolve workflow gaps exposed by frontier evals Clarify plan-review ordering and fallback modes, preserve deploy readiness gates, honor configured merge methods, correct benchmark and canary contracts, and restore vendored installs on setup failure. Cover recovery with real-shell regressions. Co-Authored-By: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * fix: use agent capture budgets for deploy evals Multi-turn deploy and benchmark sessions were incorrectly limited to the single-call judge timeout. Use the existing capture tier and leave outer-test cleanup headroom, with a free policy regression test. Keep all behavioral assertions and frontier models unchanged. Co-Authored-By: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * fix: clarify retro workflow and evaluate compare instructions Include compare mode in the frontier judge excerpt, define metric sources and snapshot ordering, and preserve the existing prompt-size budget. Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> * fix: make documentation release review and publication consistent Review before commit, clarify changelog safeguards and unavailable reviewer modes, and preserve raw PR bodies across separate shell calls. Keep title sync in one shell and add regression coverage. Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com> --------- Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>
2026-09-16 09:55:29 +02:00 · 2026-09-09 08:57:21 -07:00
parent c8f0c4e368
commit 71f6048e8a
141 changed files with 2678 additions and 1750 deletions
@@ -1012,7 +1012,7 @@ HARD RULES — first classify as MARKETING/LANDING PAGE vs APP UI vs HYBRID, the
 - APP UI: Calm surface hierarchy, dense but readable, utility language, minimal chrome
 - UNIVERSAL: CSS variables for colors, no default font stacks, one job per section, cards earn existence

-For each finding: what's wrong, what will happen if it ships unresolved, and the specific fix. Be opinionated. No hedging." -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' -c 'web_search="cached"' < /dev/null 2>"$TMPERR_DESIGN"
+For each finding: what's wrong, what will happen if it ships unresolved, and the specific fix. Be opinionated. No hedging." -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only -c "model=\"${GSTACK_CODEX_MODEL:-gpt-6-astra}\"" -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' -c 'web_search="cached"' < /dev/null 2>"$TMPERR_DESIGN"
 ```
 Use a 5-minute timeout (`timeout: 300000`). After the command completes, read stderr:
 ```bash
@@ -44,6 +44,8 @@ matches a past learning, display:
 This makes the compounding visible. The user should see that gstack is getting
 smarter on their codebase over time.

+**Pass protocol (1-6):** Record the initial 0-10 score. Every `FIX TO 10` below is a proposal: ask about each issue, wait for approval, then edit the plan and re-rate that pass with the reason for the score change. A declined fix remains documented and lowers the final score. Never edit first and ask afterward. Pass 7 is the unscored decision register, not a seventh rating.
+
 ### Pass 1: Information Architecture
 Rate 0-10: Does the plan define what the user sees first, second, third?
 FIX TO 10: Add information hierarchy to the plan. Include ASCII diagram of screen/page structure and navigation flow. Apply "constraint worship" — if you can only show 3 things, which 3?
@@ -74,8 +76,6 @@ Apply time-horizon design: 5-sec visceral, 5-min behavioral, 5-year reflective.
 **STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY.

 ### Pass 4: AI Slop Risk
-Rate 0-10: Does the plan describe specific, intentional UI — or generic patterns?
-FIX TO 10: Rewrite vague UI descriptions with specific alternatives.

 ### Design Hard Rules

@@ -175,6 +175,10 @@ Detector rule ids for the rest of the catalog (a `[rule-id]` in a finding is one
 Judgment tells with no detector rule: gradient cta button, stock-photo hero, cards as the default component, generic testimonial section, left-text right-image hero, generic cta labels, hero metric template, identical card grids, glassmorphism, hand-drawn svg illustration, modal by default, monospace as costume, content stand-ins, mode picked by category, unthemed browser surfaces, missing states.

 Source: [OpenAI "Designing Delightful Frontends with GPT-5.4"](https://developers.openai.com/blog/designing-delightful-frontends-with-gpt-5-4) (Mar 2026) + gstack design methodology.
+
+**Pass 4 evaluation:** Rate 0-10: Does the plan describe specific, intentional UI, or generic patterns? Record each hard-rejection hit and litmus YES/NO with evidence. An unresolved hard rejection caps this pass below 8 (not design-complete); it does not automatically set the score to 0. Litmus answers support findings, not a separate numeric score.
+
+FIX TO 10: Rewrite vague UI descriptions with specific alternatives:
 - "Cards with icons" → what differentiates these from every SaaS template?
 - "Hero section" → what makes this hero feel like THIS product?
 - "Clean, modern UI" → meaningless. Replace with actual design decisions.
@@ -204,6 +208,7 @@ Surface ambiguities that will haunt implementation:
 ```
 If visual mockups were generated in Step 0.5, reference them as evidence when surfacing unresolved decisions. A mockup makes decisions concrete — e.g., "Your approved mockup shows a sidebar nav, but the plan doesn't specify mobile behavior. What happens to this sidebar on 375px?"
 Each decision = one AskUserQuestion with recommendation + WHY + alternatives. Edit the plan with each decision as it's made.
+**STOP.** Wait for each answer before editing or advancing. Record unanswered decisions as unresolved.

 ### Post-Pass: Update Mockups (if generated)

@@ -639,4 +644,3 @@ Use AskUserQuestion to present the next step. Include only applicable options:
 * One sentence max per option.
 * After each pass, pause and wait for feedback.
 * Rate before and after each pass for scannability.
-
@@ -6,6 +6,8 @@

 {{LEARNINGS_SEARCH}}

+**Pass protocol (1-6):** Record the initial 0-10 score. Every `FIX TO 10` below is a proposal: ask about each issue, wait for approval, then edit the plan and re-rate that pass with the reason for the score change. A declined fix remains documented and lowers the final score. Never edit first and ask afterward. Pass 7 is the unscored decision register, not a seventh rating.
+
 ### Pass 1: Information Architecture
 Rate 0-10: Does the plan define what the user sees first, second, third?
 FIX TO 10: Add information hierarchy to the plan. Include ASCII diagram of screen/page structure and navigation flow. Apply "constraint worship" — if you can only show 3 things, which 3?
@@ -36,10 +38,12 @@ Apply time-horizon design: 5-sec visceral, 5-min behavioral, 5-year reflective.
 **STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY.

 ### Pass 4: AI Slop Risk
-Rate 0-10: Does the plan describe specific, intentional UI — or generic patterns?
-FIX TO 10: Rewrite vague UI descriptions with specific alternatives.

 {{DESIGN_HARD_RULES}}
+
+**Pass 4 evaluation:** Rate 0-10: Does the plan describe specific, intentional UI, or generic patterns? Record each hard-rejection hit and litmus YES/NO with evidence. An unresolved hard rejection caps this pass below 8 (not design-complete); it does not automatically set the score to 0. Litmus answers support findings, not a separate numeric score.
+
+FIX TO 10: Rewrite vague UI descriptions with specific alternatives:
 - "Cards with icons" → what differentiates these from every SaaS template?
 - "Hero section" → what makes this hero feel like THIS product?
 - "Clean, modern UI" → meaningless. Replace with actual design decisions.
@@ -69,6 +73,7 @@ Surface ambiguities that will haunt implementation:
 ```
 If visual mockups were generated in Step 0.5, reference them as evidence when surfacing unresolved decisions. A mockup makes decisions concrete — e.g., "Your approved mockup shows a sidebar nav, but the plan doesn't specify mobile behavior. What happens to this sidebar on 375px?"
 Each decision = one AskUserQuestion with recommendation + WHY + alternatives. Edit the plan with each decision as it's made.
+**STOP.** Wait for each answer before editing or advancing. Record unanswered decisions as unresolved.

 ### Post-Pass: Update Mockups (if generated)

@@ -220,4 +225,3 @@ Use AskUserQuestion to present the next step. Include only applicable options:
 * One sentence max per option.
 * After each pass, pause and wait for feedback.
 * Rate before and after each pass for scannability.
-