mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-05-05 13:15:24 +02:00
Merge origin/main into garrytan/pr-wave-1
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan
@@ -334,6 +334,34 @@ Examples: run codex (always yes), run evals (always yes), reduce scope on a comp
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## What "Auto-Decide" Means
|
||||
|
||||
Auto-decide replaces the USER'S judgment with the 6 principles. It does NOT replace
|
||||
the ANALYSIS. Every section in the loaded skill files must still be executed at the
|
||||
same depth as the interactive version. The only thing that changes is who answers the
|
||||
AskUserQuestion: you do, using the 6 principles, instead of the user.
|
||||
|
||||
**You MUST still:**
|
||||
- READ the actual code, diffs, and files each section references
|
||||
- PRODUCE every output the section requires (diagrams, tables, registries, artifacts)
|
||||
- IDENTIFY every issue the section is designed to catch
|
||||
- DECIDE each issue using the 6 principles (instead of asking the user)
|
||||
- LOG each decision in the audit trail
|
||||
- WRITE all required artifacts to disk
|
||||
|
||||
**You MUST NOT:**
|
||||
- Compress a review section into a one-liner table row
|
||||
- Write "no issues found" without showing what you examined
|
||||
- Skip a section because "it doesn't apply" without stating what you checked and why
|
||||
- Produce a summary instead of the required output (e.g., "architecture looks good"
|
||||
instead of the ASCII dependency graph the section requires)
|
||||
|
||||
"No issues found" is a valid output for a section — but only after doing the analysis.
|
||||
State what you examined and why nothing was flagged (1-2 sentences minimum).
|
||||
"Skipped" is never valid for a non-skip-listed section.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 0: Intake + Restore Point
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 1: Capture restore point
|
||||
@@ -415,6 +443,31 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
Duplicates → reject (P4). Borderline (3-5 files) → mark TASTE DECISION.
|
||||
- All 10 review sections: run fully, auto-decide each issue, log every decision.
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (CEO):**
|
||||
|
||||
Step 0 (0A-0F) — run each sub-step and produce:
|
||||
- 0A: Premise challenge with specific premises named and evaluated
|
||||
- 0B: Existing code leverage map (sub-problems → existing code)
|
||||
- 0C: Dream state diagram (CURRENT → THIS PLAN → 12-MONTH IDEAL)
|
||||
- 0C-bis: Implementation alternatives table (2-3 approaches with effort/risk/pros/cons)
|
||||
- 0D: Mode-specific analysis with scope decisions logged
|
||||
- 0E: Temporal interrogation (HOUR 1 → HOUR 6+)
|
||||
- 0F: Mode selection confirmation
|
||||
|
||||
Sections 1-10 — for EACH section, run the evaluation criteria from the loaded skill file:
|
||||
- Sections WITH findings: full analysis, auto-decide each issue, log to audit trail
|
||||
- Sections with NO findings: 1-2 sentences stating what was examined and why nothing
|
||||
was flagged. NEVER compress a section to just its name in a table row.
|
||||
- Section 11 (Design): run only if UI scope was detected in Phase 0
|
||||
|
||||
**Mandatory outputs from Phase 1:**
|
||||
- "NOT in scope" section with deferred items and rationale
|
||||
- "What already exists" section mapping sub-problems to existing code
|
||||
- Error & Rescue Registry table (from Section 2)
|
||||
- Failure Modes Registry table (from review sections)
|
||||
- Dream state delta (where this plan leaves us vs 12-month ideal)
|
||||
- Completion Summary (the full summary table from the CEO skill)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 2: Design Review (conditional — skip if no UI scope)
|
||||
@@ -445,6 +498,42 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
- Test plan: generate artifact at `~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/{user}-{branch}-test-plan-{datetime}.md`
|
||||
- TODOS.md: collect all deferred scope expansions from Phase 1, auto-write
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (Eng):**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Step 0 (Scope Challenge): Read actual code referenced by the plan. Map each
|
||||
sub-problem to existing code. Run the complexity check. Produce concrete findings.
|
||||
|
||||
2. Step 0.5 (Codex): Run if available. Present full output under CODEX SAYS header.
|
||||
|
||||
3. Section 1 (Architecture): Produce ASCII dependency graph showing new components
|
||||
and their relationships to existing ones. Evaluate coupling, scaling, security.
|
||||
|
||||
4. Section 2 (Code Quality): Identify DRY violations, naming issues, complexity.
|
||||
Reference specific files and patterns. Auto-decide each finding.
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Section 3 (Test Review) — NEVER SKIP OR COMPRESS.**
|
||||
This section requires reading actual code, not summarizing from memory.
|
||||
- Read the diff or the plan's affected files
|
||||
- Build the test diagram: list every NEW UX flow, data flow, codepath, and branch
|
||||
- For EACH item in the diagram: what type of test covers it? Does one exist? Gaps?
|
||||
- For LLM/prompt changes: which eval suites must run?
|
||||
- Auto-deciding test gaps means: identify the gap → decide whether to add a test
|
||||
or defer (with rationale and principle) → log the decision. It does NOT mean
|
||||
skipping the analysis.
|
||||
- Write the test plan artifact to disk
|
||||
|
||||
6. Section 4 (Performance): Evaluate N+1 queries, memory, caching, slow paths.
|
||||
|
||||
**Mandatory outputs from Phase 3:**
|
||||
- "NOT in scope" section
|
||||
- "What already exists" section
|
||||
- Architecture ASCII diagram (Section 1)
|
||||
- Test diagram mapping codepaths to coverage (Section 3)
|
||||
- Test plan artifact written to disk (Section 3)
|
||||
- Failure modes registry with critical gap flags
|
||||
- Completion Summary (the full summary from the Eng skill)
|
||||
- TODOS.md updates (collected from all phases)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Decision Audit Trail
|
||||
@@ -464,6 +553,44 @@ not accumulated in conversation context.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Pre-Gate Verification
|
||||
|
||||
Before presenting the Final Approval Gate, verify that required outputs were actually
|
||||
produced. Check the plan file and conversation for each item.
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 1 (CEO) outputs:**
|
||||
- [ ] Premise challenge with specific premises named (not just "premises accepted")
|
||||
- [ ] All applicable review sections have findings OR explicit "examined X, nothing flagged"
|
||||
- [ ] Error & Rescue Registry table produced (or noted N/A with reason)
|
||||
- [ ] Failure Modes Registry table produced (or noted N/A with reason)
|
||||
- [ ] "NOT in scope" section written
|
||||
- [ ] "What already exists" section written
|
||||
- [ ] Dream state delta written
|
||||
- [ ] Completion Summary produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 2 (Design) outputs — only if UI scope detected:**
|
||||
- [ ] All 7 dimensions evaluated with scores
|
||||
- [ ] Issues identified and auto-decided
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 3 (Eng) outputs:**
|
||||
- [ ] Scope challenge with actual code analysis (not just "scope is fine")
|
||||
- [ ] Architecture ASCII diagram produced
|
||||
- [ ] Test diagram mapping codepaths to test coverage
|
||||
- [ ] Test plan artifact written to disk at ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/
|
||||
- [ ] "NOT in scope" section written
|
||||
- [ ] "What already exists" section written
|
||||
- [ ] Failure modes registry with critical gap assessment
|
||||
- [ ] Completion Summary produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Audit trail:**
|
||||
- [ ] Decision Audit Trail has at least one row per auto-decision (not empty)
|
||||
|
||||
If ANY checkbox above is missing, go back and produce the missing output. Max 2
|
||||
attempts — if still missing after retrying twice, proceed to the gate with a warning
|
||||
noting which items are incomplete. Do not loop indefinitely.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 4: Final Approval Gate
|
||||
|
||||
**STOP here and present the final state to the user.**
|
||||
@@ -546,5 +673,6 @@ Suggest next step: `/ship` when ready to create the PR.
|
||||
- **Never abort.** The user chose /autoplan. Respect that choice. Surface all taste decisions, never redirect to interactive review.
|
||||
- **Premises are the one gate.** The only non-auto-decided AskUserQuestion is the premise confirmation in Phase 1.
|
||||
- **Log every decision.** No silent auto-decisions. Every choice gets a row in the audit trail.
|
||||
- **Full depth.** Do not compress or skip sections from the loaded skill files (except the skip list in Phase 0).
|
||||
- **Full depth means full depth.** Do not compress or skip sections from the loaded skill files (except the skip list in Phase 0). "Full depth" means: read the code the section asks you to read, produce the outputs the section requires, identify every issue, and decide each one. A one-sentence summary of a section is not "full depth" — it is a skip. If you catch yourself writing fewer than 3 sentences for any review section, you are likely compressing.
|
||||
- **Artifacts are deliverables.** Test plan artifact, failure modes registry, error/rescue table, ASCII diagrams — these must exist on disk or in the plan file when the review completes. If they don't exist, the review is incomplete.
|
||||
- **Sequential order.** CEO → Design → Eng. Each phase builds on the last.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -21,6 +21,15 @@
|
||||
- **Community PR triage process documented** in CONTRIBUTING.md.
|
||||
- **Storage redaction test coverage.** Four new tests for key-based and value-based detection.
|
||||
|
||||
## [0.10.2.0] - 2026-03-22 — Autoplan Depth Fix
|
||||
|
||||
### Fixed
|
||||
|
||||
- **`/autoplan` now produces full-depth reviews instead of compressing everything to one-liners.** When autoplan said "auto-decide," it meant "decide FOR the user using principles" — but the agent interpreted it as "skip the analysis entirely." Now autoplan explicitly defines the contract: auto-decide replaces your judgment, not the analysis. Every review section still gets read, diagrammed, and evaluated. You get the same depth as running each review manually.
|
||||
- **Execution checklists for CEO and Eng phases.** Each phase now enumerates exactly what must be produced — premise challenges, architecture diagrams, test coverage maps, failure registries, artifacts on disk. No more "follow that file at full depth" without saying what "full depth" means.
|
||||
- **Pre-gate verification catches skipped outputs.** Before presenting the final approval gate, autoplan now checks a concrete checklist of required outputs. Missing items get produced before the gate opens (max 2 retries, then warns).
|
||||
- **Test review can never be skipped.** The Eng review's test diagram section — the highest-value output — is explicitly marked NEVER SKIP OR COMPRESS with instructions to read actual diffs, map every codepath to coverage, and write the test plan artifact.
|
||||
|
||||
## [0.10.1.0] - 2026-03-22 — Test Coverage Catalog
|
||||
|
||||
### Added
|
||||
|
||||
+129
-1
@@ -345,6 +345,34 @@ Examples: run codex (always yes), run evals (always yes), reduce scope on a comp
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## What "Auto-Decide" Means
|
||||
|
||||
Auto-decide replaces the USER'S judgment with the 6 principles. It does NOT replace
|
||||
the ANALYSIS. Every section in the loaded skill files must still be executed at the
|
||||
same depth as the interactive version. The only thing that changes is who answers the
|
||||
AskUserQuestion: you do, using the 6 principles, instead of the user.
|
||||
|
||||
**You MUST still:**
|
||||
- READ the actual code, diffs, and files each section references
|
||||
- PRODUCE every output the section requires (diagrams, tables, registries, artifacts)
|
||||
- IDENTIFY every issue the section is designed to catch
|
||||
- DECIDE each issue using the 6 principles (instead of asking the user)
|
||||
- LOG each decision in the audit trail
|
||||
- WRITE all required artifacts to disk
|
||||
|
||||
**You MUST NOT:**
|
||||
- Compress a review section into a one-liner table row
|
||||
- Write "no issues found" without showing what you examined
|
||||
- Skip a section because "it doesn't apply" without stating what you checked and why
|
||||
- Produce a summary instead of the required output (e.g., "architecture looks good"
|
||||
instead of the ASCII dependency graph the section requires)
|
||||
|
||||
"No issues found" is a valid output for a section — but only after doing the analysis.
|
||||
State what you examined and why nothing was flagged (1-2 sentences minimum).
|
||||
"Skipped" is never valid for a non-skip-listed section.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 0: Intake + Restore Point
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 1: Capture restore point
|
||||
@@ -426,6 +454,31 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
Duplicates → reject (P4). Borderline (3-5 files) → mark TASTE DECISION.
|
||||
- All 10 review sections: run fully, auto-decide each issue, log every decision.
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (CEO):**
|
||||
|
||||
Step 0 (0A-0F) — run each sub-step and produce:
|
||||
- 0A: Premise challenge with specific premises named and evaluated
|
||||
- 0B: Existing code leverage map (sub-problems → existing code)
|
||||
- 0C: Dream state diagram (CURRENT → THIS PLAN → 12-MONTH IDEAL)
|
||||
- 0C-bis: Implementation alternatives table (2-3 approaches with effort/risk/pros/cons)
|
||||
- 0D: Mode-specific analysis with scope decisions logged
|
||||
- 0E: Temporal interrogation (HOUR 1 → HOUR 6+)
|
||||
- 0F: Mode selection confirmation
|
||||
|
||||
Sections 1-10 — for EACH section, run the evaluation criteria from the loaded skill file:
|
||||
- Sections WITH findings: full analysis, auto-decide each issue, log to audit trail
|
||||
- Sections with NO findings: 1-2 sentences stating what was examined and why nothing
|
||||
was flagged. NEVER compress a section to just its name in a table row.
|
||||
- Section 11 (Design): run only if UI scope was detected in Phase 0
|
||||
|
||||
**Mandatory outputs from Phase 1:**
|
||||
- "NOT in scope" section with deferred items and rationale
|
||||
- "What already exists" section mapping sub-problems to existing code
|
||||
- Error & Rescue Registry table (from Section 2)
|
||||
- Failure Modes Registry table (from review sections)
|
||||
- Dream state delta (where this plan leaves us vs 12-month ideal)
|
||||
- Completion Summary (the full summary table from the CEO skill)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 2: Design Review (conditional — skip if no UI scope)
|
||||
@@ -456,6 +509,42 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
- Test plan: generate artifact at `~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/{user}-{branch}-test-plan-{datetime}.md`
|
||||
- TODOS.md: collect all deferred scope expansions from Phase 1, auto-write
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (Eng):**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Step 0 (Scope Challenge): Read actual code referenced by the plan. Map each
|
||||
sub-problem to existing code. Run the complexity check. Produce concrete findings.
|
||||
|
||||
2. Step 0.5 (Codex): Run if available. Present full output under CODEX SAYS header.
|
||||
|
||||
3. Section 1 (Architecture): Produce ASCII dependency graph showing new components
|
||||
and their relationships to existing ones. Evaluate coupling, scaling, security.
|
||||
|
||||
4. Section 2 (Code Quality): Identify DRY violations, naming issues, complexity.
|
||||
Reference specific files and patterns. Auto-decide each finding.
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Section 3 (Test Review) — NEVER SKIP OR COMPRESS.**
|
||||
This section requires reading actual code, not summarizing from memory.
|
||||
- Read the diff or the plan's affected files
|
||||
- Build the test diagram: list every NEW UX flow, data flow, codepath, and branch
|
||||
- For EACH item in the diagram: what type of test covers it? Does one exist? Gaps?
|
||||
- For LLM/prompt changes: which eval suites must run?
|
||||
- Auto-deciding test gaps means: identify the gap → decide whether to add a test
|
||||
or defer (with rationale and principle) → log the decision. It does NOT mean
|
||||
skipping the analysis.
|
||||
- Write the test plan artifact to disk
|
||||
|
||||
6. Section 4 (Performance): Evaluate N+1 queries, memory, caching, slow paths.
|
||||
|
||||
**Mandatory outputs from Phase 3:**
|
||||
- "NOT in scope" section
|
||||
- "What already exists" section
|
||||
- Architecture ASCII diagram (Section 1)
|
||||
- Test diagram mapping codepaths to coverage (Section 3)
|
||||
- Test plan artifact written to disk (Section 3)
|
||||
- Failure modes registry with critical gap flags
|
||||
- Completion Summary (the full summary from the Eng skill)
|
||||
- TODOS.md updates (collected from all phases)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Decision Audit Trail
|
||||
@@ -475,6 +564,44 @@ not accumulated in conversation context.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Pre-Gate Verification
|
||||
|
||||
Before presenting the Final Approval Gate, verify that required outputs were actually
|
||||
produced. Check the plan file and conversation for each item.
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 1 (CEO) outputs:**
|
||||
- [ ] Premise challenge with specific premises named (not just "premises accepted")
|
||||
- [ ] All applicable review sections have findings OR explicit "examined X, nothing flagged"
|
||||
- [ ] Error & Rescue Registry table produced (or noted N/A with reason)
|
||||
- [ ] Failure Modes Registry table produced (or noted N/A with reason)
|
||||
- [ ] "NOT in scope" section written
|
||||
- [ ] "What already exists" section written
|
||||
- [ ] Dream state delta written
|
||||
- [ ] Completion Summary produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 2 (Design) outputs — only if UI scope detected:**
|
||||
- [ ] All 7 dimensions evaluated with scores
|
||||
- [ ] Issues identified and auto-decided
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 3 (Eng) outputs:**
|
||||
- [ ] Scope challenge with actual code analysis (not just "scope is fine")
|
||||
- [ ] Architecture ASCII diagram produced
|
||||
- [ ] Test diagram mapping codepaths to test coverage
|
||||
- [ ] Test plan artifact written to disk at ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/
|
||||
- [ ] "NOT in scope" section written
|
||||
- [ ] "What already exists" section written
|
||||
- [ ] Failure modes registry with critical gap assessment
|
||||
- [ ] Completion Summary produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Audit trail:**
|
||||
- [ ] Decision Audit Trail has at least one row per auto-decision (not empty)
|
||||
|
||||
If ANY checkbox above is missing, go back and produce the missing output. Max 2
|
||||
attempts — if still missing after retrying twice, proceed to the gate with a warning
|
||||
noting which items are incomplete. Do not loop indefinitely.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 4: Final Approval Gate
|
||||
|
||||
**STOP here and present the final state to the user.**
|
||||
@@ -557,5 +684,6 @@ Suggest next step: `/ship` when ready to create the PR.
|
||||
- **Never abort.** The user chose /autoplan. Respect that choice. Surface all taste decisions, never redirect to interactive review.
|
||||
- **Premises are the one gate.** The only non-auto-decided AskUserQuestion is the premise confirmation in Phase 1.
|
||||
- **Log every decision.** No silent auto-decisions. Every choice gets a row in the audit trail.
|
||||
- **Full depth.** Do not compress or skip sections from the loaded skill files (except the skip list in Phase 0).
|
||||
- **Full depth means full depth.** Do not compress or skip sections from the loaded skill files (except the skip list in Phase 0). "Full depth" means: read the code the section asks you to read, produce the outputs the section requires, identify every issue, and decide each one. A one-sentence summary of a section is not "full depth" — it is a skip. If you catch yourself writing fewer than 3 sentences for any review section, you are likely compressing.
|
||||
- **Artifacts are deliverables.** Test plan artifact, failure modes registry, error/rescue table, ASCII diagrams — these must exist on disk or in the plan file when the review completes. If they don't exist, the review is incomplete.
|
||||
- **Sequential order.** CEO → Design → Eng. Each phase builds on the last.
|
||||
|
||||
+129
-1
@@ -72,6 +72,34 @@ Examples: run codex (always yes), run evals (always yes), reduce scope on a comp
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## What "Auto-Decide" Means
|
||||
|
||||
Auto-decide replaces the USER'S judgment with the 6 principles. It does NOT replace
|
||||
the ANALYSIS. Every section in the loaded skill files must still be executed at the
|
||||
same depth as the interactive version. The only thing that changes is who answers the
|
||||
AskUserQuestion: you do, using the 6 principles, instead of the user.
|
||||
|
||||
**You MUST still:**
|
||||
- READ the actual code, diffs, and files each section references
|
||||
- PRODUCE every output the section requires (diagrams, tables, registries, artifacts)
|
||||
- IDENTIFY every issue the section is designed to catch
|
||||
- DECIDE each issue using the 6 principles (instead of asking the user)
|
||||
- LOG each decision in the audit trail
|
||||
- WRITE all required artifacts to disk
|
||||
|
||||
**You MUST NOT:**
|
||||
- Compress a review section into a one-liner table row
|
||||
- Write "no issues found" without showing what you examined
|
||||
- Skip a section because "it doesn't apply" without stating what you checked and why
|
||||
- Produce a summary instead of the required output (e.g., "architecture looks good"
|
||||
instead of the ASCII dependency graph the section requires)
|
||||
|
||||
"No issues found" is a valid output for a section — but only after doing the analysis.
|
||||
State what you examined and why nothing was flagged (1-2 sentences minimum).
|
||||
"Skipped" is never valid for a non-skip-listed section.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 0: Intake + Restore Point
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 1: Capture restore point
|
||||
@@ -153,6 +181,31 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
Duplicates → reject (P4). Borderline (3-5 files) → mark TASTE DECISION.
|
||||
- All 10 review sections: run fully, auto-decide each issue, log every decision.
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (CEO):**
|
||||
|
||||
Step 0 (0A-0F) — run each sub-step and produce:
|
||||
- 0A: Premise challenge with specific premises named and evaluated
|
||||
- 0B: Existing code leverage map (sub-problems → existing code)
|
||||
- 0C: Dream state diagram (CURRENT → THIS PLAN → 12-MONTH IDEAL)
|
||||
- 0C-bis: Implementation alternatives table (2-3 approaches with effort/risk/pros/cons)
|
||||
- 0D: Mode-specific analysis with scope decisions logged
|
||||
- 0E: Temporal interrogation (HOUR 1 → HOUR 6+)
|
||||
- 0F: Mode selection confirmation
|
||||
|
||||
Sections 1-10 — for EACH section, run the evaluation criteria from the loaded skill file:
|
||||
- Sections WITH findings: full analysis, auto-decide each issue, log to audit trail
|
||||
- Sections with NO findings: 1-2 sentences stating what was examined and why nothing
|
||||
was flagged. NEVER compress a section to just its name in a table row.
|
||||
- Section 11 (Design): run only if UI scope was detected in Phase 0
|
||||
|
||||
**Mandatory outputs from Phase 1:**
|
||||
- "NOT in scope" section with deferred items and rationale
|
||||
- "What already exists" section mapping sub-problems to existing code
|
||||
- Error & Rescue Registry table (from Section 2)
|
||||
- Failure Modes Registry table (from review sections)
|
||||
- Dream state delta (where this plan leaves us vs 12-month ideal)
|
||||
- Completion Summary (the full summary table from the CEO skill)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 2: Design Review (conditional — skip if no UI scope)
|
||||
@@ -183,6 +236,42 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
- Test plan: generate artifact at `~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/{user}-{branch}-test-plan-{datetime}.md`
|
||||
- TODOS.md: collect all deferred scope expansions from Phase 1, auto-write
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (Eng):**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Step 0 (Scope Challenge): Read actual code referenced by the plan. Map each
|
||||
sub-problem to existing code. Run the complexity check. Produce concrete findings.
|
||||
|
||||
2. Step 0.5 (Codex): Run if available. Present full output under CODEX SAYS header.
|
||||
|
||||
3. Section 1 (Architecture): Produce ASCII dependency graph showing new components
|
||||
and their relationships to existing ones. Evaluate coupling, scaling, security.
|
||||
|
||||
4. Section 2 (Code Quality): Identify DRY violations, naming issues, complexity.
|
||||
Reference specific files and patterns. Auto-decide each finding.
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Section 3 (Test Review) — NEVER SKIP OR COMPRESS.**
|
||||
This section requires reading actual code, not summarizing from memory.
|
||||
- Read the diff or the plan's affected files
|
||||
- Build the test diagram: list every NEW UX flow, data flow, codepath, and branch
|
||||
- For EACH item in the diagram: what type of test covers it? Does one exist? Gaps?
|
||||
- For LLM/prompt changes: which eval suites must run?
|
||||
- Auto-deciding test gaps means: identify the gap → decide whether to add a test
|
||||
or defer (with rationale and principle) → log the decision. It does NOT mean
|
||||
skipping the analysis.
|
||||
- Write the test plan artifact to disk
|
||||
|
||||
6. Section 4 (Performance): Evaluate N+1 queries, memory, caching, slow paths.
|
||||
|
||||
**Mandatory outputs from Phase 3:**
|
||||
- "NOT in scope" section
|
||||
- "What already exists" section
|
||||
- Architecture ASCII diagram (Section 1)
|
||||
- Test diagram mapping codepaths to coverage (Section 3)
|
||||
- Test plan artifact written to disk (Section 3)
|
||||
- Failure modes registry with critical gap flags
|
||||
- Completion Summary (the full summary from the Eng skill)
|
||||
- TODOS.md updates (collected from all phases)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Decision Audit Trail
|
||||
@@ -202,6 +291,44 @@ not accumulated in conversation context.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Pre-Gate Verification
|
||||
|
||||
Before presenting the Final Approval Gate, verify that required outputs were actually
|
||||
produced. Check the plan file and conversation for each item.
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 1 (CEO) outputs:**
|
||||
- [ ] Premise challenge with specific premises named (not just "premises accepted")
|
||||
- [ ] All applicable review sections have findings OR explicit "examined X, nothing flagged"
|
||||
- [ ] Error & Rescue Registry table produced (or noted N/A with reason)
|
||||
- [ ] Failure Modes Registry table produced (or noted N/A with reason)
|
||||
- [ ] "NOT in scope" section written
|
||||
- [ ] "What already exists" section written
|
||||
- [ ] Dream state delta written
|
||||
- [ ] Completion Summary produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 2 (Design) outputs — only if UI scope detected:**
|
||||
- [ ] All 7 dimensions evaluated with scores
|
||||
- [ ] Issues identified and auto-decided
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 3 (Eng) outputs:**
|
||||
- [ ] Scope challenge with actual code analysis (not just "scope is fine")
|
||||
- [ ] Architecture ASCII diagram produced
|
||||
- [ ] Test diagram mapping codepaths to test coverage
|
||||
- [ ] Test plan artifact written to disk at ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/
|
||||
- [ ] "NOT in scope" section written
|
||||
- [ ] "What already exists" section written
|
||||
- [ ] Failure modes registry with critical gap assessment
|
||||
- [ ] Completion Summary produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Audit trail:**
|
||||
- [ ] Decision Audit Trail has at least one row per auto-decision (not empty)
|
||||
|
||||
If ANY checkbox above is missing, go back and produce the missing output. Max 2
|
||||
attempts — if still missing after retrying twice, proceed to the gate with a warning
|
||||
noting which items are incomplete. Do not loop indefinitely.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 4: Final Approval Gate
|
||||
|
||||
**STOP here and present the final state to the user.**
|
||||
@@ -284,5 +411,6 @@ Suggest next step: `/ship` when ready to create the PR.
|
||||
- **Never abort.** The user chose /autoplan. Respect that choice. Surface all taste decisions, never redirect to interactive review.
|
||||
- **Premises are the one gate.** The only non-auto-decided AskUserQuestion is the premise confirmation in Phase 1.
|
||||
- **Log every decision.** No silent auto-decisions. Every choice gets a row in the audit trail.
|
||||
- **Full depth.** Do not compress or skip sections from the loaded skill files (except the skip list in Phase 0).
|
||||
- **Full depth means full depth.** Do not compress or skip sections from the loaded skill files (except the skip list in Phase 0). "Full depth" means: read the code the section asks you to read, produce the outputs the section requires, identify every issue, and decide each one. A one-sentence summary of a section is not "full depth" — it is a skip. If you catch yourself writing fewer than 3 sentences for any review section, you are likely compressing.
|
||||
- **Artifacts are deliverables.** Test plan artifact, failure modes registry, error/rescue table, ASCII diagrams — these must exist on disk or in the plan file when the review completes. If they don't exist, the review is incomplete.
|
||||
- **Sequential order.** CEO → Design → Eng. Each phase builds on the last.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user