mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-09-20 11:52:20 +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
+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.**
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user