CalvinBackup/gstack
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git synced 2026-07-19 14:07:22 +02:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

refactor(ethos): rename Boil the Lake principle to Boil the Ocean

Browse Source 
Reframes the completeness principle so the ocean (the complete thing) is the
goal and lakes are the boilable units you ship on the way there. "Don't boil
the ocean" was right when engineering time was the bottleneck; AI killed that
bottleneck, so the ocean is now the destination.

Resolves an existing split: the scope_appetite psychographic, archetypes, and
the completeness intro flow already used "boil the ocean" as the
complete-implementation pole while the named principle still said "lake".

Sources only: ETHOS.md philosophy, CLAUDE.md, README.md, the preamble
resolvers, and the plan/autoplan/document-generate templates.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan
2026-06-07 19:50:20 -07:00
parent e722c5bf89
commit f74f274253
10 changed files with 27 additions and 20 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl
+1 -1
View File
@@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ Before reviewing anything, answer these questions:
If the plan rolls a custom solution where a built-in exists, flag it as a scope reduction opportunity. Annotate recommendations with **[Layer 1]**, **[Layer 2]**, **[Layer 3]**, or **[EUREKA]** (see preamble's Search Before Building section). If you find a eureka moment — a reason the standard approach is wrong for this case — present it as an architectural insight.
5. **TODOS cross-reference:** Read `TODOS.md` if it exists. Are any deferred items blocking this plan? Can any deferred items be bundled into this PR without expanding scope? Does this plan create new work that should be captured as a TODO?
5. **Completeness check:** Is the plan doing the complete version or a shortcut? With AI-assisted coding, the cost of completeness (100% test coverage, full edge case handling, complete error paths) is 10-100x cheaper than with a human team. If the plan proposes a shortcut that saves human-hours but only saves minutes with CC+gstack, recommend the complete version. Boil the lake.
5. **Completeness check:** Is the plan doing the complete version or a shortcut? With AI-assisted coding, the cost of completeness (100% test coverage, full edge case handling, complete error paths) is 10-100x cheaper than with a human team. If the plan proposes a shortcut that saves human-hours but only saves minutes with CC+gstack, recommend the complete version. Boil the ocean.
6. **Distribution check:** If the plan introduces a new artifact type (CLI binary, library package, container image, mobile app), does it include the build/publish pipeline? Code without distribution is code nobody can use. Check:
- Is there a CI/CD workflow for building and publishing the artifact?