mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-09-09 14:38:59 +02:00
feat(autoplan): carve the four review phases + tasks aggregator into sections
Phase bodies (CEO/Design/Eng/DX consensus flows) and the Implementation Tasks aggregator load on demand; Design and DX stay separate sections because each is independently conditional on scope. Skeleton 83.7KB -> 58.7KB (-30% always-loaded); the 6 decision principles, classification, sequencing, and explicit skip-condition dispatch stay always-loaded. The chain E2E's phase-complete markers now live only in sections, so its assertions double as section-read proof (behavioral: external). 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
2877b63afe
commit
c593c93268
+29
-470
@@ -534,6 +534,21 @@ surfaced at a final approval gate.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Section index — Read each section when its situation applies
|
||||
|
||||
This skill is a decision-tree skeleton. The steps below point to on-demand
|
||||
sections. Read a section in full before doing its step; do not work from memory.
|
||||
|
||||
| When | Read this section |
|
||||
|------|-------------------|
|
||||
| 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` |
|
||||
| presenting the Final Approval Gate (Phase 4) — the aggregator computes $AGGREGATED_TASKS that the gate message substitutes | `sections/tasks-aggregator.md` |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The 6 Decision Principles
|
||||
|
||||
These rules auto-answer every intermediate question:
|
||||
@@ -768,120 +783,8 @@ Claude subagent only — saves token spend on Codex prompts we can't use.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 1: CEO Review (Strategy & Scope)
|
||||
|
||||
Follow plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md — all sections, full depth.
|
||||
Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
|
||||
**Override rules:**
|
||||
- Mode selection: SELECTIVE EXPANSION
|
||||
- Premises: accept reasonable ones (P6), challenge only clearly wrong ones
|
||||
- **GATE: Present premises to user for confirmation** — this is the ONE AskUserQuestion
|
||||
that is NOT auto-decided. Premises require human judgment.
|
||||
- Alternatives: pick highest completeness (P1). If tied, pick simplest (P5).
|
||||
If top 2 are close → mark TASTE DECISION.
|
||||
- Scope expansion: in blast radius + <1d CC → approve (P2). Outside → defer to TODOS.md (P3).
|
||||
Duplicates → reject (P4). Borderline (3-5 files) → mark TASTE DECISION.
|
||||
- All 10 review sections: run fully, auto-decide each issue, log every decision.
|
||||
- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
|
||||
Run them sequentially in foreground. First the Claude subagent (Agent tool
|
||||
with run_in_background: false — subagents default to BACKGROUND since
|
||||
Claude Code v2.1.198, so the flag must be explicitly false), then Codex
|
||||
(Bash). Both must complete before building the consensus table.
|
||||
|
||||
**Codex CEO voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
_REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
|
||||
_gstack_codex_timeout_wrapper 600 codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/gstack). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only.
|
||||
|
||||
You are a CEO/founder advisor reviewing a development plan.
|
||||
Challenge the strategic foundations: Are the premises valid or assumed? Is this the
|
||||
right problem to solve, or is there a reframing that would be 10x more impactful?
|
||||
What alternatives were dismissed too quickly? What competitive or market risks are
|
||||
unaddressed? What scope decisions will look foolish in 6 months? Be adversarial.
|
||||
No compliments. Just the strategic blind spots.
|
||||
File: <plan_path>" -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only -c 'web_search="cached"' < /dev/null
|
||||
_CODEX_EXIT=$?
|
||||
if [ "$_CODEX_EXIT" = "124" ]; then
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_event "codex_timeout" "600"
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_hang "autoplan" "0"
|
||||
echo "[codex stalled past 10 minutes — tagging as [codex-unavailable] for this phase and proceeding with Claude subagent only]"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes (shell-wrapper) + 12 minutes (Bash outer gate). On hang, auto-degrades this phase's Codex voice.
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude CEO subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
"Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent CEO/strategist
|
||||
reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Is this the right problem to solve? Could a reframing yield 10x impact?
|
||||
2. Are the premises stated or just assumed? Which ones could be wrong?
|
||||
3. What's the 6-month regret scenario — what will look foolish?
|
||||
4. What alternatives were dismissed without sufficient analysis?
|
||||
5. What's the competitive risk — could someone else solve this first/better?
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix."
|
||||
|
||||
**Error handling:** Both calls block in foreground. Codex auth/timeout/empty → proceed with
|
||||
Claude subagent only, tagged `[single-model]`. If Claude subagent also fails →
|
||||
"Outside voices unavailable — continuing with primary review."
|
||||
|
||||
**Degradation matrix:** Both fail → "single-reviewer mode". Codex only →
|
||||
tag `[codex-only]`. Subagent only → tag `[subagent-only]`.
|
||||
|
||||
- Strategy choices: if codex disagrees with a premise or scope decision with valid
|
||||
strategic reason → TASTE DECISION. If both models agree the user's stated structure
|
||||
should change (merge, split, add, remove) → USER CHALLENGE (never auto-decided).
|
||||
|
||||
**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
|
||||
|
||||
Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent (foreground Agent tool) first, then
|
||||
Codex (Bash). Present Codex output under CODEX SAYS (CEO — strategy challenge)
|
||||
header. Present subagent output under CLAUDE SUBAGENT (CEO — strategic independence)
|
||||
header. Produce CEO consensus table:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
CEO DUAL VOICES — CONSENSUS TABLE:
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
Dimension Claude Codex Consensus
|
||||
──────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
|
||||
1. Premises valid? — — —
|
||||
2. Right problem to solve? — — —
|
||||
3. Scope calibration correct? — — —
|
||||
4. Alternatives sufficiently explored?— — —
|
||||
5. Competitive/market risks covered? — — —
|
||||
6. 6-month trajectory sound? — — —
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ (→ taste decision).
|
||||
Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = flagged regardless.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
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 1 COMPLETE.** Emit phase-transition summary:
|
||||
> **Phase 1 complete.** Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
|
||||
> 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.
|
||||
> **STOP.** Before starting Phase 1 (CEO review — always runs, after the Phase 0.5 preflight), Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/autoplan/sections/ceo-phase.md` and execute it
|
||||
> in full. Do not work from memory — that section is the source of truth for this step.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -894,78 +797,11 @@ and the premise gate has been passed.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 2: Design Review (conditional — skip if no UI scope)
|
||||
|
||||
Follow plan-design-review/SKILL.md — all 7 dimensions, full depth.
|
||||
Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
**Skip condition:** If UI scope was NOT detected in Phase 0, skip this phase
|
||||
entirely — do NOT read its section. Log: "Phase 2 skipped — no UI scope detected."
|
||||
|
||||
**Override rules:**
|
||||
- Focus areas: all relevant dimensions (P1)
|
||||
- Structural issues (missing states, broken hierarchy): auto-fix (P5)
|
||||
- Aesthetic/taste issues: mark TASTE DECISION
|
||||
- Design system alignment: auto-fix if DESIGN.md exists and fix is obvious
|
||||
- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
|
||||
|
||||
**Codex design voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
_REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
|
||||
_gstack_codex_timeout_wrapper 600 codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/gstack). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only.
|
||||
|
||||
Read the plan file at <plan_path>. Evaluate this plan's
|
||||
UI/UX design decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
Also consider these findings from the CEO review phase:
|
||||
<insert CEO dual voice findings summary — key concerns, disagreements>
|
||||
|
||||
Does the information hierarchy serve the user or the developer? Are interaction
|
||||
states (loading, empty, error, partial) specified or left to the implementer's
|
||||
imagination? Is the responsive strategy intentional or afterthought? Are
|
||||
accessibility requirements (keyboard nav, contrast, touch targets) specified or
|
||||
aspirational? Does the plan describe specific UI decisions or generic patterns?
|
||||
What design decisions will haunt the implementer if left ambiguous?
|
||||
Be opinionated. No hedging." -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only -c 'web_search="cached"' < /dev/null
|
||||
_CODEX_EXIT=$?
|
||||
if [ "$_CODEX_EXIT" = "124" ]; then
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_event "codex_timeout" "600"
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_hang "autoplan" "0"
|
||||
echo "[codex stalled past 10 minutes — tagging as [codex-unavailable] for this phase and proceeding with Claude subagent only]"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes (shell-wrapper) + 12 minutes (Bash outer gate). On hang, auto-degrades this phase's Codex voice.
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude design subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
"Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent senior product designer
|
||||
reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Information hierarchy: what does the user see first, second, third? Is it right?
|
||||
2. Missing states: loading, empty, error, success, partial — which are unspecified?
|
||||
3. User journey: what's the emotional arc? Where does it break?
|
||||
4. Specificity: does the plan describe SPECIFIC UI or generic patterns?
|
||||
5. What design decisions will haunt the implementer if left ambiguous?
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix."
|
||||
NO prior-phase context — subagent must be truly independent.
|
||||
|
||||
Error handling: same as Phase 1 (both foreground/blocking, degradation matrix applies).
|
||||
|
||||
- Design choices: if codex disagrees with a design decision with valid UX reasoning
|
||||
→ TASTE DECISION. Scope changes both models agree on → USER CHALLENGE.
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (Design):**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Step 0 (Design Scope): Rate completeness 0-10. Check DESIGN.md. Map existing patterns.
|
||||
|
||||
2. Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent (foreground) first, then Codex. Present under
|
||||
CODEX SAYS (design — UX challenge) and CLAUDE SUBAGENT (design — independent review)
|
||||
headers. Produce design litmus scorecard (consensus table). Use the litmus scorecard
|
||||
format from plan-design-review. Include CEO phase findings in Codex prompt ONLY
|
||||
(not Claude subagent — stays independent).
|
||||
|
||||
3. Passes 1-7: Run each from loaded skill. Rate 0-10. Auto-decide each issue.
|
||||
DISAGREE items from scorecard → raised in the relevant pass with both perspectives.
|
||||
|
||||
**PHASE 2 COMPLETE.** Emit phase-transition summary:
|
||||
> **Phase 2 complete.** Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
|
||||
> Consensus: [X/Y confirmed, Z disagreements → surfaced at gate].
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 3.
|
||||
|
||||
Do NOT begin Phase 3 until all Phase 2 outputs (if run) are written to the plan file.
|
||||
> **STOP.** Before starting Phase 2 (design review — ONLY if UI scope was detected in Phase 0; skip the read entirely otherwise), Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/autoplan/sections/design-phase.md` and execute it
|
||||
> in full. Do not work from memory — that section is the source of truth for this step.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -978,219 +814,18 @@ Do NOT begin Phase 3 until all Phase 2 outputs (if run) are written to the plan
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 3: Eng Review + Dual Voices
|
||||
|
||||
Follow plan-eng-review/SKILL.md — all sections, full depth.
|
||||
Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
|
||||
**Override rules:**
|
||||
- Scope challenge: never reduce (P2)
|
||||
- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
|
||||
|
||||
**Codex eng voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
_REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
|
||||
_gstack_codex_timeout_wrapper 600 codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/gstack). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only.
|
||||
|
||||
Review this plan for architectural issues, missing edge cases,
|
||||
and hidden complexity. Be adversarial.
|
||||
|
||||
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'>
|
||||
|
||||
File: <plan_path>" -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only -c 'web_search="cached"' < /dev/null
|
||||
_CODEX_EXIT=$?
|
||||
if [ "$_CODEX_EXIT" = "124" ]; then
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_event "codex_timeout" "600"
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_hang "autoplan" "0"
|
||||
echo "[codex stalled past 10 minutes — tagging as [codex-unavailable] for this phase and proceeding with Claude subagent only]"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes (shell-wrapper) + 12 minutes (Bash outer gate). On hang, auto-degrades this phase's Codex voice.
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude eng subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
"Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent senior engineer
|
||||
reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Architecture: Is the component structure sound? Coupling concerns?
|
||||
2. Edge cases: What breaks under 10x load? What's the nil/empty/error path?
|
||||
3. Tests: What's missing from the test plan? What would break at 2am Friday?
|
||||
4. Security: New attack surface? Auth boundaries? Input validation?
|
||||
5. Hidden complexity: What looks simple but isn't?
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, severity, and the fix."
|
||||
NO prior-phase context — subagent must be truly independent.
|
||||
|
||||
Error handling: same as Phase 1 (both foreground/blocking, degradation matrix applies).
|
||||
|
||||
- Architecture choices: explicit over clever (P5). If codex disagrees with valid reason → TASTE DECISION. Scope changes both models agree on → USER CHALLENGE.
|
||||
- Evals: always include all relevant suites (P1)
|
||||
- Test plan: generate artifact at `~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/{user}-{branch}-test-plan-{datetime}.md`
|
||||
- TODOS.md: collect all deferred scope expansions from Phase 1, auto-write
|
||||
|
||||
**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 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent (foreground) first, then Codex. Present
|
||||
Codex output under CODEX SAYS (eng — architecture challenge) header. Present subagent
|
||||
output under CLAUDE SUBAGENT (eng — independent review) header. Produce eng consensus
|
||||
table:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
ENG DUAL VOICES — CONSENSUS TABLE:
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
Dimension Claude Codex Consensus
|
||||
──────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
|
||||
1. Architecture sound? — — —
|
||||
2. Test coverage sufficient? — — —
|
||||
3. Performance risks addressed? — — —
|
||||
4. Security threats covered? — — —
|
||||
5. Error paths handled? — — —
|
||||
6. Deployment risk manageable? — — —
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ (→ taste decision).
|
||||
Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = flagged regardless.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
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)
|
||||
|
||||
**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).
|
||||
> **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)
|
||||
|
||||
Follow plan-devex-review/SKILL.md — all 8 DX dimensions, full depth.
|
||||
Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
**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."
|
||||
|
||||
**Skip condition:** If DX scope was NOT detected in Phase 0, skip this phase entirely.
|
||||
Log: "Phase 3.5 skipped — no developer-facing scope detected."
|
||||
|
||||
**Override rules:**
|
||||
- Mode selection: DX POLISH
|
||||
- Persona: infer from README/docs, pick the most common developer type (P6)
|
||||
- Competitive benchmark: run searches if WebSearch available, use reference benchmarks otherwise (P1)
|
||||
- Magical moment: pick the lowest-effort delivery vehicle that achieves the competitive tier (P5)
|
||||
- Getting started friction: always optimize toward fewer steps (P5, simpler over clever)
|
||||
- Error message quality: always require problem + cause + fix (P1, completeness)
|
||||
- API/CLI naming: consistency wins over cleverness (P5)
|
||||
- DX taste decisions (e.g., opinionated defaults vs flexibility): mark TASTE DECISION
|
||||
- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
|
||||
|
||||
**Codex DX voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
_REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
|
||||
_gstack_codex_timeout_wrapper 600 codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/gstack). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only.
|
||||
|
||||
Read the plan file at <plan_path>. Evaluate this plan's developer experience.
|
||||
|
||||
Also consider these findings from prior review phases:
|
||||
CEO: <insert CEO consensus summary>
|
||||
Eng: <insert Eng consensus summary>
|
||||
|
||||
You are a developer who has never seen this product. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Time to hello world: how many steps from zero to working? Target is under 5 minutes.
|
||||
2. Error messages: when something goes wrong, does the dev know what, why, and how to fix?
|
||||
3. API/CLI design: are names guessable? Are defaults sensible? Is it consistent?
|
||||
4. Docs: can a dev find what they need in under 2 minutes? Are examples copy-paste-complete?
|
||||
5. Upgrade path: can devs upgrade without fear? Migration guides? Deprecation warnings?
|
||||
Be adversarial. Think like a developer who is evaluating this against 3 competitors." -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only -c 'web_search="cached"' < /dev/null
|
||||
_CODEX_EXIT=$?
|
||||
if [ "$_CODEX_EXIT" = "124" ]; then
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_event "codex_timeout" "600"
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_hang "autoplan" "0"
|
||||
echo "[codex stalled past 10 minutes — tagging as [codex-unavailable] for this phase and proceeding with Claude subagent only]"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes (shell-wrapper) + 12 minutes (Bash outer gate). On hang, auto-degrades this phase's Codex voice.
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude DX subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
"Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent DX engineer
|
||||
reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Getting started: how many steps from zero to hello world? What's the TTHW?
|
||||
2. API/CLI ergonomics: naming consistency, sensible defaults, progressive disclosure?
|
||||
3. Error handling: does every error path specify problem + cause + fix + docs link?
|
||||
4. Documentation: copy-paste examples? Information architecture? Interactive elements?
|
||||
5. Escape hatches: can developers override every opinionated default?
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix."
|
||||
NO prior-phase context — subagent must be truly independent.
|
||||
|
||||
Error handling: same as Phase 1 (both foreground/blocking, degradation matrix applies).
|
||||
|
||||
- DX choices: if codex disagrees with a DX decision with valid developer empathy reasoning
|
||||
→ TASTE DECISION. Scope changes both models agree on → USER CHALLENGE.
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (DX):**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Step 0 (DX Scope Assessment): Auto-detect product type. Map the developer journey.
|
||||
Rate initial DX completeness 0-10. Assess TTHW.
|
||||
|
||||
2. Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent (foreground) first, then Codex. Present
|
||||
under CODEX SAYS (DX — developer experience challenge) and CLAUDE SUBAGENT
|
||||
(DX — independent review) headers. Produce DX consensus table:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
DX DUAL VOICES — CONSENSUS TABLE:
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
Dimension Claude Codex Consensus
|
||||
──────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
|
||||
1. Getting started < 5 min? — — —
|
||||
2. API/CLI naming guessable? — — —
|
||||
3. Error messages actionable? — — —
|
||||
4. Docs findable & complete? — — —
|
||||
5. Upgrade path safe? — — —
|
||||
6. Dev environment friction-free? — — —
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ (→ taste decision).
|
||||
Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = flagged regardless.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
3. Passes 1-8: Run each from loaded skill. Rate 0-10. Auto-decide each issue.
|
||||
DISAGREE items from consensus table → raised in the relevant pass with both perspectives.
|
||||
|
||||
4. DX Scorecard: Produce the full scorecard with all 8 dimensions scored.
|
||||
|
||||
**Mandatory outputs from Phase 3.5:**
|
||||
- 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.
|
||||
> Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
|
||||
> Consensus: [X/6 confirmed, Y disagreements → surfaced at gate].
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 4 (Final Gate).
|
||||
> **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.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1269,84 +904,8 @@ noting which items are incomplete. Do not loop indefinitely.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 4: Final Approval Gate
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Tasks aggregator
|
||||
|
||||
Before rendering the Final Approval Gate output block below, aggregate the
|
||||
per-phase task lists each review skill wrote.
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)"
|
||||
TASKS_DIR="${HOME}/.gstack/projects/${SLUG:-unknown}"
|
||||
BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo unknown)
|
||||
# Commit window: last 5 commits on this branch. Drops stale standalone reviews.
|
||||
COMMITS_RECENT=$(git log --format=%H -n 5 2>/dev/null | tr '\n' '|' | sed 's/|$//')
|
||||
|
||||
AGGREGATED_TASKS=""
|
||||
if command -v jq >/dev/null 2>&1; then
|
||||
# Collect entries from all 4 phases, scoped to current branch + commit window.
|
||||
# For each phase, keep only the latest run_id. Within the surviving set,
|
||||
# dedupe by (component, sorted(files), title) — exact match only.
|
||||
# Sort by priority (P1 > P2 > P3) then by phase order.
|
||||
ALL_JSONL=$(mktemp -t autoplan-tasks.XXXXXXXX)
|
||||
for phase in ceo-review design-review eng-review devex-review; do
|
||||
# Use find instead of glob expansion — zsh nomatch errors otherwise when
|
||||
# a phase produced no JSONL files. Sorting by name keeps the order stable.
|
||||
while IFS= read -r f; do
|
||||
[ -f "$f" ] || continue
|
||||
# Filter to current branch + recent commits, then keep records for the
|
||||
# latest run_id only. (Single phase may have multiple files if the user
|
||||
# re-ran the review; aggregator takes the newest.)
|
||||
# .commit must be bound BEFORE piping to the split commit array: a
|
||||
# pipe rebinds jq's context, so a bare .commit after it indexes the
|
||||
# ARRAY with a string, every line errors into 2>/dev/null, and the
|
||||
# aggregate is empty forever — the #2018 zero-tasks bug.
|
||||
jq -c --arg branch "$BRANCH" --arg commits "$COMMITS_RECENT" \
|
||||
'.commit as $c | select(.branch == $branch and ($commits | split("|") | index($c) != null))' \
|
||||
"$f" 2>/dev/null >> "$ALL_JSONL" || true
|
||||
done < <(find "$TASKS_DIR" -maxdepth 1 -name "tasks-$phase-*.jsonl" 2>/dev/null | sort)
|
||||
# Reduce to latest run_id per phase
|
||||
if [ -s "$ALL_JSONL" ]; then
|
||||
jq -sc --arg phase "$phase" \
|
||||
'[.[] | select(.phase == $phase)] | (max_by(.run_id) // null) as $latest_run | if $latest_run then map(select(.run_id == $latest_run.run_id)) else [] end | .[]' \
|
||||
"$ALL_JSONL" > "$ALL_JSONL.phase" 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
# Replace with reduced version for this phase, accumulating others
|
||||
jq -c --arg phase "$phase" 'select(.phase != $phase)' "$ALL_JSONL" > "$ALL_JSONL.other" 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
cat "$ALL_JSONL.other" "$ALL_JSONL.phase" > "$ALL_JSONL"
|
||||
rm -f "$ALL_JSONL.phase" "$ALL_JSONL.other"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
done
|
||||
|
||||
# Exact-match dedup by (component, sorted(files), title). Non-matches kept
|
||||
# separately with a possible-duplicate marker injected by the renderer.
|
||||
AGGREGATED_TASKS=$(jq -s \
|
||||
'group_by([.component, (.files | sort), .title])
|
||||
| map(
|
||||
# Take the highest-priority entry per group; tie-break by phase order
|
||||
sort_by({P1:0,P2:1,P3:2}[.priority] // 99, {"ceo-review":0,"design-review":1,"eng-review":2,"devex-review":3}[.phase] // 99) | .[0]
|
||||
)
|
||||
| sort_by({P1:0,P2:1,P3:2}[.priority] // 99, {"ceo-review":0,"design-review":1,"eng-review":2,"devex-review":3}[.phase] // 99)
|
||||
| if length == 0 then "_No actionable tasks emitted from any phase._" else
|
||||
map("- [ ] **\(.id) (\(.priority), human: \(.effort_human) / CC: \(.effort_cc)) — \(.component)** — \(.title)\n - Surfaced by: \(.phase) — \(.source_finding)\n - Files: \(.files | join(", "))") | join("\n")
|
||||
end' "$ALL_JSONL" 2>/dev/null | sed 's/^"//;s/"$//;s/\\n/\n/g')
|
||||
rm -f "$ALL_JSONL"
|
||||
else
|
||||
AGGREGATED_TASKS="_jq not installed — install jq to aggregate per-phase task lists. Skipping._"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Inside the Final Approval Gate output template below, render the aggregated
|
||||
markdown in the `### Implementation Tasks (aggregated across phases)` section.
|
||||
Substitute the contents of `$AGGREGATED_TASKS` (the bash variable set above)
|
||||
before printing the message to the user. This is NOT a template placeholder
|
||||
— the agent does the substitution at runtime, not gen-skill-docs at build time.
|
||||
|
||||
If `$AGGREGATED_TASKS` is empty (no JSONL files found — none of the review
|
||||
skills ran in this session), render:
|
||||
|
||||
`_No per-phase task lists found in $TASKS_DIR for branch $BRANCH. Each review
|
||||
skill writes its own; if you ran one of them but no list appears here, check
|
||||
that jq is installed and the tasks-<phase>-*.jsonl files exist._`
|
||||
|
||||
> **STOP.** Before presenting the Final Approval Gate (Phase 4) — the aggregator computes $AGGREGATED_TASKS that the gate message substitutes, Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/autoplan/sections/tasks-aggregator.md` and execute it
|
||||
> in full. Do not work from memory — that section is the source of truth for this step.
|
||||
|
||||
**STOP here and present the final state to the user.**
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
+13
-393
@@ -48,6 +48,10 @@ surfaced at a final approval gate.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
{{SECTION_INDEX:autoplan}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The 6 Decision Principles
|
||||
|
||||
These rules auto-answer every intermediate question:
|
||||
@@ -282,120 +286,7 @@ Claude subagent only — saves token spend on Codex prompts we can't use.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 1: CEO Review (Strategy & Scope)
|
||||
|
||||
Follow plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md — all sections, full depth.
|
||||
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.
|
||||
- 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).
|
||||
Duplicates → reject (P4). Borderline (3-5 files) → mark TASTE DECISION.
|
||||
- All 10 review sections: run fully, auto-decide each issue, log every decision.
|
||||
- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
|
||||
Run them sequentially in foreground. First the Claude subagent (Agent tool
|
||||
with run_in_background: false — subagents default to BACKGROUND since
|
||||
Claude Code v2.1.198, so the flag must be explicitly false), then Codex
|
||||
(Bash). Both must complete before building the consensus table.
|
||||
|
||||
**Codex CEO voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
_REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
|
||||
_gstack_codex_timeout_wrapper 600 codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/gstack). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only.
|
||||
|
||||
You are a CEO/founder advisor reviewing a development plan.
|
||||
Challenge the strategic foundations: Are the premises valid or assumed? Is this the
|
||||
right problem to solve, or is there a reframing that would be 10x more impactful?
|
||||
What alternatives were dismissed too quickly? What competitive or market risks are
|
||||
unaddressed? What scope decisions will look foolish in 6 months? Be adversarial.
|
||||
No compliments. Just the strategic blind spots.
|
||||
File: <plan_path>" -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only {{CODEX_WEB_SEARCH_FLAG}} < /dev/null
|
||||
_CODEX_EXIT=$?
|
||||
if [ "$_CODEX_EXIT" = "124" ]; then
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_event "codex_timeout" "600"
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_hang "autoplan" "0"
|
||||
echo "[codex stalled past 10 minutes — tagging as [codex-unavailable] for this phase and proceeding with Claude subagent only]"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes (shell-wrapper) + 12 minutes (Bash outer gate). On hang, auto-degrades this phase's Codex voice.
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude CEO subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
"Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent CEO/strategist
|
||||
reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Is this the right problem to solve? Could a reframing yield 10x impact?
|
||||
2. Are the premises stated or just assumed? Which ones could be wrong?
|
||||
3. What's the 6-month regret scenario — what will look foolish?
|
||||
4. What alternatives were dismissed without sufficient analysis?
|
||||
5. What's the competitive risk — could someone else solve this first/better?
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix."
|
||||
|
||||
**Error handling:** Both calls block in foreground. Codex auth/timeout/empty → proceed with
|
||||
Claude subagent only, tagged `[single-model]`. If Claude subagent also fails →
|
||||
"Outside voices unavailable — continuing with primary review."
|
||||
|
||||
**Degradation matrix:** Both fail → "single-reviewer mode". Codex only →
|
||||
tag `[codex-only]`. Subagent only → tag `[subagent-only]`.
|
||||
|
||||
- Strategy choices: if codex disagrees with a premise or scope decision with valid
|
||||
strategic reason → TASTE DECISION. If both models agree the user's stated structure
|
||||
should change (merge, split, add, remove) → USER CHALLENGE (never auto-decided).
|
||||
|
||||
**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
|
||||
|
||||
Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent (foreground Agent tool) first, then
|
||||
Codex (Bash). Present Codex output under CODEX SAYS (CEO — strategy challenge)
|
||||
header. Present subagent output under CLAUDE SUBAGENT (CEO — strategic independence)
|
||||
header. Produce CEO consensus table:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
CEO DUAL VOICES — CONSENSUS TABLE:
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
Dimension Claude Codex Consensus
|
||||
──────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
|
||||
1. Premises valid? — — —
|
||||
2. Right problem to solve? — — —
|
||||
3. Scope calibration correct? — — —
|
||||
4. Alternatives sufficiently explored?— — —
|
||||
5. Competitive/market risks covered? — — —
|
||||
6. 6-month trajectory sound? — — —
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ (→ taste decision).
|
||||
Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = flagged regardless.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
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 1 COMPLETE.** Emit phase-transition summary:
|
||||
> **Phase 1 complete.** Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
|
||||
> 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.
|
||||
{{SECTION:ceo-phase}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -408,78 +299,10 @@ and the premise gate has been passed.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 2: Design Review (conditional — skip if no UI scope)
|
||||
|
||||
Follow plan-design-review/SKILL.md — all 7 dimensions, full depth.
|
||||
Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
**Skip condition:** If UI scope was NOT detected in Phase 0, skip this phase
|
||||
entirely — do NOT read its section. Log: "Phase 2 skipped — no UI scope detected."
|
||||
|
||||
**Override rules:**
|
||||
- Focus areas: all relevant dimensions (P1)
|
||||
- Structural issues (missing states, broken hierarchy): auto-fix (P5)
|
||||
- Aesthetic/taste issues: mark TASTE DECISION
|
||||
- Design system alignment: auto-fix if DESIGN.md exists and fix is obvious
|
||||
- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
|
||||
|
||||
**Codex design voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
_REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
|
||||
_gstack_codex_timeout_wrapper 600 codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/gstack). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only.
|
||||
|
||||
Read the plan file at <plan_path>. Evaluate this plan's
|
||||
UI/UX design decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
Also consider these findings from the CEO review phase:
|
||||
<insert CEO dual voice findings summary — key concerns, disagreements>
|
||||
|
||||
Does the information hierarchy serve the user or the developer? Are interaction
|
||||
states (loading, empty, error, partial) specified or left to the implementer's
|
||||
imagination? Is the responsive strategy intentional or afterthought? Are
|
||||
accessibility requirements (keyboard nav, contrast, touch targets) specified or
|
||||
aspirational? Does the plan describe specific UI decisions or generic patterns?
|
||||
What design decisions will haunt the implementer if left ambiguous?
|
||||
Be opinionated. No hedging." -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only {{CODEX_WEB_SEARCH_FLAG}} < /dev/null
|
||||
_CODEX_EXIT=$?
|
||||
if [ "$_CODEX_EXIT" = "124" ]; then
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_event "codex_timeout" "600"
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_hang "autoplan" "0"
|
||||
echo "[codex stalled past 10 minutes — tagging as [codex-unavailable] for this phase and proceeding with Claude subagent only]"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes (shell-wrapper) + 12 minutes (Bash outer gate). On hang, auto-degrades this phase's Codex voice.
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude design subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
"Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent senior product designer
|
||||
reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Information hierarchy: what does the user see first, second, third? Is it right?
|
||||
2. Missing states: loading, empty, error, success, partial — which are unspecified?
|
||||
3. User journey: what's the emotional arc? Where does it break?
|
||||
4. Specificity: does the plan describe SPECIFIC UI or generic patterns?
|
||||
5. What design decisions will haunt the implementer if left ambiguous?
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix."
|
||||
NO prior-phase context — subagent must be truly independent.
|
||||
|
||||
Error handling: same as Phase 1 (both foreground/blocking, degradation matrix applies).
|
||||
|
||||
- Design choices: if codex disagrees with a design decision with valid UX reasoning
|
||||
→ TASTE DECISION. Scope changes both models agree on → USER CHALLENGE.
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (Design):**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Step 0 (Design Scope): Rate completeness 0-10. Check DESIGN.md. Map existing patterns.
|
||||
|
||||
2. Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent (foreground) first, then Codex. Present under
|
||||
CODEX SAYS (design — UX challenge) and CLAUDE SUBAGENT (design — independent review)
|
||||
headers. Produce design litmus scorecard (consensus table). Use the litmus scorecard
|
||||
format from plan-design-review. Include CEO phase findings in Codex prompt ONLY
|
||||
(not Claude subagent — stays independent).
|
||||
|
||||
3. Passes 1-7: Run each from loaded skill. Rate 0-10. Auto-decide each issue.
|
||||
DISAGREE items from scorecard → raised in the relevant pass with both perspectives.
|
||||
|
||||
**PHASE 2 COMPLETE.** Emit phase-transition summary:
|
||||
> **Phase 2 complete.** Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
|
||||
> Consensus: [X/Y confirmed, Z disagreements → surfaced at gate].
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 3.
|
||||
|
||||
Do NOT begin Phase 3 until all Phase 2 outputs (if run) are written to the plan file.
|
||||
{{SECTION:design-phase}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -492,219 +315,16 @@ Do NOT begin Phase 3 until all Phase 2 outputs (if run) are written to the plan
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 3: Eng Review + Dual Voices
|
||||
|
||||
Follow plan-eng-review/SKILL.md — all sections, full depth.
|
||||
Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
|
||||
**Override rules:**
|
||||
- Scope challenge: never reduce (P2)
|
||||
- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
|
||||
|
||||
**Codex eng voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
_REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
|
||||
_gstack_codex_timeout_wrapper 600 codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/gstack). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only.
|
||||
|
||||
Review this plan for architectural issues, missing edge cases,
|
||||
and hidden complexity. Be adversarial.
|
||||
|
||||
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'>
|
||||
|
||||
File: <plan_path>" -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only {{CODEX_WEB_SEARCH_FLAG}} < /dev/null
|
||||
_CODEX_EXIT=$?
|
||||
if [ "$_CODEX_EXIT" = "124" ]; then
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_event "codex_timeout" "600"
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_hang "autoplan" "0"
|
||||
echo "[codex stalled past 10 minutes — tagging as [codex-unavailable] for this phase and proceeding with Claude subagent only]"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes (shell-wrapper) + 12 minutes (Bash outer gate). On hang, auto-degrades this phase's Codex voice.
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude eng subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
"Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent senior engineer
|
||||
reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Architecture: Is the component structure sound? Coupling concerns?
|
||||
2. Edge cases: What breaks under 10x load? What's the nil/empty/error path?
|
||||
3. Tests: What's missing from the test plan? What would break at 2am Friday?
|
||||
4. Security: New attack surface? Auth boundaries? Input validation?
|
||||
5. Hidden complexity: What looks simple but isn't?
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, severity, and the fix."
|
||||
NO prior-phase context — subagent must be truly independent.
|
||||
|
||||
Error handling: same as Phase 1 (both foreground/blocking, degradation matrix applies).
|
||||
|
||||
- Architecture choices: explicit over clever (P5). If codex disagrees with valid reason → TASTE DECISION. Scope changes both models agree on → USER CHALLENGE.
|
||||
- Evals: always include all relevant suites (P1)
|
||||
- Test plan: generate artifact at `~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/{user}-{branch}-test-plan-{datetime}.md`
|
||||
- TODOS.md: collect all deferred scope expansions from Phase 1, auto-write
|
||||
|
||||
**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 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent (foreground) first, then Codex. Present
|
||||
Codex output under CODEX SAYS (eng — architecture challenge) header. Present subagent
|
||||
output under CLAUDE SUBAGENT (eng — independent review) header. Produce eng consensus
|
||||
table:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
ENG DUAL VOICES — CONSENSUS TABLE:
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
Dimension Claude Codex Consensus
|
||||
──────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
|
||||
1. Architecture sound? — — —
|
||||
2. Test coverage sufficient? — — —
|
||||
3. Performance risks addressed? — — —
|
||||
4. Security threats covered? — — —
|
||||
5. Error paths handled? — — —
|
||||
6. Deployment risk manageable? — — —
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ (→ taste decision).
|
||||
Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = flagged regardless.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
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)
|
||||
|
||||
**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).
|
||||
{{SECTION:eng-phase}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 3.5: DX Review (conditional — skip if no developer-facing scope)
|
||||
|
||||
Follow plan-devex-review/SKILL.md — all 8 DX dimensions, full depth.
|
||||
Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
**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."
|
||||
|
||||
**Skip condition:** If DX scope was NOT detected in Phase 0, skip this phase entirely.
|
||||
Log: "Phase 3.5 skipped — no developer-facing scope detected."
|
||||
|
||||
**Override rules:**
|
||||
- Mode selection: DX POLISH
|
||||
- Persona: infer from README/docs, pick the most common developer type (P6)
|
||||
- Competitive benchmark: run searches if WebSearch available, use reference benchmarks otherwise (P1)
|
||||
- Magical moment: pick the lowest-effort delivery vehicle that achieves the competitive tier (P5)
|
||||
- Getting started friction: always optimize toward fewer steps (P5, simpler over clever)
|
||||
- Error message quality: always require problem + cause + fix (P1, completeness)
|
||||
- API/CLI naming: consistency wins over cleverness (P5)
|
||||
- DX taste decisions (e.g., opinionated defaults vs flexibility): mark TASTE DECISION
|
||||
- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
|
||||
|
||||
**Codex DX voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
_REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
|
||||
_gstack_codex_timeout_wrapper 600 codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/gstack). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only.
|
||||
|
||||
Read the plan file at <plan_path>. Evaluate this plan's developer experience.
|
||||
|
||||
Also consider these findings from prior review phases:
|
||||
CEO: <insert CEO consensus summary>
|
||||
Eng: <insert Eng consensus summary>
|
||||
|
||||
You are a developer who has never seen this product. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Time to hello world: how many steps from zero to working? Target is under 5 minutes.
|
||||
2. Error messages: when something goes wrong, does the dev know what, why, and how to fix?
|
||||
3. API/CLI design: are names guessable? Are defaults sensible? Is it consistent?
|
||||
4. Docs: can a dev find what they need in under 2 minutes? Are examples copy-paste-complete?
|
||||
5. Upgrade path: can devs upgrade without fear? Migration guides? Deprecation warnings?
|
||||
Be adversarial. Think like a developer who is evaluating this against 3 competitors." -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only {{CODEX_WEB_SEARCH_FLAG}} < /dev/null
|
||||
_CODEX_EXIT=$?
|
||||
if [ "$_CODEX_EXIT" = "124" ]; then
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_event "codex_timeout" "600"
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_hang "autoplan" "0"
|
||||
echo "[codex stalled past 10 minutes — tagging as [codex-unavailable] for this phase and proceeding with Claude subagent only]"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes (shell-wrapper) + 12 minutes (Bash outer gate). On hang, auto-degrades this phase's Codex voice.
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude DX subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
"Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent DX engineer
|
||||
reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Getting started: how many steps from zero to hello world? What's the TTHW?
|
||||
2. API/CLI ergonomics: naming consistency, sensible defaults, progressive disclosure?
|
||||
3. Error handling: does every error path specify problem + cause + fix + docs link?
|
||||
4. Documentation: copy-paste examples? Information architecture? Interactive elements?
|
||||
5. Escape hatches: can developers override every opinionated default?
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix."
|
||||
NO prior-phase context — subagent must be truly independent.
|
||||
|
||||
Error handling: same as Phase 1 (both foreground/blocking, degradation matrix applies).
|
||||
|
||||
- DX choices: if codex disagrees with a DX decision with valid developer empathy reasoning
|
||||
→ TASTE DECISION. Scope changes both models agree on → USER CHALLENGE.
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (DX):**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Step 0 (DX Scope Assessment): Auto-detect product type. Map the developer journey.
|
||||
Rate initial DX completeness 0-10. Assess TTHW.
|
||||
|
||||
2. Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent (foreground) first, then Codex. Present
|
||||
under CODEX SAYS (DX — developer experience challenge) and CLAUDE SUBAGENT
|
||||
(DX — independent review) headers. Produce DX consensus table:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
DX DUAL VOICES — CONSENSUS TABLE:
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
Dimension Claude Codex Consensus
|
||||
──────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
|
||||
1. Getting started < 5 min? — — —
|
||||
2. API/CLI naming guessable? — — —
|
||||
3. Error messages actionable? — — —
|
||||
4. Docs findable & complete? — — —
|
||||
5. Upgrade path safe? — — —
|
||||
6. Dev environment friction-free? — — —
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ (→ taste decision).
|
||||
Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = flagged regardless.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
3. Passes 1-8: Run each from loaded skill. Rate 0-10. Auto-decide each issue.
|
||||
DISAGREE items from consensus table → raised in the relevant pass with both perspectives.
|
||||
|
||||
4. DX Scorecard: Produce the full scorecard with all 8 dimensions scored.
|
||||
|
||||
**Mandatory outputs from Phase 3.5:**
|
||||
- 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.
|
||||
> Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
|
||||
> Consensus: [X/6 confirmed, Y disagreements → surfaced at gate].
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 4 (Final Gate).
|
||||
{{SECTION:dx-phase}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -783,7 +403,7 @@ noting which items are incomplete. Do not loop indefinitely.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 4: Final Approval Gate
|
||||
|
||||
{{TASKS_SECTION_AGGREGATE}}
|
||||
{{SECTION:tasks-aggregator}}
|
||||
|
||||
**STOP here and present the final state to the user.**
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
|
||||
<!-- AUTO-GENERATED from ceo-phase.md.tmpl — do not edit directly -->
|
||||
<!-- Regenerate: bun run gen:skill-docs -->
|
||||
Follow plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md — all sections, full depth.
|
||||
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.
|
||||
- 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).
|
||||
Duplicates → reject (P4). Borderline (3-5 files) → mark TASTE DECISION.
|
||||
- All 10 review sections: run fully, auto-decide each issue, log every decision.
|
||||
- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
|
||||
Run them sequentially in foreground. First the Claude subagent (Agent tool
|
||||
with run_in_background: false — subagents default to BACKGROUND since
|
||||
Claude Code v2.1.198, so the flag must be explicitly false), then Codex
|
||||
(Bash). Both must complete before building the consensus table.
|
||||
|
||||
**Codex CEO voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
_REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
|
||||
_gstack_codex_timeout_wrapper 600 codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/gstack). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only.
|
||||
|
||||
You are a CEO/founder advisor reviewing a development plan.
|
||||
Challenge the strategic foundations: Are the premises valid or assumed? Is this the
|
||||
right problem to solve, or is there a reframing that would be 10x more impactful?
|
||||
What alternatives were dismissed too quickly? What competitive or market risks are
|
||||
unaddressed? What scope decisions will look foolish in 6 months? Be adversarial.
|
||||
No compliments. Just the strategic blind spots.
|
||||
File: <plan_path>" -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only -c 'web_search="cached"' < /dev/null
|
||||
_CODEX_EXIT=$?
|
||||
if [ "$_CODEX_EXIT" = "124" ]; then
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_event "codex_timeout" "600"
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_hang "autoplan" "0"
|
||||
echo "[codex stalled past 10 minutes — tagging as [codex-unavailable] for this phase and proceeding with Claude subagent only]"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes (shell-wrapper) + 12 minutes (Bash outer gate). On hang, auto-degrades this phase's Codex voice.
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude CEO subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
"Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent CEO/strategist
|
||||
reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Is this the right problem to solve? Could a reframing yield 10x impact?
|
||||
2. Are the premises stated or just assumed? Which ones could be wrong?
|
||||
3. What's the 6-month regret scenario — what will look foolish?
|
||||
4. What alternatives were dismissed without sufficient analysis?
|
||||
5. What's the competitive risk — could someone else solve this first/better?
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix."
|
||||
|
||||
**Error handling:** Both calls block in foreground. Codex auth/timeout/empty → proceed with
|
||||
Claude subagent only, tagged `[single-model]`. If Claude subagent also fails →
|
||||
"Outside voices unavailable — continuing with primary review."
|
||||
|
||||
**Degradation matrix:** Both fail → "single-reviewer mode". Codex only →
|
||||
tag `[codex-only]`. Subagent only → tag `[subagent-only]`.
|
||||
|
||||
- Strategy choices: if codex disagrees with a premise or scope decision with valid
|
||||
strategic reason → TASTE DECISION. If both models agree the user's stated structure
|
||||
should change (merge, split, add, remove) → USER CHALLENGE (never auto-decided).
|
||||
|
||||
**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
|
||||
|
||||
Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent (foreground Agent tool) first, then
|
||||
Codex (Bash). Present Codex output under CODEX SAYS (CEO — strategy challenge)
|
||||
header. Present subagent output under CLAUDE SUBAGENT (CEO — strategic independence)
|
||||
header. Produce CEO consensus table:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
CEO DUAL VOICES — CONSENSUS TABLE:
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
Dimension Claude Codex Consensus
|
||||
──────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
|
||||
1. Premises valid? — — —
|
||||
2. Right problem to solve? — — —
|
||||
3. Scope calibration correct? — — —
|
||||
4. Alternatives sufficiently explored?— — —
|
||||
5. Competitive/market risks covered? — — —
|
||||
6. 6-month trajectory sound? — — —
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ (→ taste decision).
|
||||
Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = flagged regardless.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
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 1 COMPLETE.** Emit phase-transition summary:
|
||||
> **Phase 1 complete.** Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
|
||||
> 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.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
|
||||
Follow plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md — all sections, full depth.
|
||||
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.
|
||||
- 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).
|
||||
Duplicates → reject (P4). Borderline (3-5 files) → mark TASTE DECISION.
|
||||
- All 10 review sections: run fully, auto-decide each issue, log every decision.
|
||||
- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
|
||||
Run them sequentially in foreground. First the Claude subagent (Agent tool
|
||||
with run_in_background: false — subagents default to BACKGROUND since
|
||||
Claude Code v2.1.198, so the flag must be explicitly false), then Codex
|
||||
(Bash). Both must complete before building the consensus table.
|
||||
|
||||
**Codex CEO voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
_REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
|
||||
_gstack_codex_timeout_wrapper 600 codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/gstack). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only.
|
||||
|
||||
You are a CEO/founder advisor reviewing a development plan.
|
||||
Challenge the strategic foundations: Are the premises valid or assumed? Is this the
|
||||
right problem to solve, or is there a reframing that would be 10x more impactful?
|
||||
What alternatives were dismissed too quickly? What competitive or market risks are
|
||||
unaddressed? What scope decisions will look foolish in 6 months? Be adversarial.
|
||||
No compliments. Just the strategic blind spots.
|
||||
File: <plan_path>" -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only {{CODEX_WEB_SEARCH_FLAG}} < /dev/null
|
||||
_CODEX_EXIT=$?
|
||||
if [ "$_CODEX_EXIT" = "124" ]; then
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_event "codex_timeout" "600"
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_hang "autoplan" "0"
|
||||
echo "[codex stalled past 10 minutes — tagging as [codex-unavailable] for this phase and proceeding with Claude subagent only]"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes (shell-wrapper) + 12 minutes (Bash outer gate). On hang, auto-degrades this phase's Codex voice.
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude CEO subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
"Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent CEO/strategist
|
||||
reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Is this the right problem to solve? Could a reframing yield 10x impact?
|
||||
2. Are the premises stated or just assumed? Which ones could be wrong?
|
||||
3. What's the 6-month regret scenario — what will look foolish?
|
||||
4. What alternatives were dismissed without sufficient analysis?
|
||||
5. What's the competitive risk — could someone else solve this first/better?
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix."
|
||||
|
||||
**Error handling:** Both calls block in foreground. Codex auth/timeout/empty → proceed with
|
||||
Claude subagent only, tagged `[single-model]`. If Claude subagent also fails →
|
||||
"Outside voices unavailable — continuing with primary review."
|
||||
|
||||
**Degradation matrix:** Both fail → "single-reviewer mode". Codex only →
|
||||
tag `[codex-only]`. Subagent only → tag `[subagent-only]`.
|
||||
|
||||
- Strategy choices: if codex disagrees with a premise or scope decision with valid
|
||||
strategic reason → TASTE DECISION. If both models agree the user's stated structure
|
||||
should change (merge, split, add, remove) → USER CHALLENGE (never auto-decided).
|
||||
|
||||
**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
|
||||
|
||||
Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent (foreground Agent tool) first, then
|
||||
Codex (Bash). Present Codex output under CODEX SAYS (CEO — strategy challenge)
|
||||
header. Present subagent output under CLAUDE SUBAGENT (CEO — strategic independence)
|
||||
header. Produce CEO consensus table:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
CEO DUAL VOICES — CONSENSUS TABLE:
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
Dimension Claude Codex Consensus
|
||||
──────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
|
||||
1. Premises valid? — — —
|
||||
2. Right problem to solve? — — —
|
||||
3. Scope calibration correct? — — —
|
||||
4. Alternatives sufficiently explored?— — —
|
||||
5. Competitive/market risks covered? — — —
|
||||
6. 6-month trajectory sound? — — —
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ (→ taste decision).
|
||||
Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = flagged regardless.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
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 1 COMPLETE.** Emit phase-transition summary:
|
||||
> **Phase 1 complete.** Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
|
||||
> 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.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
|
||||
<!-- AUTO-GENERATED from design-phase.md.tmpl — do not edit directly -->
|
||||
<!-- Regenerate: bun run gen:skill-docs -->
|
||||
Follow plan-design-review/SKILL.md — all 7 dimensions, full depth.
|
||||
Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
|
||||
**Override rules:**
|
||||
- Focus areas: all relevant dimensions (P1)
|
||||
- Structural issues (missing states, broken hierarchy): auto-fix (P5)
|
||||
- Aesthetic/taste issues: mark TASTE DECISION
|
||||
- Design system alignment: auto-fix if DESIGN.md exists and fix is obvious
|
||||
- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
|
||||
|
||||
**Codex design voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
_REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
|
||||
_gstack_codex_timeout_wrapper 600 codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/gstack). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only.
|
||||
|
||||
Read the plan file at <plan_path>. Evaluate this plan's
|
||||
UI/UX design decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
Also consider these findings from the CEO review phase:
|
||||
<insert CEO dual voice findings summary — key concerns, disagreements>
|
||||
|
||||
Does the information hierarchy serve the user or the developer? Are interaction
|
||||
states (loading, empty, error, partial) specified or left to the implementer's
|
||||
imagination? Is the responsive strategy intentional or afterthought? Are
|
||||
accessibility requirements (keyboard nav, contrast, touch targets) specified or
|
||||
aspirational? Does the plan describe specific UI decisions or generic patterns?
|
||||
What design decisions will haunt the implementer if left ambiguous?
|
||||
Be opinionated. No hedging." -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only -c 'web_search="cached"' < /dev/null
|
||||
_CODEX_EXIT=$?
|
||||
if [ "$_CODEX_EXIT" = "124" ]; then
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_event "codex_timeout" "600"
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_hang "autoplan" "0"
|
||||
echo "[codex stalled past 10 minutes — tagging as [codex-unavailable] for this phase and proceeding with Claude subagent only]"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes (shell-wrapper) + 12 minutes (Bash outer gate). On hang, auto-degrades this phase's Codex voice.
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude design subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
"Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent senior product designer
|
||||
reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Information hierarchy: what does the user see first, second, third? Is it right?
|
||||
2. Missing states: loading, empty, error, success, partial — which are unspecified?
|
||||
3. User journey: what's the emotional arc? Where does it break?
|
||||
4. Specificity: does the plan describe SPECIFIC UI or generic patterns?
|
||||
5. What design decisions will haunt the implementer if left ambiguous?
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix."
|
||||
NO prior-phase context — subagent must be truly independent.
|
||||
|
||||
Error handling: same as Phase 1 (both foreground/blocking, degradation matrix applies).
|
||||
|
||||
- Design choices: if codex disagrees with a design decision with valid UX reasoning
|
||||
→ TASTE DECISION. Scope changes both models agree on → USER CHALLENGE.
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (Design):**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Step 0 (Design Scope): Rate completeness 0-10. Check DESIGN.md. Map existing patterns.
|
||||
|
||||
2. Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent (foreground) first, then Codex. Present under
|
||||
CODEX SAYS (design — UX challenge) and CLAUDE SUBAGENT (design — independent review)
|
||||
headers. Produce design litmus scorecard (consensus table). Use the litmus scorecard
|
||||
format from plan-design-review. Include CEO phase findings in Codex prompt ONLY
|
||||
(not Claude subagent — stays independent).
|
||||
|
||||
3. Passes 1-7: Run each from loaded skill. Rate 0-10. Auto-decide each issue.
|
||||
DISAGREE items from scorecard → raised in the relevant pass with both perspectives.
|
||||
|
||||
**PHASE 2 COMPLETE.** Emit phase-transition summary:
|
||||
> **Phase 2 complete.** Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
|
||||
> Consensus: [X/Y confirmed, Z disagreements → surfaced at gate].
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 3.
|
||||
|
||||
Do NOT begin Phase 3 until all Phase 2 outputs (if run) are written to the plan file.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
|
||||
Follow plan-design-review/SKILL.md — all 7 dimensions, full depth.
|
||||
Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
|
||||
**Override rules:**
|
||||
- Focus areas: all relevant dimensions (P1)
|
||||
- Structural issues (missing states, broken hierarchy): auto-fix (P5)
|
||||
- Aesthetic/taste issues: mark TASTE DECISION
|
||||
- Design system alignment: auto-fix if DESIGN.md exists and fix is obvious
|
||||
- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
|
||||
|
||||
**Codex design voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
_REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
|
||||
_gstack_codex_timeout_wrapper 600 codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/gstack). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only.
|
||||
|
||||
Read the plan file at <plan_path>. Evaluate this plan's
|
||||
UI/UX design decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
Also consider these findings from the CEO review phase:
|
||||
<insert CEO dual voice findings summary — key concerns, disagreements>
|
||||
|
||||
Does the information hierarchy serve the user or the developer? Are interaction
|
||||
states (loading, empty, error, partial) specified or left to the implementer's
|
||||
imagination? Is the responsive strategy intentional or afterthought? Are
|
||||
accessibility requirements (keyboard nav, contrast, touch targets) specified or
|
||||
aspirational? Does the plan describe specific UI decisions or generic patterns?
|
||||
What design decisions will haunt the implementer if left ambiguous?
|
||||
Be opinionated. No hedging." -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only {{CODEX_WEB_SEARCH_FLAG}} < /dev/null
|
||||
_CODEX_EXIT=$?
|
||||
if [ "$_CODEX_EXIT" = "124" ]; then
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_event "codex_timeout" "600"
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_hang "autoplan" "0"
|
||||
echo "[codex stalled past 10 minutes — tagging as [codex-unavailable] for this phase and proceeding with Claude subagent only]"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes (shell-wrapper) + 12 minutes (Bash outer gate). On hang, auto-degrades this phase's Codex voice.
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude design subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
"Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent senior product designer
|
||||
reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Information hierarchy: what does the user see first, second, third? Is it right?
|
||||
2. Missing states: loading, empty, error, success, partial — which are unspecified?
|
||||
3. User journey: what's the emotional arc? Where does it break?
|
||||
4. Specificity: does the plan describe SPECIFIC UI or generic patterns?
|
||||
5. What design decisions will haunt the implementer if left ambiguous?
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix."
|
||||
NO prior-phase context — subagent must be truly independent.
|
||||
|
||||
Error handling: same as Phase 1 (both foreground/blocking, degradation matrix applies).
|
||||
|
||||
- Design choices: if codex disagrees with a design decision with valid UX reasoning
|
||||
→ TASTE DECISION. Scope changes both models agree on → USER CHALLENGE.
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (Design):**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Step 0 (Design Scope): Rate completeness 0-10. Check DESIGN.md. Map existing patterns.
|
||||
|
||||
2. Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent (foreground) first, then Codex. Present under
|
||||
CODEX SAYS (design — UX challenge) and CLAUDE SUBAGENT (design — independent review)
|
||||
headers. Produce design litmus scorecard (consensus table). Use the litmus scorecard
|
||||
format from plan-design-review. Include CEO phase findings in Codex prompt ONLY
|
||||
(not Claude subagent — stays independent).
|
||||
|
||||
3. Passes 1-7: Run each from loaded skill. Rate 0-10. Auto-decide each issue.
|
||||
DISAGREE items from scorecard → raised in the relevant pass with both perspectives.
|
||||
|
||||
**PHASE 2 COMPLETE.** Emit phase-transition summary:
|
||||
> **Phase 2 complete.** Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
|
||||
> Consensus: [X/Y confirmed, Z disagreements → surfaced at gate].
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 3.
|
||||
|
||||
Do NOT begin Phase 3 until all Phase 2 outputs (if run) are written to the plan file.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
|
||||
<!-- AUTO-GENERATED from dx-phase.md.tmpl — do not edit directly -->
|
||||
<!-- Regenerate: bun run gen:skill-docs -->
|
||||
Follow plan-devex-review/SKILL.md — all 8 DX dimensions, full depth.
|
||||
Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
|
||||
**Override rules:**
|
||||
- Mode selection: DX POLISH
|
||||
- Persona: infer from README/docs, pick the most common developer type (P6)
|
||||
- Competitive benchmark: run searches if WebSearch available, use reference benchmarks otherwise (P1)
|
||||
- Magical moment: pick the lowest-effort delivery vehicle that achieves the competitive tier (P5)
|
||||
- Getting started friction: always optimize toward fewer steps (P5, simpler over clever)
|
||||
- Error message quality: always require problem + cause + fix (P1, completeness)
|
||||
- API/CLI naming: consistency wins over cleverness (P5)
|
||||
- DX taste decisions (e.g., opinionated defaults vs flexibility): mark TASTE DECISION
|
||||
- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
|
||||
|
||||
**Codex DX voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
_REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
|
||||
_gstack_codex_timeout_wrapper 600 codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/gstack). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only.
|
||||
|
||||
Read the plan file at <plan_path>. Evaluate this plan's developer experience.
|
||||
|
||||
Also consider these findings from prior review phases:
|
||||
CEO: <insert CEO consensus summary>
|
||||
Eng: <insert Eng consensus summary>
|
||||
|
||||
You are a developer who has never seen this product. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Time to hello world: how many steps from zero to working? Target is under 5 minutes.
|
||||
2. Error messages: when something goes wrong, does the dev know what, why, and how to fix?
|
||||
3. API/CLI design: are names guessable? Are defaults sensible? Is it consistent?
|
||||
4. Docs: can a dev find what they need in under 2 minutes? Are examples copy-paste-complete?
|
||||
5. Upgrade path: can devs upgrade without fear? Migration guides? Deprecation warnings?
|
||||
Be adversarial. Think like a developer who is evaluating this against 3 competitors." -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only -c 'web_search="cached"' < /dev/null
|
||||
_CODEX_EXIT=$?
|
||||
if [ "$_CODEX_EXIT" = "124" ]; then
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_event "codex_timeout" "600"
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_hang "autoplan" "0"
|
||||
echo "[codex stalled past 10 minutes — tagging as [codex-unavailable] for this phase and proceeding with Claude subagent only]"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes (shell-wrapper) + 12 minutes (Bash outer gate). On hang, auto-degrades this phase's Codex voice.
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude DX subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
"Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent DX engineer
|
||||
reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Getting started: how many steps from zero to hello world? What's the TTHW?
|
||||
2. API/CLI ergonomics: naming consistency, sensible defaults, progressive disclosure?
|
||||
3. Error handling: does every error path specify problem + cause + fix + docs link?
|
||||
4. Documentation: copy-paste examples? Information architecture? Interactive elements?
|
||||
5. Escape hatches: can developers override every opinionated default?
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix."
|
||||
NO prior-phase context — subagent must be truly independent.
|
||||
|
||||
Error handling: same as Phase 1 (both foreground/blocking, degradation matrix applies).
|
||||
|
||||
- DX choices: if codex disagrees with a DX decision with valid developer empathy reasoning
|
||||
→ TASTE DECISION. Scope changes both models agree on → USER CHALLENGE.
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (DX):**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Step 0 (DX Scope Assessment): Auto-detect product type. Map the developer journey.
|
||||
Rate initial DX completeness 0-10. Assess TTHW.
|
||||
|
||||
2. Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent (foreground) first, then Codex. Present
|
||||
under CODEX SAYS (DX — developer experience challenge) and CLAUDE SUBAGENT
|
||||
(DX — independent review) headers. Produce DX consensus table:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
DX DUAL VOICES — CONSENSUS TABLE:
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
Dimension Claude Codex Consensus
|
||||
──────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
|
||||
1. Getting started < 5 min? — — —
|
||||
2. API/CLI naming guessable? — — —
|
||||
3. Error messages actionable? — — —
|
||||
4. Docs findable & complete? — — —
|
||||
5. Upgrade path safe? — — —
|
||||
6. Dev environment friction-free? — — —
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ (→ taste decision).
|
||||
Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = flagged regardless.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
3. Passes 1-8: Run each from loaded skill. Rate 0-10. Auto-decide each issue.
|
||||
DISAGREE items from consensus table → raised in the relevant pass with both perspectives.
|
||||
|
||||
4. DX Scorecard: Produce the full scorecard with all 8 dimensions scored.
|
||||
|
||||
**Mandatory outputs from Phase 3.5:**
|
||||
- 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.
|
||||
> Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
|
||||
> Consensus: [X/6 confirmed, Y disagreements → surfaced at gate].
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 4 (Final Gate).
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
|
||||
Follow plan-devex-review/SKILL.md — all 8 DX dimensions, full depth.
|
||||
Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
|
||||
**Override rules:**
|
||||
- Mode selection: DX POLISH
|
||||
- Persona: infer from README/docs, pick the most common developer type (P6)
|
||||
- Competitive benchmark: run searches if WebSearch available, use reference benchmarks otherwise (P1)
|
||||
- Magical moment: pick the lowest-effort delivery vehicle that achieves the competitive tier (P5)
|
||||
- Getting started friction: always optimize toward fewer steps (P5, simpler over clever)
|
||||
- Error message quality: always require problem + cause + fix (P1, completeness)
|
||||
- API/CLI naming: consistency wins over cleverness (P5)
|
||||
- DX taste decisions (e.g., opinionated defaults vs flexibility): mark TASTE DECISION
|
||||
- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
|
||||
|
||||
**Codex DX voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
_REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
|
||||
_gstack_codex_timeout_wrapper 600 codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/gstack). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only.
|
||||
|
||||
Read the plan file at <plan_path>. Evaluate this plan's developer experience.
|
||||
|
||||
Also consider these findings from prior review phases:
|
||||
CEO: <insert CEO consensus summary>
|
||||
Eng: <insert Eng consensus summary>
|
||||
|
||||
You are a developer who has never seen this product. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Time to hello world: how many steps from zero to working? Target is under 5 minutes.
|
||||
2. Error messages: when something goes wrong, does the dev know what, why, and how to fix?
|
||||
3. API/CLI design: are names guessable? Are defaults sensible? Is it consistent?
|
||||
4. Docs: can a dev find what they need in under 2 minutes? Are examples copy-paste-complete?
|
||||
5. Upgrade path: can devs upgrade without fear? Migration guides? Deprecation warnings?
|
||||
Be adversarial. Think like a developer who is evaluating this against 3 competitors." -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only {{CODEX_WEB_SEARCH_FLAG}} < /dev/null
|
||||
_CODEX_EXIT=$?
|
||||
if [ "$_CODEX_EXIT" = "124" ]; then
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_event "codex_timeout" "600"
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_hang "autoplan" "0"
|
||||
echo "[codex stalled past 10 minutes — tagging as [codex-unavailable] for this phase and proceeding with Claude subagent only]"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes (shell-wrapper) + 12 minutes (Bash outer gate). On hang, auto-degrades this phase's Codex voice.
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude DX subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
"Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent DX engineer
|
||||
reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Getting started: how many steps from zero to hello world? What's the TTHW?
|
||||
2. API/CLI ergonomics: naming consistency, sensible defaults, progressive disclosure?
|
||||
3. Error handling: does every error path specify problem + cause + fix + docs link?
|
||||
4. Documentation: copy-paste examples? Information architecture? Interactive elements?
|
||||
5. Escape hatches: can developers override every opinionated default?
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix."
|
||||
NO prior-phase context — subagent must be truly independent.
|
||||
|
||||
Error handling: same as Phase 1 (both foreground/blocking, degradation matrix applies).
|
||||
|
||||
- DX choices: if codex disagrees with a DX decision with valid developer empathy reasoning
|
||||
→ TASTE DECISION. Scope changes both models agree on → USER CHALLENGE.
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (DX):**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Step 0 (DX Scope Assessment): Auto-detect product type. Map the developer journey.
|
||||
Rate initial DX completeness 0-10. Assess TTHW.
|
||||
|
||||
2. Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent (foreground) first, then Codex. Present
|
||||
under CODEX SAYS (DX — developer experience challenge) and CLAUDE SUBAGENT
|
||||
(DX — independent review) headers. Produce DX consensus table:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
DX DUAL VOICES — CONSENSUS TABLE:
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
Dimension Claude Codex Consensus
|
||||
──────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
|
||||
1. Getting started < 5 min? — — —
|
||||
2. API/CLI naming guessable? — — —
|
||||
3. Error messages actionable? — — —
|
||||
4. Docs findable & complete? — — —
|
||||
5. Upgrade path safe? — — —
|
||||
6. Dev environment friction-free? — — —
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ (→ taste decision).
|
||||
Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = flagged regardless.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
3. Passes 1-8: Run each from loaded skill. Rate 0-10. Auto-decide each issue.
|
||||
DISAGREE items from consensus table → raised in the relevant pass with both perspectives.
|
||||
|
||||
4. DX Scorecard: Produce the full scorecard with all 8 dimensions scored.
|
||||
|
||||
**Mandatory outputs from Phase 3.5:**
|
||||
- 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.
|
||||
> Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
|
||||
> Consensus: [X/6 confirmed, Y disagreements → surfaced at gate].
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 4 (Final Gate).
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
|
||||
<!-- AUTO-GENERATED from eng-phase.md.tmpl — do not edit directly -->
|
||||
<!-- Regenerate: bun run gen:skill-docs -->
|
||||
Follow plan-eng-review/SKILL.md — all sections, full depth.
|
||||
Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
|
||||
**Override rules:**
|
||||
- Scope challenge: never reduce (P2)
|
||||
- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
|
||||
|
||||
**Codex eng voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
_REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
|
||||
_gstack_codex_timeout_wrapper 600 codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/gstack). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only.
|
||||
|
||||
Review this plan for architectural issues, missing edge cases,
|
||||
and hidden complexity. Be adversarial.
|
||||
|
||||
Also consider these findings from prior review phases:
|
||||
CEO: <insert CEO consensus table summary — key concerns, DISAGREEs>
|
||||
Design: <insert Design consensus table summary, or 'skipped, no UI scope'>
|
||||
|
||||
File: <plan_path>" -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only -c 'web_search="cached"' < /dev/null
|
||||
_CODEX_EXIT=$?
|
||||
if [ "$_CODEX_EXIT" = "124" ]; then
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_event "codex_timeout" "600"
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_hang "autoplan" "0"
|
||||
echo "[codex stalled past 10 minutes — tagging as [codex-unavailable] for this phase and proceeding with Claude subagent only]"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes (shell-wrapper) + 12 minutes (Bash outer gate). On hang, auto-degrades this phase's Codex voice.
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude eng subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
"Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent senior engineer
|
||||
reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Architecture: Is the component structure sound? Coupling concerns?
|
||||
2. Edge cases: What breaks under 10x load? What's the nil/empty/error path?
|
||||
3. Tests: What's missing from the test plan? What would break at 2am Friday?
|
||||
4. Security: New attack surface? Auth boundaries? Input validation?
|
||||
5. Hidden complexity: What looks simple but isn't?
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, severity, and the fix."
|
||||
NO prior-phase context — subagent must be truly independent.
|
||||
|
||||
Error handling: same as Phase 1 (both foreground/blocking, degradation matrix applies).
|
||||
|
||||
- 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
|
||||
|
||||
**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 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent (foreground) first, then Codex. Present
|
||||
Codex output under CODEX SAYS (eng — architecture challenge) header. Present subagent
|
||||
output under CLAUDE SUBAGENT (eng — independent review) header. Produce eng consensus
|
||||
table:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
ENG DUAL VOICES — CONSENSUS TABLE:
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
Dimension Claude Codex Consensus
|
||||
──────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
|
||||
1. Architecture sound? — — —
|
||||
2. Test coverage sufficient? — — —
|
||||
3. Performance risks addressed? — — —
|
||||
4. Security threats covered? — — —
|
||||
5. Error paths handled? — — —
|
||||
6. Deployment risk manageable? — — —
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ (→ taste decision).
|
||||
Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = flagged regardless.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
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)
|
||||
|
||||
**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).
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
|
||||
Follow plan-eng-review/SKILL.md — all sections, full depth.
|
||||
Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
|
||||
**Override rules:**
|
||||
- Scope challenge: never reduce (P2)
|
||||
- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
|
||||
|
||||
**Codex eng voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
_REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
|
||||
_gstack_codex_timeout_wrapper 600 codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/gstack). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only.
|
||||
|
||||
Review this plan for architectural issues, missing edge cases,
|
||||
and hidden complexity. Be adversarial.
|
||||
|
||||
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'>
|
||||
|
||||
File: <plan_path>" -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only {{CODEX_WEB_SEARCH_FLAG}} < /dev/null
|
||||
_CODEX_EXIT=$?
|
||||
if [ "$_CODEX_EXIT" = "124" ]; then
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_event "codex_timeout" "600"
|
||||
_gstack_codex_log_hang "autoplan" "0"
|
||||
echo "[codex stalled past 10 minutes — tagging as [codex-unavailable] for this phase and proceeding with Claude subagent only]"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes (shell-wrapper) + 12 minutes (Bash outer gate). On hang, auto-degrades this phase's Codex voice.
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude eng subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
"Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent senior engineer
|
||||
reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Architecture: Is the component structure sound? Coupling concerns?
|
||||
2. Edge cases: What breaks under 10x load? What's the nil/empty/error path?
|
||||
3. Tests: What's missing from the test plan? What would break at 2am Friday?
|
||||
4. Security: New attack surface? Auth boundaries? Input validation?
|
||||
5. Hidden complexity: What looks simple but isn't?
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, severity, and the fix."
|
||||
NO prior-phase context — subagent must be truly independent.
|
||||
|
||||
Error handling: same as Phase 1 (both foreground/blocking, degradation matrix applies).
|
||||
|
||||
- Architecture choices: explicit over clever (P5). If codex disagrees with valid reason → TASTE DECISION. Scope changes both models agree on → USER CHALLENGE.
|
||||
- Evals: always include all relevant suites (P1)
|
||||
- Test plan: generate artifact at `~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/{user}-{branch}-test-plan-{datetime}.md`
|
||||
- TODOS.md: collect all deferred scope expansions from Phase 1, auto-write
|
||||
|
||||
**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 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent (foreground) first, then Codex. Present
|
||||
Codex output under CODEX SAYS (eng — architecture challenge) header. Present subagent
|
||||
output under CLAUDE SUBAGENT (eng — independent review) header. Produce eng consensus
|
||||
table:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
ENG DUAL VOICES — CONSENSUS TABLE:
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
Dimension Claude Codex Consensus
|
||||
──────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
|
||||
1. Architecture sound? — — —
|
||||
2. Test coverage sufficient? — — —
|
||||
3. Performance risks addressed? — — —
|
||||
4. Security threats covered? — — —
|
||||
5. Error paths handled? — — —
|
||||
6. Deployment risk manageable? — — —
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ (→ taste decision).
|
||||
Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = flagged regardless.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
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)
|
||||
|
||||
**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).
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"$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.",
|
||||
"sections": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"id": "ceo-phase",
|
||||
"file": "ceo-phase.md",
|
||||
"title": "Phase 1: CEO review (strategy & scope) — override rules, dual voices, required outputs",
|
||||
"trigger": "starting Phase 1 (CEO review — always runs, after the Phase 0.5 preflight)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"id": "design-phase",
|
||||
"file": "design-phase.md",
|
||||
"title": "Phase 2: design review — override rules, dual voices, 7-pass checklist",
|
||||
"trigger": "starting Phase 2 (design review — ONLY if UI scope was detected in Phase 0; skip the read entirely otherwise)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"id": "eng-phase",
|
||||
"file": "eng-phase.md",
|
||||
"title": "Phase 3: eng review + dual voices — override rules, test review, required outputs",
|
||||
"trigger": "starting Phase 3 (eng review — always runs, after the Pre-Phase 3 checklist)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"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)"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"id": "tasks-aggregator",
|
||||
"file": "tasks-aggregator.md",
|
||||
"title": "Phase 4: Implementation Tasks aggregator (builds $AGGREGATED_TASKS for the gate)",
|
||||
"trigger": "presenting the Final Approval Gate (Phase 4) — the aggregator computes $AGGREGATED_TASKS that the gate message substitutes"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
|
||||
<!-- AUTO-GENERATED from tasks-aggregator.md.tmpl — do not edit directly -->
|
||||
<!-- Regenerate: bun run gen:skill-docs -->
|
||||
## Implementation Tasks aggregator
|
||||
|
||||
Before rendering the Final Approval Gate output block below, aggregate the
|
||||
per-phase task lists each review skill wrote.
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)"
|
||||
TASKS_DIR="${HOME}/.gstack/projects/${SLUG:-unknown}"
|
||||
BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo unknown)
|
||||
# Commit window: last 5 commits on this branch. Drops stale standalone reviews.
|
||||
COMMITS_RECENT=$(git log --format=%H -n 5 2>/dev/null | tr '\n' '|' | sed 's/|$//')
|
||||
|
||||
AGGREGATED_TASKS=""
|
||||
if command -v jq >/dev/null 2>&1; then
|
||||
# Collect entries from all 4 phases, scoped to current branch + commit window.
|
||||
# For each phase, keep only the latest run_id. Within the surviving set,
|
||||
# dedupe by (component, sorted(files), title) — exact match only.
|
||||
# Sort by priority (P1 > P2 > P3) then by phase order.
|
||||
ALL_JSONL=$(mktemp -t autoplan-tasks.XXXXXXXX)
|
||||
for phase in ceo-review design-review eng-review devex-review; do
|
||||
# Use find instead of glob expansion — zsh nomatch errors otherwise when
|
||||
# a phase produced no JSONL files. Sorting by name keeps the order stable.
|
||||
while IFS= read -r f; do
|
||||
[ -f "$f" ] || continue
|
||||
# Filter to current branch + recent commits, then keep records for the
|
||||
# latest run_id only. (Single phase may have multiple files if the user
|
||||
# re-ran the review; aggregator takes the newest.)
|
||||
# .commit must be bound BEFORE piping to the split commit array: a
|
||||
# pipe rebinds jq's context, so a bare .commit after it indexes the
|
||||
# ARRAY with a string, every line errors into 2>/dev/null, and the
|
||||
# aggregate is empty forever — the #2018 zero-tasks bug.
|
||||
jq -c --arg branch "$BRANCH" --arg commits "$COMMITS_RECENT" \
|
||||
'.commit as $c | select(.branch == $branch and ($commits | split("|") | index($c) != null))' \
|
||||
"$f" 2>/dev/null >> "$ALL_JSONL" || true
|
||||
done < <(find "$TASKS_DIR" -maxdepth 1 -name "tasks-$phase-*.jsonl" 2>/dev/null | sort)
|
||||
# Reduce to latest run_id per phase
|
||||
if [ -s "$ALL_JSONL" ]; then
|
||||
jq -sc --arg phase "$phase" \
|
||||
'[.[] | select(.phase == $phase)] | (max_by(.run_id) // null) as $latest_run | if $latest_run then map(select(.run_id == $latest_run.run_id)) else [] end | .[]' \
|
||||
"$ALL_JSONL" > "$ALL_JSONL.phase" 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
# Replace with reduced version for this phase, accumulating others
|
||||
jq -c --arg phase "$phase" 'select(.phase != $phase)' "$ALL_JSONL" > "$ALL_JSONL.other" 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
cat "$ALL_JSONL.other" "$ALL_JSONL.phase" > "$ALL_JSONL"
|
||||
rm -f "$ALL_JSONL.phase" "$ALL_JSONL.other"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
done
|
||||
|
||||
# Exact-match dedup by (component, sorted(files), title). Non-matches kept
|
||||
# separately with a possible-duplicate marker injected by the renderer.
|
||||
AGGREGATED_TASKS=$(jq -s \
|
||||
'group_by([.component, (.files | sort), .title])
|
||||
| map(
|
||||
# Take the highest-priority entry per group; tie-break by phase order
|
||||
sort_by({P1:0,P2:1,P3:2}[.priority] // 99, {"ceo-review":0,"design-review":1,"eng-review":2,"devex-review":3}[.phase] // 99) | .[0]
|
||||
)
|
||||
| sort_by({P1:0,P2:1,P3:2}[.priority] // 99, {"ceo-review":0,"design-review":1,"eng-review":2,"devex-review":3}[.phase] // 99)
|
||||
| if length == 0 then "_No actionable tasks emitted from any phase._" else
|
||||
map("- [ ] **\(.id) (\(.priority), human: \(.effort_human) / CC: \(.effort_cc)) — \(.component)** — \(.title)\n - Surfaced by: \(.phase) — \(.source_finding)\n - Files: \(.files | join(", "))") | join("\n")
|
||||
end' "$ALL_JSONL" 2>/dev/null | sed 's/^"//;s/"$//;s/\\n/\n/g')
|
||||
rm -f "$ALL_JSONL"
|
||||
else
|
||||
AGGREGATED_TASKS="_jq not installed — install jq to aggregate per-phase task lists. Skipping._"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Inside the Final Approval Gate output template below, render the aggregated
|
||||
markdown in the `### Implementation Tasks (aggregated across phases)` section.
|
||||
Substitute the contents of `$AGGREGATED_TASKS` (the bash variable set above)
|
||||
before printing the message to the user. This is NOT a template placeholder
|
||||
— the agent does the substitution at runtime, not gen-skill-docs at build time.
|
||||
|
||||
If `$AGGREGATED_TASKS` is empty (no JSONL files found — none of the review
|
||||
skills ran in this session), render:
|
||||
|
||||
`_No per-phase task lists found in $TASKS_DIR for branch $BRANCH. Each review
|
||||
skill writes its own; if you ran one of them but no list appears here, check
|
||||
that jq is installed and the tasks-<phase>-*.jsonl files exist._`
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
|
||||
{{TASKS_SECTION_AGGREGATE}}
|
||||
@@ -67,10 +67,16 @@ describe('deprecated codex web-search flag is gone (#2525)', () => {
|
||||
}
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('rendered autoplan skill resolves the token at every inline site', () => {
|
||||
const rendered = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'autoplan', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
|
||||
const count = rendered.split(CODEX_WEB_SEARCH_FLAG).length - 1;
|
||||
expect(count).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(4);
|
||||
expect(rendered).not.toContain('{{CODEX_WEB_SEARCH_FLAG}}');
|
||||
test('rendered autoplan phase sections resolve the token at every inline site', () => {
|
||||
// The four phase bodies (and their codex invocations) are carved into
|
||||
// autoplan/sections/*-phase.md — each generated section must carry the
|
||||
// live flag, never the unresolved token.
|
||||
for (const file of ['ceo-phase.md', 'design-phase.md', 'eng-phase.md', 'dx-phase.md']) {
|
||||
const rendered = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'autoplan', 'sections', file), 'utf-8');
|
||||
expect(rendered, `${file} lost the web-search flag`).toContain(CODEX_WEB_SEARCH_FLAG);
|
||||
expect(rendered).not.toContain('{{CODEX_WEB_SEARCH_FLAG}}');
|
||||
}
|
||||
const skeleton = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'autoplan', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
|
||||
expect(skeleton).not.toContain('{{CODEX_WEB_SEARCH_FLAG}}');
|
||||
});
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -18,8 +18,10 @@ import * as path from 'path';
|
||||
const ROOT = path.resolve(import.meta.dir, '..');
|
||||
|
||||
// review's specialist-dispatch guidance lives in its carved Review Army section
|
||||
// (Step 4.5 moved out of the skeleton), so the pin follows it there.
|
||||
const GENERATED_WITH_GUIDANCE = ['review/sections/review-army.md', 'autoplan/SKILL.md'];
|
||||
// (Step 4.5 moved out of the skeleton), so the pin follows it there. Same for
|
||||
// autoplan: the dual-voice dispatch (Phase 1 override rules) lives in its
|
||||
// carved CEO-phase section.
|
||||
const GENERATED_WITH_GUIDANCE = ['review/sections/review-army.md', 'autoplan/sections/ceo-phase.md'];
|
||||
|
||||
// The inverted, post-2.1.198-inert phrasings. Checked across every generated
|
||||
// SKILL.md so the regression can't migrate to another skill unnoticed.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -85,7 +85,9 @@ describeE2E('/autoplan chain ordering (periodic)', () => {
|
||||
|
||||
const budgetMs = 900_000; // 15 min
|
||||
const start = Date.now();
|
||||
// Phase markers in autoplan/SKILL.md (lines 1126, 1211, 1331, 1437):
|
||||
// Phase markers live in autoplan's carved phase sections
|
||||
// (autoplan/sections/{ceo,design,eng,dx}-phase.md — the skeleton
|
||||
// STOP-Reads each one at its phase boundary):
|
||||
// "**Phase 1 complete." / "**Phase 2 complete." / "**Phase 3 complete." / "**Phase 3.5 complete."
|
||||
const phasePattern = /\*\*Phase\s+(\d+(?:\.\d+)?)\s+complete\.?\*\*/g;
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -51,6 +51,14 @@ describeIfSelected('Autoplan dual-voice E2E', ['autoplan-dual-voice'], () => {
|
||||
const dest = path.join(skillsBase, skill);
|
||||
fs.mkdirSync(dest, { recursive: true });
|
||||
fs.copyFileSync(path.join(ROOT, skill, 'SKILL.md'), path.join(dest, 'SKILL.md'));
|
||||
// Carved skills (autoplan + the plan-* reviews) keep their phase/review
|
||||
// bodies in on-demand sections/ that the skeleton STOP-Reads — mirror the
|
||||
// real install (which links sections/ next to SKILL.md) so the registered
|
||||
// skeleton's section reads resolve inside the fixture.
|
||||
const sections = path.join(ROOT, skill, 'sections');
|
||||
if (fs.existsSync(sections)) {
|
||||
copyDirSync(sections, path.join(dest, 'sections'));
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// Write a tiny plan file for /autoplan to review.
|
||||
@@ -139,8 +147,9 @@ Add a new /greet skill that prints a welcome message.
|
||||
// Full Phase 1 COMPLETION (three parallel review subagents, each loading a
|
||||
// 25-35K-token skill) routinely exceeds 10 minutes on sonnet, so requiring
|
||||
// the "Phase 1 complete" banner would force a 20-minute test for no extra
|
||||
// dual-voice signal. Accept EITHER the completion banner (autoplan/SKILL.md
|
||||
// "PHASE 1 COMPLETE" mandatory output) OR structural evidence that the
|
||||
// dual-voice signal. Accept EITHER the completion banner (the "PHASE 1
|
||||
// COMPLETE" mandatory output in autoplan/sections/ceo-phase.md, which the
|
||||
// skeleton STOP-Reads) OR structural evidence that the
|
||||
// Phase 1 review dispatch actually happened: an Agent tool_use whose input
|
||||
// carries review instructions (execution artifact built by the skill, not
|
||||
// an echo of our prompt).
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user