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>
2026-09-16 18:05:31 +02:00 · 2026-08-25 17:03:12 +00:00
parent 2877b63afe
commit c593c93268
17 changed files with 980 additions and 873 deletions
@@ -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 $AGGREGATED_TASKS that the gate message substitutes | `sections/tasks-aggregator.md` |
 ---
 ## The 6 Decision Principles
 These rules auto-answer every intermediate question:
@@ -768,120 +783,8 @@ Claude subagent only — saves token spend on Codex prompts we can't use.
 ## Phase 1: CEO Review (Strategy & Scope)
-Follow plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md — all sections, full depth.
+> **STOP.** Before starting Phase 1 (CEO review — always runs, after the Phase 0.5 preflight), Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/autoplan/sections/ceo-phase.md` and execute it
-Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
+> in full. Do not work from memory — that section is the source of truth for this step.
 **Override rules:**
 - Mode selection: SELECTIVE EXPANSION
 - Premises: accept reasonable ones (P6), challenge only clearly wrong ones
 - **GATE: Present premises to user for confirmation** — this is the ONE AskUserQuestion
  that is NOT auto-decided. Premises require human judgment.
 - Alternatives: pick highest completeness (P1). If tied, pick simplest (P5).
  If top 2 are close → mark TASTE DECISION.
 - Scope expansion: in blast radius + <1d CC → approve (P2). Outside → defer to TODOS.md (P3).
  Duplicates → reject (P4). Borderline (3-5 files) → mark TASTE DECISION.
 - All 10 review sections: run fully, auto-decide each issue, log every decision.
 - Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
  Run them sequentially in foreground. First the Claude subagent (Agent tool
  with run_in_background: false — subagents default to BACKGROUND since
  Claude Code v2.1.198, so the flag must be explicitly false), then Codex
  (Bash). Both must complete before building the consensus table.
  **Codex CEO voice** (via Bash):
  ```bash
  _REPO_ROOT=$(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.
 ---
@@ -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.
+**Skip condition:** If UI scope was NOT detected in Phase 0, skip this phase
-Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
+entirely — do NOT read its section. Log: "Phase 2 skipped — no UI scope detected."
-**Override rules:**
+> **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
- Focus areas: all relevant dimensions (P1)
+> in full. Do not work from memory — that section is the source of truth for this step.
 - 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.
 ---
@@ -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.
+> **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
-Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
+> in full. Do not work from memory — that section is the source of truth for this step.
 **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).
 ---
 ## Phase 3.5: DX Review (conditional — skip if no developer-facing scope)
-Follow plan-devex-review/SKILL.md — all 8 DX dimensions, full depth.
+**Skip condition:** If DX scope was NOT detected in Phase 0, skip this phase
-Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
+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.
+> **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
-Log: "Phase 3.5 skipped — no developer-facing scope detected."
+> in full. Do not work from memory — that section is the source of truth for this step.
 **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).
 ---
@@ -1269,84 +904,8 @@ noting which items are incomplete. Do not loop indefinitely.
 ## Phase 4: Final Approval Gate
-## Implementation Tasks aggregator
+> **STOP.** Before presenting the Final Approval Gate (Phase 4) — the aggregator computes $AGGREGATED_TASKS that the gate message substitutes, Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/autoplan/sections/tasks-aggregator.md` and execute it
-
+> in full. Do not work from memory — that section is the source of truth for this step.
 Before rendering the Final Approval Gate output block below, aggregate the
 per-phase task lists each review skill wrote.
 ```bash
 eval "$(~/.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 $BRANCH. Each review
 skill writes its own; if you ran one of them but no list appears here, check
 that jq is installed and the tasks-<phase>-*.jsonl files exist._`
 **STOP here and present the final state to the user.**
@@ -48,6 +48,10 @@ surfaced at a final approval gate.
 ---
 {{SECTION_INDEX:autoplan}}
 ---
 ## The 6 Decision Principles
 These rules auto-answer every intermediate question:
@@ -282,120 +286,7 @@ Claude subagent only — saves token spend on Codex prompts we can't use.
 ## Phase 1: CEO Review (Strategy & Scope)
-Follow plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md — all sections, full depth.
+{{SECTION:ceo-phase}}
 Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
 **Override rules:**
 - Mode selection: SELECTIVE EXPANSION
 - Premises: accept reasonable ones (P6), challenge only clearly wrong ones
 - **GATE: Present premises to user for confirmation** — this is the ONE AskUserQuestion
  that is NOT auto-decided. Premises require human judgment.
 - Alternatives: pick highest completeness (P1). If tied, pick simplest (P5).
  If top 2 are close → mark TASTE DECISION.
 - Scope expansion: in blast radius + <1d CC → approve (P2). Outside → defer to TODOS.md (P3).
  Duplicates → reject (P4). Borderline (3-5 files) → mark TASTE DECISION.
 - All 10 review sections: run fully, auto-decide each issue, log every decision.
 - Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
  Run them sequentially in foreground. First the Claude subagent (Agent tool
  with run_in_background: false — subagents default to BACKGROUND since
  Claude Code v2.1.198, so the flag must be explicitly false), then Codex
  (Bash). Both must complete before building the consensus table.
  **Codex CEO voice** (via Bash):
  ```bash
  _REPO_ROOT=$(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.
 ---
@@ -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.
+**Skip condition:** If UI scope was NOT detected in Phase 0, skip this phase
-Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
+entirely — do NOT read its section. Log: "Phase 2 skipped — no UI scope detected."
-**Override rules:**
+{{SECTION:design-phase}}
 - 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.
 ---
@@ -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.
+{{SECTION:eng-phase}}
 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).
 ---
 ## Phase 3.5: DX Review (conditional — skip if no developer-facing scope)
-Follow plan-devex-review/SKILL.md — all 8 DX dimensions, full depth.
+**Skip condition:** If DX scope was NOT detected in Phase 0, skip this phase
-Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
+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.
+{{SECTION:dx-phase}}
 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).
 ---
@@ -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 $BRANCH. Each review
 skill writes its own; if you ran one of them but no list appears here, check
 that jq is installed and the tasks-<phase>-*.jsonl files exist._`
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
 {{TASKS_SECTION_AGGREGATE}}
@@ -67,10 +67,16 @@ describe('deprecated codex web-search flag is gone (#2525)', () => {
    }
  });
-  test('rendered autoplan skill resolves the token at every inline site', () => {
+  test('rendered autoplan phase sections resolve the token at every inline site', () => {
-    const rendered = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'autoplan', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+    // The four phase bodies (and their codex invocations) are carved into
-    const count = rendered.split(CODEX_WEB_SEARCH_FLAG).length - 1;
+    // autoplan/sections/*-phase.md — each generated section must carry the
-    expect(count).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(4);
+    // live flag, never the unresolved token.
-    expect(rendered).not.toContain('{{CODEX_WEB_SEARCH_FLAG}}');
+    for (const file of ['ceo-phase.md', 'design-phase.md', 'eng-phase.md', 'dx-phase.md']) {
      const rendered = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'autoplan', 'sections', file), 'utf-8');
      expect(rendered, `${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.
+// (Step 4.5 moved out of the skeleton), so the pin follows it there. Same for
-const GENERATED_WITH_GUIDANCE = ['review/sections/review-army.md', 'autoplan/SKILL.md'];
+// 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
+      // dual-voice signal. Accept EITHER the completion banner (the "PHASE 1
-      // "PHASE 1 COMPLETE" mandatory output) OR structural evidence that the
+      // 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).