mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-06-04 09:08:09 +02:00
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into garrytan/chrome-extension-ctrl
Resolved conflicts: - VERSION/package.json: keep 0.12.0.0 (our version bump) - CHANGELOG: our v0.12.0 entry on top, main's v0.11.21/v0.11.20 below - gen-skill-docs.ts: use main's clean approach (no local RESOLVERS redeclaration) - SKILL.md files: regenerated from merged templates - Removed stale ship gate test (main removed the "run /review first" gate) - Added review-dashboard-via tier entry (new test from main) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan
+145
-112
@@ -30,9 +30,11 @@ _SESSIONS=$(find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin -120 -type f 2>/dev/null | wc -l | tr
|
||||
find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin +120 -type f -delete 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
_CONTRIB=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get gstack_contributor 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
_PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null || echo "true")
|
||||
_PROACTIVE_PROMPTED=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.proactive-prompted ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
|
||||
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
|
||||
echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
|
||||
echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
|
||||
echo "PROACTIVE_PROMPTED: $_PROACTIVE_PROMPTED"
|
||||
source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
|
||||
REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
|
||||
echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
|
||||
@@ -50,8 +52,11 @@ echo '{"skill":"ship","ts":"'$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)'","repo":"'$(basenam
|
||||
for _PF in $(find ~/.gstack/analytics -maxdepth 1 -name '.pending-*' 2>/dev/null); do [ -f "$_PF" ] && ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-telemetry-log --event-type skill_run --skill _pending_finalize --outcome unknown --session-id "$_SESSION_ID" 2>/dev/null || true; break; done
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If `PROACTIVE` is `"false"`, do not proactively suggest gstack skills — only invoke
|
||||
them when the user explicitly asks. The user opted out of proactive suggestions.
|
||||
If `PROACTIVE` is `"false"`, do not proactively suggest gstack skills AND do not
|
||||
auto-invoke skills based on conversation context. Only run skills the user explicitly
|
||||
types (e.g., /qa, /ship). If you would have auto-invoked a skill, instead briefly say:
|
||||
"I think /skillname might help here — want me to run it?" and wait for confirmation.
|
||||
The user opted out of proactive behavior.
|
||||
|
||||
If output shows `UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>`: read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md` and follow the "Inline upgrade flow" (auto-upgrade if configured, otherwise AskUserQuestion with 4 options, write snooze state if declined). If `JUST_UPGRADED <from> <to>`: tell user "Running gstack v{to} (just updated!)" and continue.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -100,6 +105,27 @@ touch ~/.gstack/.telemetry-prompted
|
||||
|
||||
This only happens once. If `TEL_PROMPTED` is `yes`, skip this entirely.
|
||||
|
||||
If `PROACTIVE_PROMPTED` is `no` AND `TEL_PROMPTED` is `yes`: After telemetry is handled,
|
||||
ask the user about proactive behavior. Use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
|
||||
> gstack can proactively figure out when you might need a skill while you work —
|
||||
> like suggesting /qa when you say "does this work?" or /investigate when you hit
|
||||
> a bug. We recommend keeping this on — it speeds up every part of your workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
Options:
|
||||
- A) Keep it on (recommended)
|
||||
- B) Turn it off — I'll type /commands myself
|
||||
|
||||
If A: run `~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set proactive true`
|
||||
If B: run `~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set proactive false`
|
||||
|
||||
Always run:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
touch ~/.gstack/.proactive-prompted
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
This only happens once. If `PROACTIVE_PROMPTED` is `yes`, skip this entirely.
|
||||
|
||||
## AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
|
||||
**ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:**
|
||||
@@ -107,7 +133,6 @@ This only happens once. If `TEL_PROMPTED` is `yes`, skip this entirely.
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
5. **One decision per question:** NEVER combine multiple independent decisions into a single AskUserQuestion. Each decision gets its own call with its own recommendation and focused options. Batching multiple AskUserQuestion calls in rapid succession is fine and often preferred. Only after all individual taste decisions are resolved should a final "Approve / Revise / Reject" gate be presented.
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -115,97 +140,54 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:
|
||||
- **`solo`** — You own everything. Investigate and offer to fix proactively.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** / **`unknown`** — Flag via AskUserQuestion, don't fix (may be someone else's).
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
Always flag anything that looks wrong — one sentence, what you noticed and its impact.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
Before building anything unfamiliar, **search first.** See `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md`.
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true) — don't reinvent. **Layer 2** (new and popular) — scrutinize. **Layer 3** (first principles) — prize above all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Three layers of knowledge:**
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
|
||||
- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
|
||||
- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
|
||||
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
|
||||
|
||||
Log eureka moments:
|
||||
**Eureka:** When first-principles reasoning contradicts conventional wisdom, name it and log:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My Rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -296,22 +278,42 @@ Then write a `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT` section to the end of the plan file:
|
||||
file you are allowed to edit in plan mode. The plan file review report is part of the
|
||||
plan's living status.
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 0: Detect base branch
|
||||
## Step 0: Detect platform and base branch
|
||||
|
||||
Determine which branch this PR targets. Use the result as "the base branch" in all subsequent steps.
|
||||
First, detect the git hosting platform from the remote URL:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Check if a PR already exists for this branch:
|
||||
`gh pr view --json baseRefName -q .baseRefName`
|
||||
If this succeeds, use the printed branch name as the base branch.
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
2. If no PR exists (command fails), detect the repo's default branch:
|
||||
`gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef -q .defaultBranchRef.name`
|
||||
- If the URL contains "github.com" → platform is **GitHub**
|
||||
- If the URL contains "gitlab" → platform is **GitLab**
|
||||
- Otherwise, check CLI availability:
|
||||
- `gh auth status 2>/dev/null` succeeds → platform is **GitHub** (covers GitHub Enterprise)
|
||||
- `glab auth status 2>/dev/null` succeeds → platform is **GitLab** (covers self-hosted)
|
||||
- Neither → **unknown** (use git-native commands only)
|
||||
|
||||
3. If both commands fail, fall back to `main`.
|
||||
Determine which branch this PR/MR targets, or the repo's default branch if no
|
||||
PR/MR exists. Use the result as "the base branch" in all subsequent steps.
|
||||
|
||||
**If GitHub:**
|
||||
1. `gh pr view --json baseRefName -q .baseRefName` — if succeeds, use it
|
||||
2. `gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef -q .defaultBranchRef.name` — if succeeds, use it
|
||||
|
||||
**If GitLab:**
|
||||
1. `glab mr view -F json 2>/dev/null` and extract the `target_branch` field — if succeeds, use it
|
||||
2. `glab repo view -F json 2>/dev/null` and extract the `default_branch` field — if succeeds, use it
|
||||
|
||||
**Git-native fallback (if unknown platform, or CLI commands fail):**
|
||||
1. `git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's|refs/remotes/origin/||'`
|
||||
2. If that fails: `git rev-parse --verify origin/main 2>/dev/null` → use `main`
|
||||
3. If that fails: `git rev-parse --verify origin/master 2>/dev/null` → use `master`
|
||||
|
||||
If all fail, fall back to `main`.
|
||||
|
||||
Print the detected base branch name. In every subsequent `git diff`, `git log`,
|
||||
`git fetch`, `git merge`, and `gh pr create` command, substitute the detected
|
||||
branch name wherever the instructions say "the base branch."
|
||||
`git fetch`, `git merge`, and PR/MR creation command, substitute the detected
|
||||
branch name wherever the instructions say "the base branch" or `<default>`.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -362,7 +364,13 @@ After completing the review, read the review log and config to display the dashb
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-read
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, plan-eng-review, review, plan-design-review, design-review-lite, adversarial-review, codex-review, codex-plan-review). Ignore entries with timestamps older than 7 days. For the Eng Review row, show whichever is more recent between `review` (diff-scoped pre-landing review) and `plan-eng-review` (plan-stage architecture review). Append "(DIFF)" or "(PLAN)" to the status to distinguish. For the Adversarial row, show whichever is more recent between `adversarial-review` (new auto-scaled) and `codex-review` (legacy). For Design Review, show whichever is more recent between `plan-design-review` (full visual audit) and `design-review-lite` (code-level check). Append "(FULL)" or "(LITE)" to the status to distinguish. Display:
|
||||
Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, plan-eng-review, review, plan-design-review, design-review-lite, adversarial-review, codex-review, codex-plan-review). Ignore entries with timestamps older than 7 days. For the Eng Review row, show whichever is more recent between `review` (diff-scoped pre-landing review) and `plan-eng-review` (plan-stage architecture review). Append "(DIFF)" or "(PLAN)" to the status to distinguish. For the Adversarial row, show whichever is more recent between `adversarial-review` (new auto-scaled) and `codex-review` (legacy). For Design Review, show whichever is more recent between `plan-design-review` (full visual audit) and `design-review-lite` (code-level check). Append "(FULL)" or "(LITE)" to the status to distinguish. For the Outside Voice row, show the most recent `codex-plan-review` entry — this captures outside voices from both /plan-ceo-review and /plan-eng-review.
|
||||
|
||||
**Source attribution:** If the most recent entry for a skill has a \`"via"\` field, append it to the status label in parentheses. Examples: `plan-eng-review` with `via:"autoplan"` shows as "CLEAR (PLAN via /autoplan)". `review` with `via:"ship"` shows as "CLEAR (DIFF via /ship)". Entries without a `via` field show as "CLEAR (PLAN)" or "CLEAR (DIFF)" as before.
|
||||
|
||||
Note: `autoplan-voices` and `design-outside-voices` entries are audit-trail-only (forensic data for cross-model consensus analysis). They do not appear in the dashboard and are not checked by any consumer.
|
||||
|
||||
Display:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
+====================================================================+
|
||||
@@ -401,26 +409,15 @@ Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, pl
|
||||
|
||||
If the Eng Review is NOT "CLEAR":
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Check for a prior override on this branch:**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)"
|
||||
grep '"skill":"ship-review-override"' ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/$BRANCH-reviews.jsonl 2>/dev/null || echo "NO_OVERRIDE"
|
||||
```
|
||||
If an override exists, display the dashboard and note "Review gate previously accepted — continuing." Do NOT ask again.
|
||||
Print: "No prior eng review found — ship will run its own pre-landing review in Step 3.5."
|
||||
|
||||
2. **If no override exists,** use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
- Show that Eng Review is missing or has open issues
|
||||
- RECOMMENDATION: Choose C if the change is obviously trivial (< 20 lines, typo fix, config-only); Choose B for larger changes
|
||||
- Options: A) Ship anyway B) Abort — run /review or /plan-eng-review first C) Change is too small to need eng review
|
||||
- If CEO Review is missing, mention as informational ("CEO Review not run — recommended for product changes") but do NOT block
|
||||
- For Design Review: run `source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-diff-scope <base> 2>/dev/null)`. If `SCOPE_FRONTEND=true` and no design review (plan-design-review or design-review-lite) exists in the dashboard, mention: "Design Review not run — this PR changes frontend code. The lite design check will run automatically in Step 3.5, but consider running /design-review for a full visual audit post-implementation." Still never block.
|
||||
Check diff size: `git diff <base>...HEAD --stat | tail -1`. If the diff is >200 lines, add: "Note: This is a large diff. Consider running `/plan-eng-review` or `/autoplan` for architecture-level review before shipping."
|
||||
|
||||
3. **If the user chooses A or C,** persist the decision so future `/ship` runs on this branch skip the gate:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)"
|
||||
echo '{"skill":"ship-review-override","timestamp":"'"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"'","decision":"USER_CHOICE"}' >> ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/$BRANCH-reviews.jsonl
|
||||
```
|
||||
Substitute USER_CHOICE with "ship_anyway" or "not_relevant".
|
||||
If CEO Review is missing, mention as informational ("CEO Review not run — recommended for product changes") but do NOT block.
|
||||
|
||||
For Design Review: run `source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-diff-scope <base> 2>/dev/null)`. If `SCOPE_FRONTEND=true` and no design review (plan-design-review or design-review-lite) exists in the dashboard, mention: "Design Review not run — this PR changes frontend code. The lite design check will run automatically in Step 3.5, but consider running /design-review for a full visual audit post-implementation." Still never block.
|
||||
|
||||
Continue to Step 1.5 — do NOT block or ask. Ship runs its own review in Step 3.5.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -437,12 +434,13 @@ service with existing deployment — verify that a distribution pipeline exists.
|
||||
2. If new artifact detected, check for a release workflow:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
ls .github/workflows/ 2>/dev/null | grep -iE 'release|publish|dist'
|
||||
grep -qE 'release|publish|deploy' .gitlab-ci.yml 2>/dev/null && echo "GITLAB_CI_RELEASE"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
3. **If no release pipeline exists and a new artifact was added:** Use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
- "This PR adds a new binary/tool but there's no CI/CD pipeline to build and publish it.
|
||||
Users won't be able to download the artifact after merge."
|
||||
- A) Add a release workflow now (GitHub Actions cross-platform build + GitHub Releases)
|
||||
- A) Add a release workflow now (CI/CD release pipeline — GitHub Actions or GitLab CI depending on platform)
|
||||
- B) Defer — add to TODOS.md
|
||||
- C) Not needed — this is internal/web-only, existing deployment covers it
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -722,14 +720,22 @@ Use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
git log --format="%an (%ae)" -1 -- <source-file-under-test>
|
||||
```
|
||||
If these are different people, prefer the production code author — they likely introduced the regression.
|
||||
- Create a GitHub issue assigned to that person:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
gh issue create \
|
||||
--title "Pre-existing test failure: <test-name>" \
|
||||
--body "Found failing on branch <current-branch>. Failure is pre-existing.\n\n**Error:**\n```\n<first 10 lines>\n```\n\n**Last modified by:** <author>\n**Noticed by:** gstack /ship on <date>" \
|
||||
--assignee "<github-username>"
|
||||
```
|
||||
- If `gh` is not available or `--assignee` fails (user not in org, etc.), create the issue without assignee and note who should look at it in the body.
|
||||
- Create an issue assigned to that person (use the platform detected in Step 0):
|
||||
- **If GitHub:**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
gh issue create \
|
||||
--title "Pre-existing test failure: <test-name>" \
|
||||
--body "Found failing on branch <current-branch>. Failure is pre-existing.\n\n**Error:**\n```\n<first 10 lines>\n```\n\n**Last modified by:** <author>\n**Noticed by:** gstack /ship on <date>" \
|
||||
--assignee "<github-username>"
|
||||
```
|
||||
- **If GitLab:**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
glab issue create \
|
||||
-t "Pre-existing test failure: <test-name>" \
|
||||
-d "Found failing on branch <current-branch>. Failure is pre-existing.\n\n**Error:**\n```\n<first 10 lines>\n```\n\n**Last modified by:** <author>\n**Noticed by:** gstack /ship on <date>" \
|
||||
-a "<gitlab-username>"
|
||||
```
|
||||
- If neither CLI is available or `--assignee`/`-a` fails (user not in org, etc.), create the issue without assignee and note who should look at it in the body.
|
||||
- Continue with the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**If "Skip":**
|
||||
@@ -1331,6 +1337,13 @@ Present Codex output under a `CODEX (design):` header, merged with the checklist
|
||||
|
||||
If no issues found: `Pre-Landing Review: No issues found.`
|
||||
|
||||
9. Persist the review result to the review log:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","issues_found":N,"critical":N,"informational":N,"commit":"'"$(git rev-parse --short HEAD)"'","via":"ship"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
Substitute TIMESTAMP (ISO 8601), STATUS ("clean" if no issues, "issues_found" otherwise),
|
||||
and N values from the summary counts above. The `via:"ship"` distinguishes from standalone `/review` runs.
|
||||
|
||||
Save the review output — it goes into the PR body in Step 8.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
@@ -1676,12 +1689,13 @@ git push -u origin <branch-name>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 8: Create PR
|
||||
## Step 8: Create PR/MR
|
||||
|
||||
Create a pull request using `gh`:
|
||||
Create a pull request (GitHub) or merge request (GitLab) using the platform detected in Step 0.
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
gh pr create --base <base> --title "<type>: <summary>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
|
||||
The PR/MR body should contain these sections:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Summary
|
||||
<bullet points from CHANGELOG>
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1725,11 +1739,30 @@ gh pr create --base <base> --title "<type>: <summary>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
|
||||
- [x] All Vitest tests pass (N tests)
|
||||
|
||||
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**If GitHub:**
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
gh pr create --base <base> --title "<type>: <summary>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
|
||||
<PR body from above>
|
||||
EOF
|
||||
)"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Output the PR URL** — then proceed to Step 8.5.
|
||||
**If GitLab:**
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
glab mr create -b <base> -t "<type>: <summary>" -d "$(cat <<'EOF'
|
||||
<MR body from above>
|
||||
EOF
|
||||
)"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**If neither CLI is available:**
|
||||
Print the branch name, remote URL, and instruct the user to create the PR/MR manually via the web UI. Do not stop — the code is pushed and ready.
|
||||
|
||||
**Output the PR/MR URL** — then proceed to Step 8.5.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
+41
-24
@@ -64,26 +64,15 @@ You are running the `/ship` workflow. This is a **non-interactive, fully automat
|
||||
|
||||
If the Eng Review is NOT "CLEAR":
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Check for a prior override on this branch:**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
{{SLUG_EVAL}}
|
||||
grep '"skill":"ship-review-override"' ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/$BRANCH-reviews.jsonl 2>/dev/null || echo "NO_OVERRIDE"
|
||||
```
|
||||
If an override exists, display the dashboard and note "Review gate previously accepted — continuing." Do NOT ask again.
|
||||
Print: "No prior eng review found — ship will run its own pre-landing review in Step 3.5."
|
||||
|
||||
2. **If no override exists,** use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
- Show that Eng Review is missing or has open issues
|
||||
- RECOMMENDATION: Choose C if the change is obviously trivial (< 20 lines, typo fix, config-only); Choose B for larger changes
|
||||
- Options: A) Ship anyway B) Abort — run /review or /plan-eng-review first C) Change is too small to need eng review
|
||||
- If CEO Review is missing, mention as informational ("CEO Review not run — recommended for product changes") but do NOT block
|
||||
- For Design Review: run `source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-diff-scope <base> 2>/dev/null)`. If `SCOPE_FRONTEND=true` and no design review (plan-design-review or design-review-lite) exists in the dashboard, mention: "Design Review not run — this PR changes frontend code. The lite design check will run automatically in Step 3.5, but consider running /design-review for a full visual audit post-implementation." Still never block.
|
||||
Check diff size: `git diff <base>...HEAD --stat | tail -1`. If the diff is >200 lines, add: "Note: This is a large diff. Consider running `/plan-eng-review` or `/autoplan` for architecture-level review before shipping."
|
||||
|
||||
3. **If the user chooses A or C,** persist the decision so future `/ship` runs on this branch skip the gate:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
{{SLUG_EVAL}}
|
||||
echo '{"skill":"ship-review-override","timestamp":"'"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"'","decision":"USER_CHOICE"}' >> ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/$BRANCH-reviews.jsonl
|
||||
```
|
||||
Substitute USER_CHOICE with "ship_anyway" or "not_relevant".
|
||||
If CEO Review is missing, mention as informational ("CEO Review not run — recommended for product changes") but do NOT block.
|
||||
|
||||
For Design Review: run `source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-diff-scope <base> 2>/dev/null)`. If `SCOPE_FRONTEND=true` and no design review (plan-design-review or design-review-lite) exists in the dashboard, mention: "Design Review not run — this PR changes frontend code. The lite design check will run automatically in Step 3.5, but consider running /design-review for a full visual audit post-implementation." Still never block.
|
||||
|
||||
Continue to Step 1.5 — do NOT block or ask. Ship runs its own review in Step 3.5.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -100,12 +89,13 @@ service with existing deployment — verify that a distribution pipeline exists.
|
||||
2. If new artifact detected, check for a release workflow:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
ls .github/workflows/ 2>/dev/null | grep -iE 'release|publish|dist'
|
||||
grep -qE 'release|publish|deploy' .gitlab-ci.yml 2>/dev/null && echo "GITLAB_CI_RELEASE"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
3. **If no release pipeline exists and a new artifact was added:** Use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
- "This PR adds a new binary/tool but there's no CI/CD pipeline to build and publish it.
|
||||
Users won't be able to download the artifact after merge."
|
||||
- A) Add a release workflow now (GitHub Actions cross-platform build + GitHub Releases)
|
||||
- A) Add a release workflow now (CI/CD release pipeline — GitHub Actions or GitLab CI depending on platform)
|
||||
- B) Defer — add to TODOS.md
|
||||
- C) Not needed — this is internal/web-only, existing deployment covers it
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -274,6 +264,13 @@ Review the diff for structural issues that tests don't catch.
|
||||
|
||||
If no issues found: `Pre-Landing Review: No issues found.`
|
||||
|
||||
9. Persist the review result to the review log:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","issues_found":N,"critical":N,"informational":N,"commit":"'"$(git rev-parse --short HEAD)"'","via":"ship"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
Substitute TIMESTAMP (ISO 8601), STATUS ("clean" if no issues, "issues_found" otherwise),
|
||||
and N values from the summary counts above. The `via:"ship"` distinguishes from standalone `/review` runs.
|
||||
|
||||
Save the review output — it goes into the PR body in Step 8.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
@@ -485,12 +482,13 @@ git push -u origin <branch-name>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 8: Create PR
|
||||
## Step 8: Create PR/MR
|
||||
|
||||
Create a pull request using `gh`:
|
||||
Create a pull request (GitHub) or merge request (GitLab) using the platform detected in Step 0.
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
gh pr create --base <base> --title "<type>: <summary>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
|
||||
The PR/MR body should contain these sections:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Summary
|
||||
<bullet points from CHANGELOG>
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -534,11 +532,30 @@ gh pr create --base <base> --title "<type>: <summary>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
|
||||
- [x] All Vitest tests pass (N tests)
|
||||
|
||||
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**If GitHub:**
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
gh pr create --base <base> --title "<type>: <summary>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
|
||||
<PR body from above>
|
||||
EOF
|
||||
)"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Output the PR URL** — then proceed to Step 8.5.
|
||||
**If GitLab:**
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
glab mr create -b <base> -t "<type>: <summary>" -d "$(cat <<'EOF'
|
||||
<MR body from above>
|
||||
EOF
|
||||
)"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**If neither CLI is available:**
|
||||
Print the branch name, remote URL, and instruct the user to create the PR/MR manually via the web UI. Do not stop — the code is pushed and ready.
|
||||
|
||||
**Output the PR/MR URL** — then proceed to Step 8.5.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user