CalvinBackup/gstack
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git synced 2026-09-21 20:30:47 +02:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

feat: componentize GStack 2 runtime and release integrity

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Sinabina
2026-07-20 14:16:23 -07:00
parent b0ea2296d1
commit f14445bb00
270 changed files with 9681 additions and 51572 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
skills/design/references/sections/design-consultation/proposal-and-preview.md
+2 -2
View File
@@ -378,7 +378,7 @@ If `$D extract` was used in Phase 5 (Path A), use the extracted tokens as the pr
## Decisions Log
| Date | Decision | Rationale |
|------|----------|-----------|
| [today] | Initial design system created | Created by /design-consultation based on [product context / research] |
| [today] | Initial design system created | Created by $design --mode Generate --module design-consultation based on [product context / research] |
```
**Update CLAUDE.md** (or create it if it doesn't exist) — append this section:
@@ -400,6 +400,6 @@ List all decisions. Flag any that used agent defaults without explicit user conf
After shipping DESIGN.md, if the session produced screen-level mockups or page layouts
(not just system-level tokens), suggest:
"Want to see this design system as working Pretext-native HTML? Run /design-html."
"Want to see this design system as working Pretext-native HTML? Run $design --mode Implement --module design-html."
---
skills/design/references/sections/plan-design-review/review-sections.md
+17 -17
View File
@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ If visual mockups were generated in Step 0.5, evaluate them against the AI slop
### Pass 5: Design System Alignment
Rate 0-10: Does the plan align with DESIGN.md?
FIX TO 10: If DESIGN.md exists, annotate with specific tokens/components. If no DESIGN.md, flag the gap and recommend `/design-consultation`.
FIX TO 10: If DESIGN.md exists, annotate with specific tokens/components. If no DESIGN.md, flag the gap and recommend `$design --mode Generate --module design-consultation`.
Flag any new component — does it fit the existing vocabulary?
**STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY.
@@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ Then present options: **A)** Add to TODOS.md **B)** Skip — not valuable enough
Before closing this review, synthesize the findings above into a flat list of
build-actionable tasks. Each task derives from a specific finding — no padding.
Emit the markdown section AND write a JSONL artifact that `/autoplan` can
Emit the markdown section AND write a JSONL artifact that `$plan --mode Full chain --module autoplan` can
aggregate across phases.
### Markdown section (always emit)
@@ -219,7 +219,7 @@ Rules:
### JSONL artifact (always write, even if zero tasks)
`/autoplan` reads this file to aggregate across phases. Build each line with
`$plan --mode Full chain --module autoplan` reads this file to aggregate across phases. Build each line with
`jq -nc` so titles and source findings containing quotes, newlines, or
backslashes serialize cleanly — never use hand-rolled `echo` / `printf`.
@@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ this run (an empty file means "ran, no findings" — distinct from "didn't run")
+====================================================================+
```
If all passes 8+: "Plan is design-complete. Run /design-review after implementation for visual QA."
If all passes 8+: "Plan is design-complete. Run $design --mode Implement --module design-review after implementation for visual QA."
If any below 8: note what's unresolved and why (user chose to defer).
### Unresolved Decisions
@@ -338,9 +338,9 @@ After completing the review, read the review log and config to display the dashb
$GSTACK_BIN/gstack-review-read
```
Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, plan-eng-review, review, plan-design-review, design-review-lite, adversarial-review, codex-review, codex-plan-review). Ignore entries with timestamps older than 7 days. For the Eng Review row, show whichever is more recent between `review` (diff-scoped pre-landing review) and `plan-eng-review` (plan-stage architecture review). Append "(DIFF)" or "(PLAN)" to the status to distinguish. For the Adversarial row, show whichever is more recent between `adversarial-review` (new auto-scaled) and `codex-review` (legacy). For Design Review, show whichever is more recent between `plan-design-review` (full visual audit) and `design-review-lite` (code-level check). Append "(FULL)" or "(LITE)" to the status to distinguish. For the Outside Voice row, show the most recent `codex-plan-review` entry — this captures outside voices from both /plan-ceo-review and /plan-eng-review.
Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, plan-eng-review, review, plan-design-review, design-review-lite, adversarial-review, codex-review, codex-plan-review). Ignore entries with timestamps older than 7 days. For the Eng Review row, show whichever is more recent between `review` (diff-scoped pre-landing review) and `plan-eng-review` (plan-stage architecture review). Append "(DIFF)" or "(PLAN)" to the status to distinguish. For the Adversarial row, show whichever is more recent between `adversarial-review` (new auto-scaled) and `codex-review` (legacy). For Design Review, show whichever is more recent between `plan-design-review` (full visual audit) and `design-review-lite` (code-level check). Append "(FULL)" or "(LITE)" to the status to distinguish. For the Outside Voice row, show the most recent `codex-plan-review` entry — this captures outside voices from both $plan --mode Product --module plan-ceo-review and $plan --mode Engineering --module plan-eng-review.
**Source attribution:** If the most recent entry for a skill has a \`"via"\` field, append it to the status label in parentheses. Examples: `plan-eng-review` with `via:"autoplan"` shows as "CLEAR (PLAN via /autoplan)". `review` with `via:"ship"` shows as "CLEAR (DIFF via /ship)". Entries without a `via` field show as "CLEAR (PLAN)" or "CLEAR (DIFF)" as before.
**Source attribution:** If the most recent entry for a skill has a \`"via"\` field, append it to the status label in parentheses. Examples: `plan-eng-review` with `via:"autoplan"` shows as "CLEAR (PLAN via $plan --mode Full chain --module autoplan)". `review` with `via:"ship"` shows as "CLEAR (DIFF via /ship)". Entries without a `via` field show as "CLEAR (PLAN)" or "CLEAR (DIFF)" as before.
Note: `autoplan-voices` and `design-outside-voices` entries are audit-trail-only (forensic data for cross-model consensus analysis). They do not appear in the dashboard and are not checked by any consumer.
@@ -367,7 +367,7 @@ Display:
- **CEO Review (optional):** Use your judgment. Recommend it for big product/business changes, new user-facing features, or scope decisions. Skip for bug fixes, refactors, infra, and cleanup.
- **Design Review (optional):** Use your judgment. Recommend it for UI/UX changes. Skip for backend-only, infra, or prompt-only changes.
- **Adversarial Review (automatic):** Always-on for every review. Every diff gets both Claude adversarial subagent and Codex adversarial challenge. Large diffs (200+ lines) additionally get Codex structured review with P1 gate. No configuration needed.
- **Outside Voice (optional):** Independent plan review from a different AI model. Offered after all review sections complete in /plan-ceo-review and /plan-eng-review. Falls back to Claude subagent if Codex is unavailable. Never gates shipping.
- **Outside Voice (optional):** Independent plan review from a different AI model. Offered after all review sections complete in $plan --mode Product --module plan-ceo-review and $plan --mode Engineering --module plan-eng-review. Falls back to Claude subagent if Codex is unavailable. Never gates shipping.
**Verdict logic:**
- **CLEARED**: Eng Review has >= 1 entry within 7 days from either \`review\` or \`plan-eng-review\` with status "clean" (or \`skip_eng_review\` is \`true\`)
@@ -423,7 +423,7 @@ Produce this markdown table:
| Review | Trigger | Why | Runs | Status | Findings |
|--------|---------|-----|------|--------|----------|
| CEO Review | \`/plan-ceo-review\` | Scope & strategy | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
| Codex Review | \`/codex review\` | Independent 2nd opinion | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
| Codex Review | \`$review --mode Deep --module codex review\` | Independent 2nd opinion | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
| Eng Review | \`/plan-eng-review\` | Architecture & tests (required) | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
| Design Review | \`/plan-design-review\` | UI/UX gaps | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
| DX Review | \`/plan-devex-review\` | Developer experience gaps | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
@@ -559,23 +559,23 @@ eval "$($GSTACK_BIN/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)" 2>/dev/null || true
After displaying the Review Readiness Dashboard, recommend the next review(s) based on what this design review discovered. Read the dashboard output to see which reviews have already been run and whether they are stale.
**Recommend /plan-eng-review if eng review is not skipped globally** — check the dashboard output for `skip_eng_review`. If it is `true`, eng review is opted out — do not recommend it. Otherwise, eng review is the required shipping gate. If this design review added significant interaction specifications, new user flows, or changed the information architecture, emphasize that eng review needs to validate the architectural implications. If an eng review already exists but the commit hash shows it predates this design review, note that it may be stale and should be re-run.
**Recommend $plan --mode Engineering --module plan-eng-review if eng review is not skipped globally** — check the dashboard output for `skip_eng_review`. If it is `true`, eng review is opted out — do not recommend it. Otherwise, eng review is the required shipping gate. If this design review added significant interaction specifications, new user flows, or changed the information architecture, emphasize that eng review needs to validate the architectural implications. If an eng review already exists but the commit hash shows it predates this design review, note that it may be stale and should be re-run.
**Consider recommending /plan-ceo-review** — but only if this design review revealed fundamental product direction gaps. Specifically: if the overall design score started below 4/10, if the information architecture had major structural problems, or if the review surfaced questions about whether the right problem is being solved. AND no CEO review exists in the dashboard. This is a selective recommendation — most design reviews should NOT trigger a CEO review.
**Consider recommending $plan --mode Product --module plan-ceo-review** — but only if this design review revealed fundamental product direction gaps. Specifically: if the overall design score started below 4/10, if the information architecture had major structural problems, or if the review surfaced questions about whether the right problem is being solved. AND no CEO review exists in the dashboard. This is a selective recommendation — most design reviews should NOT trigger a CEO review.
**If both are needed, recommend eng review first** (required gate).
**Recommend design exploration skills when appropriate** — /design-shotgun and /design-html
**Recommend design exploration skills when appropriate** — $design --mode Explore --module design-shotgun and $design --mode Implement --module design-html
produce design artifacts (mockups, HTML previews), not application code. They belong in
plan mode alongside reviews. If this design review found visual issues that would benefit
from exploring new directions, recommend /design-shotgun. If approved mockups exist and
need to be turned into working HTML, recommend /design-html.
from exploring new directions, recommend $design --mode Explore --module design-shotgun. If approved mockups exist and
need to be turned into working HTML, recommend $design --mode Implement --module design-html.
Use AskUserQuestion to present the next step. Include only applicable options:
- **A)** Run /plan-eng-review next (required gate)
- **B)** Run /plan-ceo-review (only if fundamental product gaps found)
- **C)** Run /design-shotgun — explore visual design variants for issues found
- **D)** Run /design-html — generate Pretext-native HTML from approved mockups
- **A)** Run $plan --mode Engineering --module plan-eng-review next (required gate)
- **B)** Run $plan --mode Product --module plan-ceo-review (only if fundamental product gaps found)
- **C)** Run $design --mode Explore --module design-shotgun — explore visual design variants for issues found
- **D)** Run $design --mode Implement --module design-html — generate Pretext-native HTML from approved mockups
- **E)** Skip — I'll handle next steps manually
## Formatting Rules