mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-05-07 05:56:41 +02:00
chore: regenerate SKILL.md files
Generated from updated templates + resolver merge. Key changes: - Tier 1 skills no longer include AskUserQuestion format section - Ship/review skills now include coverage gate with thresholds - Connect-chrome skill includes sidebar chat onboarding step - Plan file discovery uses host-agnostic paths Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan
+45
-10
@@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ 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}
|
||||
**My Rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
@@ -999,6 +999,39 @@ find . -name '*.test.*' -o -name '*.spec.*' -o -name '*_test.*' -o -name '*_spec
|
||||
For PR body: `Tests: {before} → {after} (+{delta} new)`
|
||||
Coverage line: `Test Coverage Audit: N new code paths. M covered (X%). K tests generated, J committed.`
|
||||
|
||||
**7. Coverage gate:**
|
||||
|
||||
Before proceeding, check CLAUDE.md for a `## Test Coverage` section with `Minimum:` and `Target:` fields. If found, use those percentages. Otherwise use defaults: Minimum = 60%, Target = 80%.
|
||||
|
||||
Using the coverage percentage from the diagram in substep 4 (the `COVERAGE: X/Y (Z%)` line):
|
||||
|
||||
- **>= target:** Pass. "Coverage gate: PASS ({X}%)." Continue.
|
||||
- **>= minimum, < target:** Use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
- "AI-assessed coverage is {X}%. {N} code paths are untested. Target is {target}%."
|
||||
- RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because untested code paths are where production bugs hide.
|
||||
- Options:
|
||||
A) Generate more tests for remaining gaps (recommended)
|
||||
B) Ship anyway — I accept the coverage risk
|
||||
C) These paths don't need tests — mark as intentionally uncovered
|
||||
- If A: Loop back to substep 5 (generate tests) targeting the remaining gaps. After second pass, if still below target, present AskUserQuestion again with updated numbers. Maximum 2 generation passes total.
|
||||
- If B: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: {X}% — user accepted risk."
|
||||
- If C: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: {X}% — {N} paths intentionally uncovered."
|
||||
|
||||
- **< minimum:** Use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
- "AI-assessed coverage is critically low ({X}%). {N} of {M} code paths have no tests. Minimum threshold is {minimum}%."
|
||||
- RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because less than {minimum}% means more code is untested than tested.
|
||||
- Options:
|
||||
A) Generate tests for remaining gaps (recommended)
|
||||
B) Override — ship with low coverage (I understand the risk)
|
||||
- If A: Loop back to substep 5. Maximum 2 passes. If still below minimum after 2 passes, present the override choice again.
|
||||
- If B: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: OVERRIDDEN at {X}%."
|
||||
|
||||
**Coverage percentage undetermined:** If the coverage diagram doesn't produce a clear numeric percentage (ambiguous output, parse error), **skip the gate** with: "Coverage gate: could not determine percentage — skipping." Do not default to 0% or block.
|
||||
|
||||
**Test-only diffs:** Skip the gate (same as the existing fast-path).
|
||||
|
||||
**100% coverage:** "Coverage gate: PASS (100%)." Continue.
|
||||
|
||||
### Test Plan Artifact
|
||||
|
||||
After producing the coverage diagram, write a test plan artifact so `/qa` and `/qa-only` can consume it:
|
||||
@@ -1036,19 +1069,21 @@ Repo: {owner/repo}
|
||||
|
||||
### Plan File Discovery
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Conversation context (primary):** Check if there is an active plan file in this conversation — Claude Code system messages include plan file paths when in plan mode. Look for references like `~/.claude/plans/*.md` in system messages. If found, use it directly — this is the most reliable signal.
|
||||
1. **Conversation context (primary):** Check if there is an active plan file in this conversation. The host agent's system messages include plan file paths when in plan mode. If found, use it directly — this is the most reliable signal.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Content-based search (fallback):** If no plan file is referenced in conversation context, search by content:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null | tr '/' '-')
|
||||
REPO=$(basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null)")
|
||||
# Try branch name match first (most specific)
|
||||
PLAN=$(ls -t ~/.claude/plans/*.md 2>/dev/null | xargs grep -l "$BRANCH" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
|
||||
# Fall back to repo name match
|
||||
[ -z "$PLAN" ] && PLAN=$(ls -t ~/.claude/plans/*.md 2>/dev/null | xargs grep -l "$REPO" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
|
||||
# Last resort: most recent plan modified in the last 24 hours
|
||||
[ -z "$PLAN" ] && PLAN=$(find ~/.claude/plans -name '*.md' -mmin -1440 -maxdepth 1 2>/dev/null | xargs ls -t 2>/dev/null | head -1)
|
||||
# Search common plan file locations
|
||||
for PLAN_DIR in "$HOME/.claude/plans" "$HOME/.codex/plans" ".gstack/plans"; do
|
||||
[ -d "$PLAN_DIR" ] || continue
|
||||
PLAN=$(ls -t "$PLAN_DIR"/*.md 2>/dev/null | xargs grep -l "$BRANCH" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
|
||||
[ -z "$PLAN" ] && PLAN=$(ls -t "$PLAN_DIR"/*.md 2>/dev/null | xargs grep -l "$REPO" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
|
||||
[ -z "$PLAN" ] && PLAN=$(find "$PLAN_DIR" -name '*.md' -mmin -1440 -maxdepth 1 2>/dev/null | xargs ls -t 2>/dev/null | head -1)
|
||||
[ -n "$PLAN" ] && break
|
||||
done
|
||||
[ -n "$PLAN" ] && echo "PLAN_FILE: $PLAN" || echo "NO_PLAN_FILE"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1262,7 +1297,7 @@ If Codex is available, run a lightweight design check on the diff:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
TMPERR_DRL=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-drl-XXXXXXXX)
|
||||
codex exec "Review the git diff on this branch. Run 7 litmus checks (YES/NO each): 1. Brand/product unmistakable in first screen? 2. One strong visual anchor present? 3. Page understandable by scanning headlines only? 4. Each section has one job? 5. Are cards actually necessary? 6. Does motion improve hierarchy or atmosphere? 7. Would design feel premium with all decorative shadows removed? Flag any hard rejections: 1. Generic SaaS card grid as first impression 2. Beautiful image with weak brand 3. Strong headline with no clear action 4. Busy imagery behind text 5. Sections repeating same mood statement 6. Carousel with no narrative purpose 7. App UI made of stacked cards instead of layout 5 most important design findings only. Reference file:line." -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_DRL"
|
||||
codex exec "Review the git diff on this branch. Run 7 litmus checks (YES/NO each): 1. Brand/product unmistakable in first screen? 2. One strong visual anchor present? 3. Page understandable by scanning headlines only? 4. Each section has one job? 5. Are cards actually necessary? 6. Does motion improve hierarchy or atmosphere? 7. Would design feel premium with all decorative shadows removed? Flag any hard rejections: 1. Generic SaaS card grid as first impression 2. Beautiful image with weak brand 3. Strong headline with no clear action 4. Busy imagery behind text 5. Sections repeating same mood statement 6. Carousel with no narrative purpose 7. App UI made of stacked cards instead of layout 5 most important design findings only. Reference file:line." -C "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_DRL"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Use a 5-minute timeout (`timeout: 300000`). After the command completes, read stderr:
|
||||
@@ -1377,7 +1412,7 @@ Claude's structured review already ran. Now add a **cross-model adversarial chal
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
TMPERR_ADV=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-adv-XXXXXXXX)
|
||||
codex exec "Review the changes on this branch against the base branch. Run git diff origin/<base> to see the diff. Your job is to find ways this code will fail in production. Think like an attacker and a chaos engineer. Find edge cases, race conditions, security holes, resource leaks, failure modes, and silent data corruption paths. Be adversarial. Be thorough. No compliments — just the problems." -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="xhigh"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_ADV"
|
||||
codex exec "Review the changes on this branch against the base branch. Run git diff origin/<base> to see the diff. Your job is to find ways this code will fail in production. Think like an attacker and a chaos engineer. Find edge cases, race conditions, security holes, resource leaks, failure modes, and silent data corruption paths. Be adversarial. Be thorough. No compliments — just the problems." -C "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="xhigh"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_ADV"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Set the Bash tool's `timeout` parameter to `300000` (5 minutes). Do NOT use the `timeout` shell command — it doesn't exist on macOS. After the command completes, read stderr:
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user