mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-08-31 02:10:51 +02:00
feat(autoplan): eng review always runs last — the gate reviews the final amended plan
Reorder the pipeline to CEO -> Design (if UI scope) -> DX (if developer-facing scope) -> Eng. The old order (CEO -> Design -> Eng -> DX) let DX findings land AFTER the required gate signed off, so eng validated a stale plan. Accept-all semantics made explicit: every AskUserQuestion resolves to the recommended option; premises no longer pause the pipeline mid-run (clearly-wrong ones queue as User-Challenge items at the single Final Approval Gate). Eng's Codex voice now sees the DX consensus summary. New free static test pins the order; the chain E2E gains DX-between and Eng-terminal assertions. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan
co-authored by
Claude Fable 5
Claude Fable 5
parent
394db326f2
commit
848973007c
+50
-38
@@ -544,7 +544,7 @@ sections. Read a section in full before doing its step; do not work from memory.
|
||||
| starting Phase 1 (CEO review — always runs, after the Phase 0.5 preflight) | `sections/ceo-phase.md` |
|
||||
| starting Phase 2 (design review — ONLY if UI scope was detected in Phase 0; skip the read entirely otherwise) | `sections/design-phase.md` |
|
||||
| starting Phase 3 (eng review — always runs, after the Pre-Phase 3 checklist) | `sections/eng-phase.md` |
|
||||
| starting Phase 3.5 (DX review — ONLY if developer-facing scope was detected in Phase 0; skip the read entirely otherwise) | `sections/dx-phase.md` |
|
||||
| starting Phase 2.5 (DX review — ONLY if developer-facing scope was detected in Phase 0; skip the read entirely otherwise) | `sections/dx-phase.md` |
|
||||
| presenting the Final Approval Gate (Phase 4) — the aggregator computes $AGGREGATED_TASKS that the gate message substitutes | `sections/tasks-aggregator.md` |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
@@ -605,9 +605,11 @@ preference." The user still decides, but the framing is appropriately urgent.
|
||||
|
||||
## Sequential Execution — MANDATORY
|
||||
|
||||
Phases MUST execute in strict order: CEO → Design → Eng → DX.
|
||||
Each phase MUST complete fully before the next begins.
|
||||
NEVER run phases in parallel — each builds on the previous.
|
||||
Phases MUST execute in strict order: CEO → Design (if UI scope) → DX (if
|
||||
developer-facing scope) → Eng. Eng runs LAST, always: it is the required
|
||||
shipping gate, so it must review the FINAL amended plan — every other phase's
|
||||
amendments land before it. Each phase MUST complete fully before the next
|
||||
begins. NEVER run phases in parallel — each builds on the previous.
|
||||
|
||||
Between each phase, emit a phase-transition summary and verify that all required
|
||||
outputs from the prior phase are written before starting the next.
|
||||
@@ -619,13 +621,20 @@ outputs from the prior phase are written before starting the next.
|
||||
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.
|
||||
AskUserQuestion: you do, instead of the user.
|
||||
|
||||
**Two exceptions — never auto-decided:**
|
||||
1. Premises (Phase 1) — require human judgment about what problem to solve.
|
||||
2. User Challenges — when both models agree the user's stated direction should change
|
||||
(merge, split, add, remove features/workflows). The user always has context models
|
||||
lack. See Decision Classification above.
|
||||
**Default resolution: the recommended option.** Every AskUserQuestion in the loaded
|
||||
skills resolves to its `(recommended)` option; mode selections take the skill's
|
||||
context-dependent default. The 6 principles guide cases with no recommendation and
|
||||
break ties; when a principle argues AGAINST the recommended option, that is a Taste
|
||||
decision — take the recommendation and surface the disagreement at the final gate.
|
||||
|
||||
**One exception class — never auto-decided:** User Challenges — when both models
|
||||
agree the user's stated direction should change (merge, split, add, remove
|
||||
features/workflows; reinterpret a settled decision), or a premise looks clearly
|
||||
wrong. These queue and surface at the Final Approval Gate — never as mid-run
|
||||
stops. The user is interrupted exactly once, at the gate. The user always has
|
||||
context models lack. See Decision Classification above.
|
||||
|
||||
**You MUST still:**
|
||||
- READ the actual code, diffs, and files each section references
|
||||
@@ -775,7 +784,7 @@ else
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CODEX_AVAILABLE=false`, all Phase 1-3.5 Codex voices below degrade to
|
||||
If `_CODEX_AVAILABLE=false`, all Phase 1-3 Codex voices below degrade to
|
||||
`[codex-unavailable]` in the degradation matrix. /autoplan completes with
|
||||
Claude subagent only — saves token spend on Codex prompts we can't use.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -792,7 +801,7 @@ Claude subagent only — saves token spend on Codex prompts we can't use.
|
||||
- [ ] CEO completion summary written to plan file
|
||||
- [ ] CEO dual voices ran (Codex + Claude subagent, or noted unavailable)
|
||||
- [ ] CEO consensus table produced
|
||||
- [ ] Premise gate passed (user confirmed)
|
||||
- [ ] Premises assessed (clearly-wrong ones queued as Final Gate items — no mid-run stop)
|
||||
- [ ] Phase-transition summary emitted
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 2: Design Review (conditional — skip if no UI scope)
|
||||
@@ -805,30 +814,33 @@ entirely — do NOT read its section. Log: "Phase 2 skipped — no UI scope dete
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 2.5: DX Review (conditional — skip if no developer-facing scope)
|
||||
|
||||
**Skip condition:** If DX scope was NOT detected in Phase 0, skip this phase
|
||||
entirely — do NOT read its section. Log: "Phase 2.5 skipped — no developer-facing scope detected."
|
||||
|
||||
> **STOP.** Before starting Phase 2.5 (DX review — ONLY if developer-facing scope was detected in Phase 0; skip the read entirely otherwise), Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/autoplan/sections/dx-phase.md` and execute it
|
||||
> in full. Do not work from memory — that section is the source of truth for this step.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Pre-Phase 3 checklist (verify before starting):**
|
||||
- [ ] All Phase 1 items above confirmed
|
||||
- [ ] Design completion summary written (or "skipped, no UI scope")
|
||||
- [ ] Design dual voices ran (if Phase 2 ran)
|
||||
- [ ] Design consensus table produced (if Phase 2 ran)
|
||||
- [ ] DX completion summary written (or "skipped, no developer-facing scope")
|
||||
- [ ] DX dual voices ran (if Phase 2.5 ran)
|
||||
- [ ] DX consensus table produced (if Phase 2.5 ran)
|
||||
- [ ] Phase-transition summary emitted
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 3: Eng Review + Dual Voices
|
||||
## Phase 3: Eng Review + Dual Voices (always runs, always LAST — the required gate reviews the final amended plan)
|
||||
|
||||
> **STOP.** Before starting Phase 3 (eng review — always runs, after the Pre-Phase 3 checklist), Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/autoplan/sections/eng-phase.md` and execute it
|
||||
> in full. Do not work from memory — that section is the source of truth for this step.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 3.5: DX Review (conditional — skip if no developer-facing scope)
|
||||
|
||||
**Skip condition:** If DX scope was NOT detected in Phase 0, skip this phase
|
||||
entirely — do NOT read its section. Log: "Phase 3.5 skipped — no developer-facing scope detected."
|
||||
|
||||
> **STOP.** Before starting Phase 3.5 (DX review — ONLY if developer-facing scope was detected in Phase 0; skip the read entirely otherwise), Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/autoplan/sections/dx-phase.md` and execute it
|
||||
> in full. Do not work from memory — that section is the source of truth for this step.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Decision Audit Trail
|
||||
|
||||
After each auto-decision, append a row to the plan file using Edit:
|
||||
@@ -869,7 +881,16 @@ produced. Check the plan file and conversation for each item.
|
||||
- [ ] Dual voices ran (or noted unavailable/skipped with phase)
|
||||
- [ ] Design litmus scorecard produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 3 (Eng) outputs:**
|
||||
**Phase 2.5 (DX) outputs — only if DX scope detected:**
|
||||
- [ ] All 8 DX dimensions evaluated with scores
|
||||
- [ ] Developer journey map produced
|
||||
- [ ] Developer empathy narrative written
|
||||
- [ ] TTHW assessment with target
|
||||
- [ ] DX Implementation Checklist produced
|
||||
- [ ] Dual voices ran (or noted unavailable/skipped with phase)
|
||||
- [ ] DX consensus table produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 3 (Eng — final phase) outputs:**
|
||||
- [ ] Scope challenge with actual code analysis (not just "scope is fine")
|
||||
- [ ] Architecture ASCII diagram produced
|
||||
- [ ] Test diagram mapping codepaths to test coverage
|
||||
@@ -881,15 +902,6 @@ produced. Check the plan file and conversation for each item.
|
||||
- [ ] Dual voices ran (Codex + Claude subagent, or noted unavailable)
|
||||
- [ ] Eng consensus table produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 3.5 (DX) outputs — only if DX scope detected:**
|
||||
- [ ] All 8 DX dimensions evaluated with scores
|
||||
- [ ] Developer journey map produced
|
||||
- [ ] Developer empathy narrative written
|
||||
- [ ] TTHW assessment with target
|
||||
- [ ] DX Implementation Checklist produced
|
||||
- [ ] Dual voices ran (or noted unavailable/skipped with phase)
|
||||
- [ ] DX consensus table produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Cross-phase:**
|
||||
- [ ] Cross-phase themes section written
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -981,7 +993,7 @@ AskUserQuestion options:
|
||||
- A: mark APPROVED, write review logs, suggest /ship
|
||||
- B: ask which overrides, apply, re-present gate
|
||||
- C: answer freeform, re-present gate
|
||||
- D: make changes, re-run affected phases (scope→1B, design→2, test plan→3, arch→3). Max 3 cycles.
|
||||
- D: make changes, re-run affected phases (scope→1B, design→2, dx→2.5, test plan→3, arch→3; a re-run of any earlier phase re-runs Eng after it — the gate always reviews the final plan). Max 3 cycles.
|
||||
- E: start over
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
@@ -1006,7 +1018,7 @@ If Phase 2 ran (UI scope):
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-design-review","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","unresolved":N,"via":"autoplan","commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If Phase 3.5 ran (DX scope):
|
||||
If Phase 2.5 ran (DX scope):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-devex-review","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","initial_score":N,"overall_score":N,"product_type":"TYPE","tthw_current":"TTHW","tthw_target":"TARGET","unresolved":N,"via":"autoplan","commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
@@ -1023,7 +1035,7 @@ If Phase 2 ran (UI scope), also log:
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"autoplan-voices","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","phase":"design","via":"autoplan","consensus_confirmed":N,"consensus_disagree":N,"commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If Phase 3.5 ran (DX scope), also log:
|
||||
If Phase 2.5 ran (DX scope), also log:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"autoplan-voices","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","phase":"dx","via":"autoplan","consensus_confirmed":N,"consensus_disagree":N,"commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
@@ -1038,8 +1050,8 @@ Suggest next step: `/ship` when ready to create the PR.
|
||||
## Important Rules
|
||||
|
||||
- **Never abort.** The user chose /autoplan. Respect that choice. Surface all taste decisions, never redirect to interactive review.
|
||||
- **Two gates.** The non-auto-decided AskUserQuestions are: (1) premise confirmation in Phase 1, and (2) User Challenges — when both models agree the user's stated direction should change. Everything else is auto-decided using the 6 principles.
|
||||
- **One gate.** The only non-auto-decided AskUserQuestions surface at the Final Approval Gate: User Challenges — including clearly-wrong premises queued from Phase 1. Everything else resolves to the recommended option (the 6 principles break ties), so the pipeline never stops mid-run.
|
||||
- **Log every decision.** No silent auto-decisions. Every choice gets a row in the audit trail.
|
||||
- **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 → DX. Each phase builds on the last.
|
||||
- **Sequential order.** CEO → Design (if UI scope) → DX (if developer-facing scope) → Eng, always last. Each phase builds on the last; the required gate reviews the final amended plan.
|
||||
|
||||
+48
-36
@@ -108,9 +108,11 @@ preference." The user still decides, but the framing is appropriately urgent.
|
||||
|
||||
## Sequential Execution — MANDATORY
|
||||
|
||||
Phases MUST execute in strict order: CEO → Design → Eng → DX.
|
||||
Each phase MUST complete fully before the next begins.
|
||||
NEVER run phases in parallel — each builds on the previous.
|
||||
Phases MUST execute in strict order: CEO → Design (if UI scope) → DX (if
|
||||
developer-facing scope) → Eng. Eng runs LAST, always: it is the required
|
||||
shipping gate, so it must review the FINAL amended plan — every other phase's
|
||||
amendments land before it. Each phase MUST complete fully before the next
|
||||
begins. NEVER run phases in parallel — each builds on the previous.
|
||||
|
||||
Between each phase, emit a phase-transition summary and verify that all required
|
||||
outputs from the prior phase are written before starting the next.
|
||||
@@ -122,13 +124,20 @@ outputs from the prior phase are written before starting the next.
|
||||
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.
|
||||
AskUserQuestion: you do, instead of the user.
|
||||
|
||||
**Two exceptions — never auto-decided:**
|
||||
1. Premises (Phase 1) — require human judgment about what problem to solve.
|
||||
2. User Challenges — when both models agree the user's stated direction should change
|
||||
(merge, split, add, remove features/workflows). The user always has context models
|
||||
lack. See Decision Classification above.
|
||||
**Default resolution: the recommended option.** Every AskUserQuestion in the loaded
|
||||
skills resolves to its `(recommended)` option; mode selections take the skill's
|
||||
context-dependent default. The 6 principles guide cases with no recommendation and
|
||||
break ties; when a principle argues AGAINST the recommended option, that is a Taste
|
||||
decision — take the recommendation and surface the disagreement at the final gate.
|
||||
|
||||
**One exception class — never auto-decided:** User Challenges — when both models
|
||||
agree the user's stated direction should change (merge, split, add, remove
|
||||
features/workflows; reinterpret a settled decision), or a premise looks clearly
|
||||
wrong. These queue and surface at the Final Approval Gate — never as mid-run
|
||||
stops. The user is interrupted exactly once, at the gate. The user always has
|
||||
context models lack. See Decision Classification above.
|
||||
|
||||
**You MUST still:**
|
||||
- READ the actual code, diffs, and files each section references
|
||||
@@ -278,7 +287,7 @@ else
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CODEX_AVAILABLE=false`, all Phase 1-3.5 Codex voices below degrade to
|
||||
If `_CODEX_AVAILABLE=false`, all Phase 1-3 Codex voices below degrade to
|
||||
`[codex-unavailable]` in the degradation matrix. /autoplan completes with
|
||||
Claude subagent only — saves token spend on Codex prompts we can't use.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -294,7 +303,7 @@ Claude subagent only — saves token spend on Codex prompts we can't use.
|
||||
- [ ] CEO completion summary written to plan file
|
||||
- [ ] CEO dual voices ran (Codex + Claude subagent, or noted unavailable)
|
||||
- [ ] CEO consensus table produced
|
||||
- [ ] Premise gate passed (user confirmed)
|
||||
- [ ] Premises assessed (clearly-wrong ones queued as Final Gate items — no mid-run stop)
|
||||
- [ ] Phase-transition summary emitted
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 2: Design Review (conditional — skip if no UI scope)
|
||||
@@ -306,28 +315,31 @@ entirely — do NOT read its section. Log: "Phase 2 skipped — no UI scope dete
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 2.5: DX Review (conditional — skip if no developer-facing scope)
|
||||
|
||||
**Skip condition:** If DX scope was NOT detected in Phase 0, skip this phase
|
||||
entirely — do NOT read its section. Log: "Phase 2.5 skipped — no developer-facing scope detected."
|
||||
|
||||
{{SECTION:dx-phase}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Pre-Phase 3 checklist (verify before starting):**
|
||||
- [ ] All Phase 1 items above confirmed
|
||||
- [ ] Design completion summary written (or "skipped, no UI scope")
|
||||
- [ ] Design dual voices ran (if Phase 2 ran)
|
||||
- [ ] Design consensus table produced (if Phase 2 ran)
|
||||
- [ ] DX completion summary written (or "skipped, no developer-facing scope")
|
||||
- [ ] DX dual voices ran (if Phase 2.5 ran)
|
||||
- [ ] DX consensus table produced (if Phase 2.5 ran)
|
||||
- [ ] Phase-transition summary emitted
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 3: Eng Review + Dual Voices
|
||||
## Phase 3: Eng Review + Dual Voices (always runs, always LAST — the required gate reviews the final amended plan)
|
||||
|
||||
{{SECTION:eng-phase}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 3.5: DX Review (conditional — skip if no developer-facing scope)
|
||||
|
||||
**Skip condition:** If DX scope was NOT detected in Phase 0, skip this phase
|
||||
entirely — do NOT read its section. Log: "Phase 3.5 skipped — no developer-facing scope detected."
|
||||
|
||||
{{SECTION:dx-phase}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Decision Audit Trail
|
||||
|
||||
After each auto-decision, append a row to the plan file using Edit:
|
||||
@@ -368,7 +380,16 @@ produced. Check the plan file and conversation for each item.
|
||||
- [ ] Dual voices ran (or noted unavailable/skipped with phase)
|
||||
- [ ] Design litmus scorecard produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 3 (Eng) outputs:**
|
||||
**Phase 2.5 (DX) outputs — only if DX scope detected:**
|
||||
- [ ] All 8 DX dimensions evaluated with scores
|
||||
- [ ] Developer journey map produced
|
||||
- [ ] Developer empathy narrative written
|
||||
- [ ] TTHW assessment with target
|
||||
- [ ] DX Implementation Checklist produced
|
||||
- [ ] Dual voices ran (or noted unavailable/skipped with phase)
|
||||
- [ ] DX consensus table produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 3 (Eng — final phase) outputs:**
|
||||
- [ ] Scope challenge with actual code analysis (not just "scope is fine")
|
||||
- [ ] Architecture ASCII diagram produced
|
||||
- [ ] Test diagram mapping codepaths to test coverage
|
||||
@@ -380,15 +401,6 @@ produced. Check the plan file and conversation for each item.
|
||||
- [ ] Dual voices ran (Codex + Claude subagent, or noted unavailable)
|
||||
- [ ] Eng consensus table produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 3.5 (DX) outputs — only if DX scope detected:**
|
||||
- [ ] All 8 DX dimensions evaluated with scores
|
||||
- [ ] Developer journey map produced
|
||||
- [ ] Developer empathy narrative written
|
||||
- [ ] TTHW assessment with target
|
||||
- [ ] DX Implementation Checklist produced
|
||||
- [ ] Dual voices ran (or noted unavailable/skipped with phase)
|
||||
- [ ] DX consensus table produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Cross-phase:**
|
||||
- [ ] Cross-phase themes section written
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -479,7 +491,7 @@ AskUserQuestion options:
|
||||
- A: mark APPROVED, write review logs, suggest /ship
|
||||
- B: ask which overrides, apply, re-present gate
|
||||
- C: answer freeform, re-present gate
|
||||
- D: make changes, re-run affected phases (scope→1B, design→2, test plan→3, arch→3). Max 3 cycles.
|
||||
- D: make changes, re-run affected phases (scope→1B, design→2, dx→2.5, test plan→3, arch→3; a re-run of any earlier phase re-runs Eng after it — the gate always reviews the final plan). Max 3 cycles.
|
||||
- E: start over
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
@@ -504,7 +516,7 @@ If Phase 2 ran (UI scope):
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-design-review","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","unresolved":N,"via":"autoplan","commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If Phase 3.5 ran (DX scope):
|
||||
If Phase 2.5 ran (DX scope):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-devex-review","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","initial_score":N,"overall_score":N,"product_type":"TYPE","tthw_current":"TTHW","tthw_target":"TARGET","unresolved":N,"via":"autoplan","commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
@@ -521,7 +533,7 @@ If Phase 2 ran (UI scope), also log:
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"autoplan-voices","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","phase":"design","via":"autoplan","consensus_confirmed":N,"consensus_disagree":N,"commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If Phase 3.5 ran (DX scope), also log:
|
||||
If Phase 2.5 ran (DX scope), also log:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"autoplan-voices","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","phase":"dx","via":"autoplan","consensus_confirmed":N,"consensus_disagree":N,"commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
@@ -536,8 +548,8 @@ Suggest next step: `/ship` when ready to create the PR.
|
||||
## Important Rules
|
||||
|
||||
- **Never abort.** The user chose /autoplan. Respect that choice. Surface all taste decisions, never redirect to interactive review.
|
||||
- **Two gates.** The non-auto-decided AskUserQuestions are: (1) premise confirmation in Phase 1, and (2) User Challenges — when both models agree the user's stated direction should change. Everything else is auto-decided using the 6 principles.
|
||||
- **One gate.** The only non-auto-decided AskUserQuestions surface at the Final Approval Gate: User Challenges — including clearly-wrong premises queued from Phase 1. Everything else resolves to the recommended option (the 6 principles break ties), so the pipeline never stops mid-run.
|
||||
- **Log every decision.** No silent auto-decisions. Every choice gets a row in the audit trail.
|
||||
- **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 → DX. Each phase builds on the last.
|
||||
- **Sequential order.** CEO → Design (if UI scope) → DX (if developer-facing scope) → Eng, always last. Each phase builds on the last; the required gate reviews the final amended plan.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -5,9 +5,11 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
|
||||
**Override rules:**
|
||||
- Mode selection: SELECTIVE EXPANSION
|
||||
- Premises: accept reasonable ones (P6), challenge only clearly wrong ones
|
||||
- **GATE: Present premises to user for confirmation** — this is the ONE AskUserQuestion
|
||||
that is NOT auto-decided. Premises require human judgment.
|
||||
- Premises: accept reasonable ones (P6). Clearly-wrong or challenged premises are
|
||||
NOT a mid-run stop — queue each as a User-Challenge-shaped item for the Final
|
||||
Approval Gate (Phase 4): what the plan assumes, why it looks wrong, and the cost
|
||||
of proceeding anyway. Premises still require human judgment — the human exercises
|
||||
it at the gate, exactly once, not mid-pipeline.
|
||||
- Alternatives: pick highest completeness (P1). If tied, pick simplest (P5).
|
||||
If top 2 are close → mark TASTE DECISION.
|
||||
- Scope expansion: in blast radius + <1d CC → approve (P2). Outside → defer to TODOS.md (P3).
|
||||
@@ -112,5 +114,6 @@ Sections 1-10 — for EACH section, run the evaluation criteria from the loaded
|
||||
> Consensus: [X/6 confirmed, Y disagreements → surfaced at gate].
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 2.
|
||||
|
||||
Do NOT begin Phase 2 until all Phase 1 outputs are written to the plan file
|
||||
and the premise gate has been passed.
|
||||
Do NOT begin Phase 2 until all Phase 1 outputs are written to the plan file,
|
||||
including the premise assessment (queued premise challenges travel to the
|
||||
Final Gate — they never pause the pipeline here).
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -3,9 +3,11 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
|
||||
**Override rules:**
|
||||
- Mode selection: SELECTIVE EXPANSION
|
||||
- Premises: accept reasonable ones (P6), challenge only clearly wrong ones
|
||||
- **GATE: Present premises to user for confirmation** — this is the ONE AskUserQuestion
|
||||
that is NOT auto-decided. Premises require human judgment.
|
||||
- Premises: accept reasonable ones (P6). Clearly-wrong or challenged premises are
|
||||
NOT a mid-run stop — queue each as a User-Challenge-shaped item for the Final
|
||||
Approval Gate (Phase 4): what the plan assumes, why it looks wrong, and the cost
|
||||
of proceeding anyway. Premises still require human judgment — the human exercises
|
||||
it at the gate, exactly once, not mid-pipeline.
|
||||
- Alternatives: pick highest completeness (P1). If tied, pick simplest (P5).
|
||||
If top 2 are close → mark TASTE DECISION.
|
||||
- Scope expansion: in blast radius + <1d CC → approve (P2). Outside → defer to TODOS.md (P3).
|
||||
@@ -110,5 +112,6 @@ Sections 1-10 — for EACH section, run the evaluation criteria from the loaded
|
||||
> Consensus: [X/6 confirmed, Y disagreements → surfaced at gate].
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 2.
|
||||
|
||||
Do NOT begin Phase 2 until all Phase 1 outputs are written to the plan file
|
||||
and the premise gate has been passed.
|
||||
Do NOT begin Phase 2 until all Phase 1 outputs are written to the plan file,
|
||||
including the premise assessment (queued premise challenges travel to the
|
||||
Final Gate — they never pause the pipeline here).
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -87,15 +87,15 @@ Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = fl
|
||||
|
||||
4. DX Scorecard: Produce the full scorecard with all 8 dimensions scored.
|
||||
|
||||
**Mandatory outputs from Phase 3.5:**
|
||||
**Mandatory outputs from Phase 2.5:**
|
||||
- Developer journey map (9-stage table)
|
||||
- Developer empathy narrative (first-person perspective)
|
||||
- DX Scorecard with all 8 dimension scores
|
||||
- DX Implementation Checklist
|
||||
- TTHW assessment with target
|
||||
|
||||
**PHASE 3.5 COMPLETE.** Emit phase-transition summary:
|
||||
> **Phase 3.5 complete.** DX overall: [N]/10. TTHW: [N] min → [target] min.
|
||||
**PHASE 2.5 COMPLETE.** Emit phase-transition summary:
|
||||
> **Phase 2.5 complete.** DX overall: [N]/10. TTHW: [N] min → [target] min.
|
||||
> Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
|
||||
> Consensus: [X/6 confirmed, Y disagreements → surfaced at gate].
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 4 (Final Gate).
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 3 (Eng Review — the required gate reviews the final amended plan).
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -85,15 +85,15 @@ Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = fl
|
||||
|
||||
4. DX Scorecard: Produce the full scorecard with all 8 dimensions scored.
|
||||
|
||||
**Mandatory outputs from Phase 3.5:**
|
||||
**Mandatory outputs from Phase 2.5:**
|
||||
- Developer journey map (9-stage table)
|
||||
- Developer empathy narrative (first-person perspective)
|
||||
- DX Scorecard with all 8 dimension scores
|
||||
- DX Implementation Checklist
|
||||
- TTHW assessment with target
|
||||
|
||||
**PHASE 3.5 COMPLETE.** Emit phase-transition summary:
|
||||
> **Phase 3.5 complete.** DX overall: [N]/10. TTHW: [N] min → [target] min.
|
||||
**PHASE 2.5 COMPLETE.** Emit phase-transition summary:
|
||||
> **Phase 2.5 complete.** DX overall: [N]/10. TTHW: [N] min → [target] min.
|
||||
> Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
|
||||
> Consensus: [X/6 confirmed, Y disagreements → surfaced at gate].
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 4 (Final Gate).
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 3 (Eng Review — the required gate reviews the final amended plan).
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
Also consider these findings from prior review phases:
|
||||
CEO: <insert CEO consensus table summary — key concerns, DISAGREEs>
|
||||
Design: <insert Design consensus table summary, or 'skipped, no UI scope'>
|
||||
DX: <insert DX consensus table summary, or 'skipped, no developer-facing scope'>
|
||||
|
||||
File: <plan_path>" -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only -c 'web_search="cached"' < /dev/null
|
||||
_CODEX_EXIT=$?
|
||||
@@ -45,7 +46,7 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
- Architecture choices: explicit over clever (P5). If codex disagrees with valid reason → TASTE DECISION. Scope changes both models agree on → USER CHALLENGE.
|
||||
- Evals: always include all relevant suites (P1)
|
||||
- Test plan: generate artifact at `~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/{user}-{branch}-test-plan-{datetime}.md`
|
||||
- TODOS.md: collect all deferred scope expansions from Phase 1, auto-write
|
||||
- TODOS.md: collect all deferred scope expansions from every prior phase (Eng runs last), auto-write
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (Eng):**
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -105,4 +106,4 @@ Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = fl
|
||||
**PHASE 3 COMPLETE.** Emit phase-transition summary:
|
||||
> **Phase 3 complete.** Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
|
||||
> Consensus: [X/6 confirmed, Y disagreements → surfaced at gate].
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 3.5 (DX Review) or Phase 4 (Final Gate).
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 4 (Final Gate).
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
Also consider these findings from prior review phases:
|
||||
CEO: <insert CEO consensus table summary — key concerns, DISAGREEs>
|
||||
Design: <insert Design consensus table summary, or 'skipped, no UI scope'>
|
||||
DX: <insert DX consensus table summary, or 'skipped, no developer-facing scope'>
|
||||
|
||||
File: <plan_path>" -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only {{CODEX_WEB_SEARCH_FLAG}} < /dev/null
|
||||
_CODEX_EXIT=$?
|
||||
@@ -43,7 +44,7 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
- Architecture choices: explicit over clever (P5). If codex disagrees with valid reason → TASTE DECISION. Scope changes both models agree on → USER CHALLENGE.
|
||||
- Evals: always include all relevant suites (P1)
|
||||
- Test plan: generate artifact at `~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/{user}-{branch}-test-plan-{datetime}.md`
|
||||
- TODOS.md: collect all deferred scope expansions from Phase 1, auto-write
|
||||
- TODOS.md: collect all deferred scope expansions from every prior phase (Eng runs last), auto-write
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (Eng):**
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -103,4 +104,4 @@ Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = fl
|
||||
**PHASE 3 COMPLETE.** Emit phase-transition summary:
|
||||
> **Phase 3 complete.** Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
|
||||
> Consensus: [X/6 confirmed, Y disagreements → surfaced at gate].
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 3.5 (DX Review) or Phase 4 (Final Gate).
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 4 (Final Gate).
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
|
||||
"$schema": "https://gstack.dev/schemas/section-manifest.json",
|
||||
"skill": "autoplan",
|
||||
"version": 1,
|
||||
"note": "PASSIVE registry (v2 plan T9 / CM2). Fields are IDs, file paths, human titles, and human-readable trigger text ONLY. The skeleton's phase sequencing (Sequential Execution + the Phase 0 UI/DX scope detection) is the ONLY place that decides WHEN to read a section — Phase 2 and Phase 3.5 are conditional and their sections must NOT be read when their scope is absent; required-reads live in the E2E fixtures. No machine predicate here — see docs/designs/v2_PLAN.md:663.",
|
||||
"note": "PASSIVE registry (v2 plan T9 / CM2). Fields are IDs, file paths, human titles, and human-readable trigger text ONLY. The skeleton's phase sequencing (Sequential Execution + the Phase 0 UI/DX scope detection) is the ONLY place that decides WHEN to read a section — Phase 2 and Phase 2.5 are conditional and their sections must NOT be read when their scope is absent; required-reads live in the E2E fixtures. No machine predicate here — see docs/designs/v2_PLAN.md:663.",
|
||||
"sections": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"id": "ceo-phase",
|
||||
@@ -25,8 +25,8 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"id": "dx-phase",
|
||||
"file": "dx-phase.md",
|
||||
"title": "Phase 3.5: DX review — override rules, dual voices, 8-dimension scorecard",
|
||||
"trigger": "starting Phase 3.5 (DX review — ONLY if developer-facing scope was detected in Phase 0; skip the read entirely otherwise)"
|
||||
"title": "Phase 2.5: DX review — override rules, dual voices, 8-dimension scorecard",
|
||||
"trigger": "starting Phase 2.5 (DX review — ONLY if developer-facing scope was detected in Phase 0; skip the read entirely otherwise)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"id": "tasks-aggregator",
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user