mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-05-02 11:45:20 +02:00
feat: tiered preamble — skills only pay for what they use
Tag all 23 templates with preamble-tier (T1-T4). Lightweight skills like /browse and /benchmark get a minimal preamble (~40% fewer tokens), while review skills get the full stack. Regenerate all SKILL.md files. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan
@@ -1,6 +1,5 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: gstack
|
||||
version: 1.1.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Fast headless browser for QA testing and site dogfooding. Navigate pages, interact with
|
||||
elements, verify state, diff before/after, take annotated screenshots, test responsive
|
||||
@@ -14,11 +13,6 @@ description: |
|
||||
/unfreeze; gstack upgrades /gstack-upgrade. If the user opts out of suggestions, stop
|
||||
and run gstack-config set proactive false; if they opt back in, run gstack-config set
|
||||
proactive true.
|
||||
allowed-tools:
|
||||
- Bash
|
||||
- Read
|
||||
- AskUserQuestion
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
<!-- AUTO-GENERATED from SKILL.md.tmpl — do not edit directly -->
|
||||
<!-- Regenerate: bun run gen:skill-docs -->
|
||||
@@ -26,23 +20,28 @@ allowed-tools:
|
||||
## Preamble (run first)
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
_UPD=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-update-check 2>/dev/null || .claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-update-check 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null)
|
||||
GSTACK_ROOT="$HOME/.codex/skills/gstack"
|
||||
[ -n "$_ROOT" ] && [ -d "$_ROOT/.agents/skills/gstack" ] && GSTACK_ROOT="$_ROOT/.agents/skills/gstack"
|
||||
GSTACK_BIN="$GSTACK_ROOT/bin"
|
||||
GSTACK_BROWSE="$GSTACK_ROOT/browse/dist"
|
||||
_UPD=$($GSTACK_BIN/gstack-update-check 2>/dev/null || .agents/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-update-check 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
[ -n "$_UPD" ] && echo "$_UPD" || true
|
||||
mkdir -p ~/.gstack/sessions
|
||||
touch ~/.gstack/sessions/"$PPID"
|
||||
_SESSIONS=$(find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin -120 -type f 2>/dev/null | wc -l | tr -d ' ')
|
||||
find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin +120 -type f -delete 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
_CONTRIB=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get gstack_contributor 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
_PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null || echo "true")
|
||||
_CONTRIB=$($GSTACK_BIN/gstack-config get gstack_contributor 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
_PROACTIVE=$($GSTACK_BIN/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null || echo "true")
|
||||
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
|
||||
echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
|
||||
echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
|
||||
source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
|
||||
source <($GSTACK_BIN/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
|
||||
REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
|
||||
echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
|
||||
_LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
|
||||
echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
|
||||
_TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
_TEL=$($GSTACK_BIN/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
_TEL_PROMPTED=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.telemetry-prompted ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
|
||||
_TEL_START=$(date +%s)
|
||||
_SESSION_ID="$$-$(date +%s)"
|
||||
@@ -50,13 +49,13 @@ echo "TELEMETRY: ${_TEL:-off}"
|
||||
echo "TEL_PROMPTED: $_TEL_PROMPTED"
|
||||
mkdir -p ~/.gstack/analytics
|
||||
echo '{"skill":"gstack","ts":"'$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)'","repo":"'$(basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null)" 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")'"}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/skill-usage.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
for _PF in ~/.gstack/analytics/.pending-*; do [ -f "$_PF" ] && ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-telemetry-log --event-type skill_run --skill _pending_finalize --outcome unknown --session-id "$_SESSION_ID" 2>/dev/null || true; break; done
|
||||
for _PF in ~/.gstack/analytics/.pending-*; do [ -f "$_PF" ] && $GSTACK_BIN/gstack-telemetry-log --event-type skill_run --skill _pending_finalize --outcome unknown --session-id "$_SESSION_ID" 2>/dev/null || true; break; done
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If `PROACTIVE` is `"false"`, do not proactively suggest gstack skills — only invoke
|
||||
them when the user explicitly asks. The user opted out of proactive suggestions.
|
||||
|
||||
If output shows `UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>`: read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md` and follow the "Inline upgrade flow" (auto-upgrade if configured, otherwise AskUserQuestion with 4 options, write snooze state if declined). If `JUST_UPGRADED <from> <to>`: tell user "Running gstack v{to} (just updated!)" and continue.
|
||||
If output shows `UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>`: read `$GSTACK_ROOT/gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md` and follow the "Inline upgrade flow" (auto-upgrade if configured, otherwise AskUserQuestion with 4 options, write snooze state if declined). If `JUST_UPGRADED <from> <to>`: tell user "Running gstack v{to} (just updated!)" and continue.
|
||||
|
||||
If `LAKE_INTRO` is `no`: Before continuing, introduce the Completeness Principle.
|
||||
Tell the user: "gstack follows the **Boil the Lake** principle — always do the complete
|
||||
@@ -82,7 +81,7 @@ Options:
|
||||
- A) Help gstack get better! (recommended)
|
||||
- B) No thanks
|
||||
|
||||
If A: run `~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set telemetry community`
|
||||
If A: run `$GSTACK_BIN/gstack-config set telemetry community`
|
||||
|
||||
If B: ask a follow-up AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -93,8 +92,8 @@ Options:
|
||||
- A) Sure, anonymous is fine
|
||||
- B) No thanks, fully off
|
||||
|
||||
If B→A: run `~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set telemetry anonymous`
|
||||
If B→B: run `~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set telemetry off`
|
||||
If B→A: run `$GSTACK_BIN/gstack-config set telemetry anonymous`
|
||||
If B→B: run `$GSTACK_BIN/gstack-config set telemetry off`
|
||||
|
||||
Always run:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
@@ -103,111 +102,23 @@ touch ~/.gstack/.telemetry-prompted
|
||||
|
||||
This only happens once. If `TEL_PROMPTED` is `yes`, skip this entirely.
|
||||
|
||||
## AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
|
||||
**ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:**
|
||||
1. **Re-ground:** State the project, the current branch (use the `_BRANCH` value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
|
||||
**Three layers of knowledge:**
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
|
||||
- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
|
||||
- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
|
||||
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
|
||||
|
||||
Log eureka moments:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -252,7 +163,7 @@ Run this bash:
|
||||
_TEL_END=$(date +%s)
|
||||
_TEL_DUR=$(( _TEL_END - _TEL_START ))
|
||||
rm -f ~/.gstack/analytics/.pending-"$_SESSION_ID" 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-telemetry-log \
|
||||
$GSTACK_ROOT/bin/gstack-telemetry-log \
|
||||
--skill "SKILL_NAME" --duration "$_TEL_DUR" --outcome "OUTCOME" \
|
||||
--used-browse "USED_BROWSE" --session-id "$_SESSION_ID" 2>/dev/null &
|
||||
```
|
||||
@@ -271,7 +182,7 @@ When you are in plan mode and about to call ExitPlanMode:
|
||||
3. If it does NOT — run this command:
|
||||
|
||||
\`\`\`bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-read
|
||||
$GSTACK_ROOT/bin/gstack-review-read
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
Then write a `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT` section to the end of the plan file:
|
||||
@@ -312,8 +223,8 @@ Auto-shuts down after 30 min idle. State persists between calls (cookies, tabs,
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null)
|
||||
B=""
|
||||
[ -n "$_ROOT" ] && [ -x "$_ROOT/.claude/skills/gstack/browse/dist/browse" ] && B="$_ROOT/.claude/skills/gstack/browse/dist/browse"
|
||||
[ -z "$B" ] && B=~/.claude/skills/gstack/browse/dist/browse
|
||||
[ -n "$_ROOT" ] && [ -x "$_ROOT/.agents/skills/gstack/browse/dist/browse" ] && B="$_ROOT/.agents/skills/gstack/browse/dist/browse"
|
||||
[ -z "$B" ] && B=$GSTACK_BROWSE/browse
|
||||
if [ -x "$B" ]; then
|
||||
echo "READY: $B"
|
||||
else
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: gstack
|
||||
preamble-tier: 1
|
||||
version: 1.1.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Fast headless browser for QA testing and site dogfooding. Navigate pages, interact with
|
||||
|
||||
+24
-66
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: autoplan
|
||||
preamble-tier: 3
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Auto-review pipeline — reads the full CEO, design, and eng review skills from disk
|
||||
@@ -118,97 +119,54 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:
|
||||
- **`solo`** — You own everything. Investigate and offer to fix proactively.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** / **`unknown`** — Flag via AskUserQuestion, don't fix (may be someone else's).
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
Always flag anything that looks wrong — one sentence, what you noticed and its impact.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
Before building anything unfamiliar, **search first.** See `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md`.
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true) — don't reinvent. **Layer 2** (new and popular) — scrutinize. **Layer 3** (first principles) — prize above all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Three layers of knowledge:**
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
|
||||
- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
|
||||
- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
|
||||
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
|
||||
|
||||
Log eureka moments:
|
||||
**Eureka:** When first-principles reasoning contradicts conventional wisdom, name it and log:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: autoplan
|
||||
preamble-tier: 3
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Auto-review pipeline — reads the full CEO, design, and eng review skills from disk
|
||||
|
||||
+9
-96
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: benchmark
|
||||
preamble-tier: 1
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Performance regression detection using the browse daemon. Establishes
|
||||
@@ -97,111 +98,23 @@ touch ~/.gstack/.telemetry-prompted
|
||||
|
||||
This only happens once. If `TEL_PROMPTED` is `yes`, skip this entirely.
|
||||
|
||||
## AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
|
||||
**ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:**
|
||||
1. **Re-ground:** State the project, the current branch (use the `_BRANCH` value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
|
||||
**Three layers of knowledge:**
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
|
||||
- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
|
||||
- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
|
||||
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
|
||||
|
||||
Log eureka moments:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: benchmark
|
||||
preamble-tier: 1
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Performance regression detection using the browse daemon. Establishes
|
||||
|
||||
+9
-96
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: browse
|
||||
preamble-tier: 1
|
||||
version: 1.1.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Fast headless browser for QA testing and site dogfooding. Navigate any URL, interact with
|
||||
@@ -97,111 +98,23 @@ touch ~/.gstack/.telemetry-prompted
|
||||
|
||||
This only happens once. If `TEL_PROMPTED` is `yes`, skip this entirely.
|
||||
|
||||
## AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
|
||||
**ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:**
|
||||
1. **Re-ground:** State the project, the current branch (use the `_BRANCH` value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
|
||||
**Three layers of knowledge:**
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
|
||||
- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
|
||||
- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
|
||||
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
|
||||
|
||||
Log eureka moments:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: browse
|
||||
preamble-tier: 1
|
||||
version: 1.1.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Fast headless browser for QA testing and site dogfooding. Navigate any URL, interact with
|
||||
|
||||
+16
-76
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: canary
|
||||
preamble-tier: 2
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Post-deploy canary monitoring. Watches the live app for console errors,
|
||||
@@ -111,97 +112,36 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
|
||||
**Three layers of knowledge:**
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
|
||||
- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
|
||||
- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
|
||||
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
|
||||
|
||||
Log eureka moments:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: canary
|
||||
preamble-tier: 2
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Post-deploy canary monitoring. Watches the live app for console errors,
|
||||
|
||||
+24
-66
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: codex
|
||||
preamble-tier: 3
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
OpenAI Codex CLI wrapper — three modes. Code review: independent diff review via
|
||||
@@ -112,97 +113,54 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:
|
||||
- **`solo`** — You own everything. Investigate and offer to fix proactively.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** / **`unknown`** — Flag via AskUserQuestion, don't fix (may be someone else's).
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
Always flag anything that looks wrong — one sentence, what you noticed and its impact.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
Before building anything unfamiliar, **search first.** See `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md`.
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true) — don't reinvent. **Layer 2** (new and popular) — scrutinize. **Layer 3** (first principles) — prize above all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Three layers of knowledge:**
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
|
||||
- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
|
||||
- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
|
||||
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
|
||||
|
||||
Log eureka moments:
|
||||
**Eureka:** When first-principles reasoning contradicts conventional wisdom, name it and log:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: codex
|
||||
preamble-tier: 3
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
OpenAI Codex CLI wrapper — three modes. Code review: independent diff review via
|
||||
|
||||
+16
-76
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: cso
|
||||
preamble-tier: 2
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Chief Security Officer mode. Performs OWASP Top 10 audit, STRIDE threat modeling,
|
||||
@@ -111,97 +112,36 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
|
||||
**Three layers of knowledge:**
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
|
||||
- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
|
||||
- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
|
||||
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
|
||||
|
||||
Log eureka moments:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: cso
|
||||
preamble-tier: 2
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Chief Security Officer mode. Performs OWASP Top 10 audit, STRIDE threat modeling,
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: design-consultation
|
||||
preamble-tier: 3
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Design consultation: understands your product, researches the landscape, proposes a
|
||||
@@ -116,97 +117,54 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:
|
||||
- **`solo`** — You own everything. Investigate and offer to fix proactively.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** / **`unknown`** — Flag via AskUserQuestion, don't fix (may be someone else's).
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
Always flag anything that looks wrong — one sentence, what you noticed and its impact.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
Before building anything unfamiliar, **search first.** See `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md`.
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true) — don't reinvent. **Layer 2** (new and popular) — scrutinize. **Layer 3** (first principles) — prize above all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Three layers of knowledge:**
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
|
||||
- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
|
||||
- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
|
||||
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
|
||||
|
||||
Log eureka moments:
|
||||
**Eureka:** When first-principles reasoning contradicts conventional wisdom, name it and log:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: design-consultation
|
||||
preamble-tier: 3
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Design consultation: understands your product, researches the landscape, proposes a
|
||||
|
||||
+25
-67
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: design-review
|
||||
preamble-tier: 4
|
||||
version: 2.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Designer's eye QA: finds visual inconsistency, spacing issues, hierarchy problems,
|
||||
@@ -116,97 +117,54 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:
|
||||
- **`solo`** — You own everything. Investigate and offer to fix proactively.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** / **`unknown`** — Flag via AskUserQuestion, don't fix (may be someone else's).
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
Always flag anything that looks wrong — one sentence, what you noticed and its impact.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
Before building anything unfamiliar, **search first.** See `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md`.
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true) — don't reinvent. **Layer 2** (new and popular) — scrutinize. **Layer 3** (first principles) — prize above all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Three layers of knowledge:**
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
|
||||
- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
|
||||
- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
|
||||
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
|
||||
|
||||
Log eureka moments:
|
||||
**Eureka:** When first-principles reasoning contradicts conventional wisdom, name it and log:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -730,7 +688,7 @@ The test: would a human designer at a respected studio ever ship this?
|
||||
**10. Performance as Design** (6 items)
|
||||
- LCP < 2.0s (web apps), < 1.5s (informational sites)
|
||||
- CLS < 0.1 (no visible layout shifts during load)
|
||||
- Skeleton quality: shapes match real content, shimmer animation
|
||||
- Skeleton quality: shapes match real content layout, shimmer animation
|
||||
- Images: `loading="lazy"`, width/height dimensions set, WebP/AVIF format
|
||||
- Fonts: `font-display: swap`, preconnect to CDN origins
|
||||
- No visible font swap flash (FOUT) — critical fonts preloaded
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: design-review
|
||||
preamble-tier: 4
|
||||
version: 2.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Designer's eye QA: finds visual inconsistency, spacing issues, hierarchy problems,
|
||||
|
||||
+16
-76
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: document-release
|
||||
preamble-tier: 2
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Post-ship documentation update. Reads all project docs, cross-references the
|
||||
@@ -113,97 +114,36 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
|
||||
**Three layers of knowledge:**
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
|
||||
- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
|
||||
- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
|
||||
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
|
||||
|
||||
Log eureka moments:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: document-release
|
||||
preamble-tier: 2
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Post-ship documentation update. Reads all project docs, cross-references the
|
||||
|
||||
+16
-76
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: investigate
|
||||
preamble-tier: 2
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Systematic debugging with root cause investigation. Four phases: investigate,
|
||||
@@ -127,97 +128,36 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
|
||||
**Three layers of knowledge:**
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
|
||||
- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
|
||||
- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
|
||||
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
|
||||
|
||||
Log eureka moments:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: investigate
|
||||
preamble-tier: 2
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Systematic debugging with root cause investigation. Four phases: investigate,
|
||||
|
||||
+24
-66
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: land-and-deploy
|
||||
preamble-tier: 4
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Land and deploy workflow. Merges the PR, waits for CI and deploy,
|
||||
@@ -110,97 +111,54 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:
|
||||
- **`solo`** — You own everything. Investigate and offer to fix proactively.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** / **`unknown`** — Flag via AskUserQuestion, don't fix (may be someone else's).
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
Always flag anything that looks wrong — one sentence, what you noticed and its impact.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
Before building anything unfamiliar, **search first.** See `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md`.
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true) — don't reinvent. **Layer 2** (new and popular) — scrutinize. **Layer 3** (first principles) — prize above all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Three layers of knowledge:**
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
|
||||
- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
|
||||
- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
|
||||
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
|
||||
|
||||
Log eureka moments:
|
||||
**Eureka:** When first-principles reasoning contradicts conventional wisdom, name it and log:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: land-and-deploy
|
||||
preamble-tier: 4
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Land and deploy workflow. Merges the PR, waits for CI and deploy,
|
||||
|
||||
+24
-66
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: office-hours
|
||||
preamble-tier: 3
|
||||
version: 2.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
YC Office Hours — two modes. Startup mode: six forcing questions that expose
|
||||
@@ -118,97 +119,54 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:
|
||||
- **`solo`** — You own everything. Investigate and offer to fix proactively.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** / **`unknown`** — Flag via AskUserQuestion, don't fix (may be someone else's).
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
Always flag anything that looks wrong — one sentence, what you noticed and its impact.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
Before building anything unfamiliar, **search first.** See `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md`.
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true) — don't reinvent. **Layer 2** (new and popular) — scrutinize. **Layer 3** (first principles) — prize above all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Three layers of knowledge:**
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
|
||||
- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
|
||||
- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
|
||||
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
|
||||
|
||||
Log eureka moments:
|
||||
**Eureka:** When first-principles reasoning contradicts conventional wisdom, name it and log:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: office-hours
|
||||
preamble-tier: 3
|
||||
version: 2.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
YC Office Hours — two modes. Startup mode: six forcing questions that expose
|
||||
|
||||
+24
-66
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: plan-ceo-review
|
||||
preamble-tier: 3
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
CEO/founder-mode plan review. Rethink the problem, find the 10-star product,
|
||||
@@ -116,97 +117,54 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:
|
||||
- **`solo`** — You own everything. Investigate and offer to fix proactively.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** / **`unknown`** — Flag via AskUserQuestion, don't fix (may be someone else's).
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
Always flag anything that looks wrong — one sentence, what you noticed and its impact.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
Before building anything unfamiliar, **search first.** See `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md`.
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true) — don't reinvent. **Layer 2** (new and popular) — scrutinize. **Layer 3** (first principles) — prize above all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Three layers of knowledge:**
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
|
||||
- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
|
||||
- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
|
||||
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
|
||||
|
||||
Log eureka moments:
|
||||
**Eureka:** When first-principles reasoning contradicts conventional wisdom, name it and log:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: plan-ceo-review
|
||||
preamble-tier: 3
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
CEO/founder-mode plan review. Rethink the problem, find the 10-star product,
|
||||
|
||||
+24
-66
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: plan-design-review
|
||||
preamble-tier: 3
|
||||
version: 2.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Designer's eye plan review — interactive, like CEO and Eng review.
|
||||
@@ -114,97 +115,54 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:
|
||||
- **`solo`** — You own everything. Investigate and offer to fix proactively.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** / **`unknown`** — Flag via AskUserQuestion, don't fix (may be someone else's).
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
Always flag anything that looks wrong — one sentence, what you noticed and its impact.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
Before building anything unfamiliar, **search first.** See `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md`.
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true) — don't reinvent. **Layer 2** (new and popular) — scrutinize. **Layer 3** (first principles) — prize above all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Three layers of knowledge:**
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
|
||||
- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
|
||||
- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
|
||||
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
|
||||
|
||||
Log eureka moments:
|
||||
**Eureka:** When first-principles reasoning contradicts conventional wisdom, name it and log:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: plan-design-review
|
||||
preamble-tier: 3
|
||||
version: 2.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Designer's eye plan review — interactive, like CEO and Eng review.
|
||||
|
||||
+24
-66
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: plan-eng-review
|
||||
preamble-tier: 3
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Eng manager-mode plan review. Lock in the execution plan — architecture,
|
||||
@@ -115,97 +116,54 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:
|
||||
- **`solo`** — You own everything. Investigate and offer to fix proactively.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** / **`unknown`** — Flag via AskUserQuestion, don't fix (may be someone else's).
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
Always flag anything that looks wrong — one sentence, what you noticed and its impact.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
Before building anything unfamiliar, **search first.** See `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md`.
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true) — don't reinvent. **Layer 2** (new and popular) — scrutinize. **Layer 3** (first principles) — prize above all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Three layers of knowledge:**
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
|
||||
- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
|
||||
- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
|
||||
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
|
||||
|
||||
Log eureka moments:
|
||||
**Eureka:** When first-principles reasoning contradicts conventional wisdom, name it and log:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: plan-eng-review
|
||||
preamble-tier: 3
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Eng manager-mode plan review. Lock in the execution plan — architecture,
|
||||
|
||||
+24
-66
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: qa-only
|
||||
preamble-tier: 4
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Report-only QA testing. Systematically tests a web application and produces a
|
||||
@@ -111,97 +112,54 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:
|
||||
- **`solo`** — You own everything. Investigate and offer to fix proactively.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** / **`unknown`** — Flag via AskUserQuestion, don't fix (may be someone else's).
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
Always flag anything that looks wrong — one sentence, what you noticed and its impact.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
Before building anything unfamiliar, **search first.** See `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md`.
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true) — don't reinvent. **Layer 2** (new and popular) — scrutinize. **Layer 3** (first principles) — prize above all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Three layers of knowledge:**
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
|
||||
- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
|
||||
- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
|
||||
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
|
||||
|
||||
Log eureka moments:
|
||||
**Eureka:** When first-principles reasoning contradicts conventional wisdom, name it and log:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: qa-only
|
||||
preamble-tier: 4
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Report-only QA testing. Systematically tests a web application and produces a
|
||||
|
||||
+24
-66
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: qa
|
||||
preamble-tier: 4
|
||||
version: 2.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Systematically QA test a web application and fix bugs found. Runs QA testing,
|
||||
@@ -117,97 +118,54 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:
|
||||
- **`solo`** — You own everything. Investigate and offer to fix proactively.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** / **`unknown`** — Flag via AskUserQuestion, don't fix (may be someone else's).
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
Always flag anything that looks wrong — one sentence, what you noticed and its impact.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
Before building anything unfamiliar, **search first.** See `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md`.
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true) — don't reinvent. **Layer 2** (new and popular) — scrutinize. **Layer 3** (first principles) — prize above all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Three layers of knowledge:**
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
|
||||
- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
|
||||
- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
|
||||
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
|
||||
|
||||
Log eureka moments:
|
||||
**Eureka:** When first-principles reasoning contradicts conventional wisdom, name it and log:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: qa
|
||||
preamble-tier: 4
|
||||
version: 2.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Systematically QA test a web application and fix bugs found. Runs QA testing,
|
||||
|
||||
+16
-76
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: retro
|
||||
preamble-tier: 2
|
||||
version: 2.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Weekly engineering retrospective. Analyzes commit history, work patterns,
|
||||
@@ -111,97 +112,36 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
|
||||
**Three layers of knowledge:**
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
|
||||
- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
|
||||
- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
|
||||
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
|
||||
|
||||
Log eureka moments:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: retro
|
||||
preamble-tier: 2
|
||||
version: 2.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Weekly engineering retrospective. Analyzes commit history, work patterns,
|
||||
|
||||
+24
-66
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: review
|
||||
preamble-tier: 4
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Pre-landing PR review. Analyzes diff against the base branch for SQL safety, LLM trust
|
||||
@@ -114,97 +115,54 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:
|
||||
- **`solo`** — You own everything. Investigate and offer to fix proactively.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** / **`unknown`** — Flag via AskUserQuestion, don't fix (may be someone else's).
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
Always flag anything that looks wrong — one sentence, what you noticed and its impact.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
Before building anything unfamiliar, **search first.** See `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md`.
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true) — don't reinvent. **Layer 2** (new and popular) — scrutinize. **Layer 3** (first principles) — prize above all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Three layers of knowledge:**
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
|
||||
- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
|
||||
- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
|
||||
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
|
||||
|
||||
Log eureka moments:
|
||||
**Eureka:** When first-principles reasoning contradicts conventional wisdom, name it and log:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: review
|
||||
preamble-tier: 4
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Pre-landing PR review. Analyzes diff against the base branch for SQL safety, LLM trust
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: setup-browser-cookies
|
||||
preamble-tier: 1
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Import cookies from your real browser (Comet, Chrome, Arc, Brave, Edge) into the
|
||||
@@ -94,111 +95,23 @@ touch ~/.gstack/.telemetry-prompted
|
||||
|
||||
This only happens once. If `TEL_PROMPTED` is `yes`, skip this entirely.
|
||||
|
||||
## AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
|
||||
**ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:**
|
||||
1. **Re-ground:** State the project, the current branch (use the `_BRANCH` value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
|
||||
**Three layers of knowledge:**
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
|
||||
- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
|
||||
- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
|
||||
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
|
||||
|
||||
Log eureka moments:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: setup-browser-cookies
|
||||
preamble-tier: 1
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Import cookies from your real browser (Comet, Chrome, Arc, Brave, Edge) into the
|
||||
|
||||
+16
-76
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: setup-deploy
|
||||
preamble-tier: 2
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Configure deployment settings for /land-and-deploy. Detects your deploy
|
||||
@@ -114,97 +115,36 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
|
||||
**Three layers of knowledge:**
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
|
||||
- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
|
||||
- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
|
||||
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
|
||||
|
||||
Log eureka moments:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: setup-deploy
|
||||
preamble-tier: 2
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Configure deployment settings for /land-and-deploy. Detects your deploy
|
||||
|
||||
+24
-66
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: ship
|
||||
preamble-tier: 4
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Ship workflow: detect + merge base branch, run tests, review diff, bump VERSION, update CHANGELOG, commit, push, create PR. Use when asked to "ship", "deploy", "push to main", "create a PR", or "merge and push".
|
||||
@@ -112,97 +113,54 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:
|
||||
- **`solo`** — You own everything. Investigate and offer to fix proactively.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** / **`unknown`** — Flag via AskUserQuestion, don't fix (may be someone else's).
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
Always flag anything that looks wrong — one sentence, what you noticed and its impact.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
Before building anything unfamiliar, **search first.** See `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md`.
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true) — don't reinvent. **Layer 2** (new and popular) — scrutinize. **Layer 3** (first principles) — prize above all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Three layers of knowledge:**
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
|
||||
- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
|
||||
- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
|
||||
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
|
||||
|
||||
Log eureka moments:
|
||||
**Eureka:** When first-principles reasoning contradicts conventional wisdom, name it and log:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: ship
|
||||
preamble-tier: 4
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Ship workflow: detect + merge base branch, run tests, review diff, bump VERSION, update CHANGELOG, commit, push, create PR. Use when asked to "ship", "deploy", "push to main", "create a PR", or "merge and push".
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user