mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-07-06 16:17:56 +02:00
feat: cross-model outside voice in plan reviews (v0.9.9.1) (#326)
* feat: add generateCodexPlanReview() resolver for cross-model plan review New resolver offers an optional Codex (or Claude subagent fallback) "outside voice" after plan review sections complete. Includes cross-model tension detection with auto-TODO proposals, review log persistence, and an Outside Voice row in the Review Readiness Dashboard. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * feat: integrate {{CODEX_PLAN_REVIEW}} into CEO and eng review templates CEO review: insert after Section 11 + add Outside Voice summary row. Eng review: replace hardcoded Step 0.5 with resolver (adds fallback, logging, dashboard, xhigh reasoning, cross-model tension tracking). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * chore: regenerate SKILL.md files from updated templates Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * docs: update project documentation for v0.9.9.1 ARCHITECTURE.md: added {{CODEX_PLAN_REVIEW}} to placeholder table. CHANGELOG.md: added v0.9.9.1 entry for outside voice feature. VERSION: bumped to 0.9.9.1. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * fix: move {{CODEX_PLAN_REVIEW}} after review sections in eng review Codex adversarial review caught that the placeholder was positioned before the 4 review sections, so the "After all review sections are complete" instruction could confuse the model. Moved it after Section 4's STOP directive where it belongs. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * chore: regenerate eng review SKILL.md files Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan
+123
-24
@@ -420,29 +420,6 @@ Before reviewing anything, answer these questions:
|
||||
|
||||
If the complexity check triggers (8+ files or 2+ new classes/services), proactively recommend scope reduction via AskUserQuestion — explain what's overbuilt, propose a minimal version that achieves the core goal, and ask whether to reduce or proceed as-is. If the complexity check does not trigger, present your Step 0 findings and proceed directly to Section 1.
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 0.5: Codex plan review (optional)
|
||||
|
||||
Check if the Codex CLI is available: `which codex 2>/dev/null`
|
||||
|
||||
If available, after presenting Step 0 findings, use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
```
|
||||
Want an independent Codex (OpenAI) review of this plan before the detailed review?
|
||||
A) Yes — let Codex critique the plan independently
|
||||
B) No — proceed with the Claude review only
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If the user chooses A: tell Codex to read the plan file itself (avoids ARG_MAX limits for large plans):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
codex exec "You are a brutally honest technical reviewer. Read the plan file at <plan-file-path> and review it for: logical gaps and unstated assumptions, missing error handling or edge cases, overcomplexity (is there a simpler approach?), feasibility risks (what could go wrong?), and missing dependencies or sequencing issues. Be direct. Be terse. No compliments. Just the problems." -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' --enable web_search_cached
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Replace `<plan-file-path>` with the actual path to the plan file detected earlier. Codex has filesystem access in read-only mode and will read the file itself.
|
||||
|
||||
Present the full output under a `CODEX SAYS (plan review):` header. Note any concerns
|
||||
that should inform the subsequent engineering review sections.
|
||||
|
||||
If Codex is not available, skip silently.
|
||||
|
||||
Always work through the full interactive review: one section at a time (Architecture → Code Quality → Tests → Performance) with at most 8 top issues per section.
|
||||
|
||||
**Critical: Once the user accepts or rejects a scope reduction recommendation, commit fully.** Do not re-argue for smaller scope during later review sections. Do not silently reduce scope or skip planned components.
|
||||
@@ -684,6 +661,125 @@ Evaluate:
|
||||
|
||||
**STOP.** For each issue found in this section, call AskUserQuestion individually. One issue per call. Present options, state your recommendation, explain WHY. Do NOT batch multiple issues into one AskUserQuestion. Only proceed to the next section after ALL issues in this section are resolved.
|
||||
|
||||
## Outside Voice — Independent Plan Challenge (optional, recommended)
|
||||
|
||||
After all review sections are complete, offer an independent second opinion from a
|
||||
different AI system. Two models agreeing on a plan is stronger signal than one model's
|
||||
thorough review.
|
||||
|
||||
**Check tool availability:**
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
which codex 2>/dev/null && echo "CODEX_AVAILABLE" || echo "CODEX_NOT_AVAILABLE"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
|
||||
> "All review sections are complete. Want an outside voice? A different AI system can
|
||||
> give a brutally honest, independent challenge of this plan — logical gaps, feasibility
|
||||
> risks, and blind spots that are hard to catch from inside the review. Takes about 2
|
||||
> minutes."
|
||||
>
|
||||
> RECOMMENDATION: Choose A — an independent second opinion catches structural blind
|
||||
> spots. Two different AI models agreeing on a plan is stronger signal than one model's
|
||||
> thorough review. Completeness: A=9/10, B=7/10.
|
||||
|
||||
Options:
|
||||
- A) Get the outside voice (recommended)
|
||||
- B) Skip — proceed to outputs
|
||||
|
||||
**If B:** Print "Skipping outside voice." and continue to the next section.
|
||||
|
||||
**If A:** Construct the plan review prompt. Read the plan file being reviewed (the file
|
||||
the user pointed this review at, or the branch diff scope). If a CEO plan document
|
||||
was written in Step 0D-POST, read that too — it contains the scope decisions and vision.
|
||||
|
||||
Construct this prompt (substitute the actual plan content — if plan content exceeds 30KB,
|
||||
truncate to the first 30KB and note "Plan truncated for size"):
|
||||
|
||||
"You are a brutally honest technical reviewer examining a development plan that has
|
||||
already been through a multi-section review. Your job is NOT to repeat that review.
|
||||
Instead, find what it missed. Look for: logical gaps and unstated assumptions that
|
||||
survived the review scrutiny, overcomplexity (is there a fundamentally simpler
|
||||
approach the review was too deep in the weeds to see?), feasibility risks the review
|
||||
took for granted, missing dependencies or sequencing issues, and strategic
|
||||
miscalibration (is this the right thing to build at all?). Be direct. Be terse. No
|
||||
compliments. Just the problems.
|
||||
|
||||
THE PLAN:
|
||||
<plan content>"
|
||||
|
||||
**If CODEX_AVAILABLE:**
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
TMPERR_PV=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-planreview-XXXXXXXX)
|
||||
codex exec "<prompt>" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="xhigh"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_PV"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Use a 5-minute timeout (`timeout: 300000`). After the command completes, read stderr:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
cat "$TMPERR_PV"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Present the full output verbatim:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
CODEX SAYS (plan review — outside voice):
|
||||
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
<full codex output, verbatim — do not truncate or summarize>
|
||||
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Error handling:** All errors are non-blocking — the outside voice is informational.
|
||||
- Auth failure (stderr contains "auth", "login", "unauthorized"): "Codex auth failed. Run \`codex login\` to authenticate."
|
||||
- Timeout: "Codex timed out after 5 minutes."
|
||||
- Empty response: "Codex returned no response."
|
||||
|
||||
On any Codex error, fall back to the Claude adversarial subagent.
|
||||
|
||||
**If CODEX_NOT_AVAILABLE (or Codex errored):**
|
||||
|
||||
Dispatch via the Agent tool. The subagent has fresh context — genuine independence.
|
||||
|
||||
Subagent prompt: same plan review prompt as above.
|
||||
|
||||
Present findings under an `OUTSIDE VOICE (Claude subagent):` header.
|
||||
|
||||
If the subagent fails or times out: "Outside voice unavailable. Continuing to outputs."
|
||||
|
||||
**Cross-model tension:**
|
||||
|
||||
After presenting the outside voice findings, note any points where the outside voice
|
||||
disagrees with the review findings from earlier sections. Flag these as:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
CROSS-MODEL TENSION:
|
||||
[Topic]: Review said X. Outside voice says Y. [Your assessment of who's right.]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
For each substantive tension point, auto-propose as a TODO via AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
|
||||
> "Cross-model disagreement on [topic]. The review found [X] but the outside voice
|
||||
> argues [Y]. Worth investigating further?"
|
||||
|
||||
Options:
|
||||
- A) Add to TODOS.md
|
||||
- B) Skip — not substantive
|
||||
|
||||
If no tension points exist, note: "No cross-model tension — both reviewers agree."
|
||||
|
||||
**Persist the result:**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"codex-plan-review","timestamp":"'"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","commit":"'"$(git rev-parse --short HEAD)"'"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Substitute: STATUS = "clean" if no findings, "issues_found" if findings exist.
|
||||
SOURCE = "codex" if Codex ran, "claude" if subagent ran.
|
||||
|
||||
**Cleanup:** Run `rm -f "$TMPERR_PV"` after processing (if Codex was used).
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## CRITICAL RULE — How to ask questions
|
||||
Follow the AskUserQuestion format from the Preamble above. Additional rules for plan reviews:
|
||||
* **One issue = one AskUserQuestion call.** Never combine multiple issues into one question.
|
||||
@@ -739,6 +835,7 @@ At the end of the review, fill in and display this summary so the user can see a
|
||||
- What already exists: written
|
||||
- TODOS.md updates: ___ items proposed to user
|
||||
- Failure modes: ___ critical gaps flagged
|
||||
- Outside voice: ran (codex/claude) / skipped
|
||||
- Lake Score: X/Y recommendations chose complete option
|
||||
|
||||
## Retrospective learning
|
||||
@@ -781,7 +878,7 @@ 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, plan-design-review, design-review-lite, adversarial-review, codex-review). Ignore entries with timestamps older than 7 days. 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, plan-design-review, design-review-lite, adversarial-review, codex-review, codex-plan-review). Ignore entries with timestamps older than 7 days. 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:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
+====================================================================+
|
||||
@@ -793,6 +890,7 @@ Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, pl
|
||||
| CEO Review | 0 | — | — | no |
|
||||
| Design Review | 0 | — | — | no |
|
||||
| Adversarial | 0 | — | — | no |
|
||||
| Outside Voice | 0 | — | — | no |
|
||||
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||||
| VERDICT: CLEARED — Eng Review passed |
|
||||
+====================================================================+
|
||||
@@ -803,6 +901,7 @@ Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, pl
|
||||
- **CEO Review (optional):** Use your judgment. Recommend it for big product/business changes, new user-facing features, or scope decisions. Skip for bug fixes, refactors, infra, and cleanup.
|
||||
- **Design Review (optional):** Use your judgment. Recommend it for UI/UX changes. Skip for backend-only, infra, or prompt-only changes.
|
||||
- **Adversarial Review (automatic):** Auto-scales by diff size. Small diffs (<50 lines) skip adversarial. Medium diffs (50–199) get cross-model adversarial. Large diffs (200+) get all 4 passes: Claude structured, Codex structured, Claude adversarial subagent, Codex adversarial. No configuration needed.
|
||||
- **Outside Voice (optional):** Independent plan review from a different AI model. Offered after all review sections complete in /plan-ceo-review and /plan-eng-review. Falls back to Claude subagent if Codex is unavailable. Never gates shipping.
|
||||
|
||||
**Verdict logic:**
|
||||
- **CLEARED**: Eng Review has >= 1 entry within 7 days with status "clean" (or \`skip_eng_review\` is \`true\`)
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -96,29 +96,6 @@ Before reviewing anything, answer these questions:
|
||||
|
||||
If the complexity check triggers (8+ files or 2+ new classes/services), proactively recommend scope reduction via AskUserQuestion — explain what's overbuilt, propose a minimal version that achieves the core goal, and ask whether to reduce or proceed as-is. If the complexity check does not trigger, present your Step 0 findings and proceed directly to Section 1.
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 0.5: Codex plan review (optional)
|
||||
|
||||
Check if the Codex CLI is available: `which codex 2>/dev/null`
|
||||
|
||||
If available, after presenting Step 0 findings, use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
```
|
||||
Want an independent Codex (OpenAI) review of this plan before the detailed review?
|
||||
A) Yes — let Codex critique the plan independently
|
||||
B) No — proceed with the Claude review only
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If the user chooses A: tell Codex to read the plan file itself (avoids ARG_MAX limits for large plans):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
codex exec "You are a brutally honest technical reviewer. Read the plan file at <plan-file-path> and review it for: logical gaps and unstated assumptions, missing error handling or edge cases, overcomplexity (is there a simpler approach?), feasibility risks (what could go wrong?), and missing dependencies or sequencing issues. Be direct. Be terse. No compliments. Just the problems." -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' --enable web_search_cached
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Replace `<plan-file-path>` with the actual path to the plan file detected earlier. Codex has filesystem access in read-only mode and will read the file itself.
|
||||
|
||||
Present the full output under a `CODEX SAYS (plan review):` header. Note any concerns
|
||||
that should inform the subsequent engineering review sections.
|
||||
|
||||
If Codex is not available, skip silently.
|
||||
|
||||
Always work through the full interactive review: one section at a time (Architecture → Code Quality → Tests → Performance) with at most 8 top issues per section.
|
||||
|
||||
**Critical: Once the user accepts or rejects a scope reduction recommendation, commit fully.** Do not re-argue for smaller scope during later review sections. Do not silently reduce scope or skip planned components.
|
||||
@@ -165,6 +142,8 @@ Evaluate:
|
||||
|
||||
**STOP.** For each issue found in this section, call AskUserQuestion individually. One issue per call. Present options, state your recommendation, explain WHY. Do NOT batch multiple issues into one AskUserQuestion. Only proceed to the next section after ALL issues in this section are resolved.
|
||||
|
||||
{{CODEX_PLAN_REVIEW}}
|
||||
|
||||
## CRITICAL RULE — How to ask questions
|
||||
Follow the AskUserQuestion format from the Preamble above. Additional rules for plan reviews:
|
||||
* **One issue = one AskUserQuestion call.** Never combine multiple issues into one question.
|
||||
@@ -220,6 +199,7 @@ At the end of the review, fill in and display this summary so the user can see a
|
||||
- What already exists: written
|
||||
- TODOS.md updates: ___ items proposed to user
|
||||
- Failure modes: ___ critical gaps flagged
|
||||
- Outside voice: ran (codex/claude) / skipped
|
||||
- Lake Score: X/Y recommendations chose complete option
|
||||
|
||||
## Retrospective learning
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user