mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-05-05 05:05:08 +02:00
feat: add /plan-devex-review to /autoplan as conditional Phase 3.5
Auto-detects developer-facing scope (API, CLI, SDK, shell, agent, MCP, OpenClaw) and runs DX review with dual adversarial voices after Eng review.
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan
+138
-5
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: autoplan
|
||||
preamble-tier: 3
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Auto-review pipeline — reads the full CEO, design, and eng review skills from disk
|
||||
Auto-review pipeline — reads the full CEO, design, eng, and DX review skills from disk
|
||||
and runs them sequentially with auto-decisions using 6 decision principles. Surfaces
|
||||
taste decisions (close approaches, borderline scope, codex disagreements) at a final
|
||||
approval gate. One command, fully reviewed plan out.
|
||||
@@ -584,7 +584,7 @@ If none was produced (user may have cancelled), proceed with standard review.
|
||||
|
||||
One command. Rough plan in, fully reviewed plan out.
|
||||
|
||||
/autoplan reads the full CEO, design, and eng review skill files from disk and follows
|
||||
/autoplan reads the full CEO, design, eng, and DX review skill files from disk and follows
|
||||
them at full depth — same rigor, same sections, same methodology as running each skill
|
||||
manually. The only difference: intermediate AskUserQuestion calls are auto-decided using
|
||||
the 6 principles below. Taste decisions (where reasonable people could disagree) are
|
||||
@@ -648,7 +648,7 @@ preference." The user still decides, but the framing is appropriately urgent.
|
||||
|
||||
## Sequential Execution — MANDATORY
|
||||
|
||||
Phases MUST execute in strict order: CEO → Design → Eng.
|
||||
Phases MUST execute in strict order: CEO → Design → Eng → DX.
|
||||
Each phase MUST complete fully before the next begins.
|
||||
NEVER run phases in parallel — each builds on the previous.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -739,6 +739,14 @@ Then prepend a one-line HTML comment to the plan file:
|
||||
- Detect UI scope: grep the plan for view/rendering terms (component, screen, form,
|
||||
button, modal, layout, dashboard, sidebar, nav, dialog). Require 2+ matches. Exclude
|
||||
false positives ("page" alone, "UI" in acronyms).
|
||||
- Detect DX scope: grep the plan for developer-facing terms (API, endpoint, REST,
|
||||
GraphQL, gRPC, webhook, CLI, command, flag, argument, terminal, shell, SDK, library,
|
||||
package, npm, pip, import, require, SKILL.md, skill template, Claude Code, MCP, agent,
|
||||
OpenClaw, action, developer docs, getting started, onboarding, integration, debug,
|
||||
implement, error message). Require 2+ matches. Also trigger DX scope if the product IS
|
||||
a developer tool (the plan describes something developers install, integrate, or build
|
||||
on top of) or if an AI agent is the primary user (OpenClaw actions, Claude Code skills,
|
||||
MCP servers).
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 3: Load skill files from disk
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -746,6 +754,7 @@ Read each file using the Read tool:
|
||||
- `~/.claude/skills/gstack/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md`
|
||||
- `~/.claude/skills/gstack/plan-design-review/SKILL.md` (only if UI scope detected)
|
||||
- `~/.claude/skills/gstack/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md`
|
||||
- `~/.claude/skills/gstack/plan-devex-review/SKILL.md` (only if DX scope detected)
|
||||
|
||||
**Section skip list — when following a loaded skill file, SKIP these sections
|
||||
(they are already handled by /autoplan):**
|
||||
@@ -764,7 +773,7 @@ Read each file using the Read tool:
|
||||
|
||||
Follow ONLY the review-specific methodology, sections, and required outputs.
|
||||
|
||||
Output: "Here's what I'm working with: [plan summary]. UI scope: [yes/no].
|
||||
Output: "Here's what I'm working with: [plan summary]. UI scope: [yes/no]. DX scope: [yes/no].
|
||||
Loaded review skills from disk. Starting full review pipeline with auto-decisions."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
@@ -1064,6 +1073,109 @@ Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = fl
|
||||
- Completion Summary (the full summary from the Eng skill)
|
||||
- TODOS.md updates (collected from all phases)
|
||||
|
||||
**PHASE 3 COMPLETE.** Emit phase-transition summary:
|
||||
> **Phase 3 complete.** Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
|
||||
> Consensus: [X/6 confirmed, Y disagreements → surfaced at gate].
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 3.5 (DX Review) or Phase 4 (Final Gate).
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 3.5: DX Review (conditional — skip if no developer-facing scope)
|
||||
|
||||
Follow plan-devex-review/SKILL.md — all 8 DX dimensions, full depth.
|
||||
Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
|
||||
**Skip condition:** If DX scope was NOT detected in Phase 0, skip this phase entirely.
|
||||
Log: "Phase 3.5 skipped — no developer-facing scope detected."
|
||||
|
||||
**Override rules:**
|
||||
- Focus areas: all relevant DX dimensions (P1)
|
||||
- Getting started friction: always optimize toward fewer steps (P5, simpler over clever)
|
||||
- Error message quality: always require problem + cause + fix (P1, completeness)
|
||||
- API/CLI naming: consistency wins over cleverness (P5)
|
||||
- DX taste decisions (e.g., opinionated defaults vs flexibility): mark TASTE DECISION
|
||||
- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
|
||||
|
||||
**Codex DX voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
_REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
|
||||
codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/gstack). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only.
|
||||
|
||||
Read the plan file at <plan_path>. Evaluate this plan's developer experience.
|
||||
|
||||
Also consider these findings from prior review phases:
|
||||
CEO: <insert CEO consensus summary>
|
||||
Eng: <insert Eng consensus summary>
|
||||
|
||||
You are a developer who has never seen this product. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Time to hello world: how many steps from zero to working? Target is under 5 minutes.
|
||||
2. Error messages: when something goes wrong, does the dev know what, why, and how to fix?
|
||||
3. API/CLI design: are names guessable? Are defaults sensible? Is it consistent?
|
||||
4. Docs: can a dev find what they need in under 2 minutes? Are examples copy-paste-complete?
|
||||
5. Upgrade path: can devs upgrade without fear? Migration guides? Deprecation warnings?
|
||||
Be adversarial. Think like a developer who is evaluating this against 3 competitors." -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only --enable web_search_cached
|
||||
```
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude DX subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
"Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent DX engineer
|
||||
reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Getting started: how many steps from zero to hello world? What's the TTHW?
|
||||
2. API/CLI ergonomics: naming consistency, sensible defaults, progressive disclosure?
|
||||
3. Error handling: does every error path specify problem + cause + fix + docs link?
|
||||
4. Documentation: copy-paste examples? Information architecture? Interactive elements?
|
||||
5. Escape hatches: can developers override every opinionated default?
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix."
|
||||
NO prior-phase context — subagent must be truly independent.
|
||||
|
||||
Error handling: same as Phase 1 (both foreground/blocking, degradation matrix applies).
|
||||
|
||||
- DX choices: if codex disagrees with a DX decision with valid developer empathy reasoning
|
||||
→ TASTE DECISION. Scope changes both models agree on → USER CHALLENGE.
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (DX):**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Step 0 (DX Scope Assessment): Auto-detect product type. Map the developer journey.
|
||||
Rate initial DX completeness 0-10. Assess TTHW.
|
||||
|
||||
2. Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent (foreground) first, then Codex. Present
|
||||
under CODEX SAYS (DX — developer experience challenge) and CLAUDE SUBAGENT
|
||||
(DX — independent review) headers. Produce DX consensus table:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
DX DUAL VOICES — CONSENSUS TABLE:
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
Dimension Claude Codex Consensus
|
||||
──────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
|
||||
1. Getting started < 5 min? — — —
|
||||
2. API/CLI naming guessable? — — —
|
||||
3. Error messages actionable? — — —
|
||||
4. Docs findable & complete? — — —
|
||||
5. Upgrade path safe? — — —
|
||||
6. Dev environment friction-free? — — —
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ (→ taste decision).
|
||||
Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = flagged regardless.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
3. Passes 1-8: Run each from loaded skill. Rate 0-10. Auto-decide each issue.
|
||||
DISAGREE items from consensus table → raised in the relevant pass with both perspectives.
|
||||
|
||||
4. DX Scorecard: Produce the full scorecard with all 8 dimensions scored.
|
||||
|
||||
**Mandatory outputs from Phase 3.5:**
|
||||
- Developer journey map (9-stage table)
|
||||
- Developer empathy narrative (first-person perspective)
|
||||
- DX Scorecard with all 8 dimension scores
|
||||
- DX Implementation Checklist
|
||||
- TTHW assessment with target
|
||||
|
||||
**PHASE 3.5 COMPLETE.** Emit phase-transition summary:
|
||||
> **Phase 3.5 complete.** DX overall: [N]/10. TTHW: [N] min → [target] min.
|
||||
> Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
|
||||
> Consensus: [X/6 confirmed, Y disagreements → surfaced at gate].
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 4 (Final Gate).
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Decision Audit Trail
|
||||
@@ -1118,6 +1230,15 @@ produced. Check the plan file and conversation for each item.
|
||||
- [ ] Dual voices ran (Codex + Claude subagent, or noted unavailable)
|
||||
- [ ] Eng consensus table produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 3.5 (DX) outputs — only if DX scope detected:**
|
||||
- [ ] All 8 DX dimensions evaluated with scores
|
||||
- [ ] Developer journey map produced
|
||||
- [ ] Developer empathy narrative written
|
||||
- [ ] TTHW assessment with target
|
||||
- [ ] DX Implementation Checklist produced
|
||||
- [ ] Dual voices ran (or noted unavailable/skipped with phase)
|
||||
- [ ] DX consensus table produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Cross-phase:**
|
||||
- [ ] Cross-phase themes section written
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1172,6 +1293,8 @@ I recommend [X] — [principle]. But [Y] is also viable:
|
||||
- Design Voices: Codex [summary], Claude subagent [summary], Consensus [X/7 confirmed] (or "skipped")
|
||||
- Eng: [summary]
|
||||
- Eng Voices: Codex [summary], Claude subagent [summary], Consensus [X/6 confirmed]
|
||||
- DX: [summary or "skipped, no developer-facing scope"]
|
||||
- DX Voices: Codex [summary], Claude subagent [summary], Consensus [X/6 confirmed] (or "skipped")
|
||||
|
||||
### Cross-Phase Themes
|
||||
[For any concern that appeared in 2+ phases' dual voices independently:]
|
||||
@@ -1225,6 +1348,11 @@ If Phase 2 ran (UI scope):
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-design-review","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","unresolved":N,"via":"autoplan","commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If Phase 3.5 ran (DX scope):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-devex-review","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","initial_score":N,"overall_score":N,"product_type":"TYPE","tthw_current":"TTHW","tthw_target":"TARGET","unresolved":N,"via":"autoplan","commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Dual voice logs (one per phase that ran):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"autoplan-voices","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","phase":"ceo","via":"autoplan","consensus_confirmed":N,"consensus_disagree":N,"commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
|
||||
@@ -1237,6 +1365,11 @@ If Phase 2 ran (UI scope), also log:
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"autoplan-voices","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","phase":"design","via":"autoplan","consensus_confirmed":N,"consensus_disagree":N,"commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If Phase 3.5 ran (DX scope), also log:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"autoplan-voices","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","phase":"dx","via":"autoplan","consensus_confirmed":N,"consensus_disagree":N,"commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
SOURCE = "codex+subagent", "codex-only", "subagent-only", or "unavailable".
|
||||
Replace N values with actual consensus counts from the tables.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1251,4 +1384,4 @@ Suggest next step: `/ship` when ready to create the PR.
|
||||
- **Log every decision.** No silent auto-decisions. Every choice gets a row in the audit trail.
|
||||
- **Full depth means full depth.** Do not compress or skip sections from the loaded skill files (except the skip list in Phase 0). "Full depth" means: read the code the section asks you to read, produce the outputs the section requires, identify every issue, and decide each one. A one-sentence summary of a section is not "full depth" — it is a skip. If you catch yourself writing fewer than 3 sentences for any review section, you are likely compressing.
|
||||
- **Artifacts are deliverables.** Test plan artifact, failure modes registry, error/rescue table, ASCII diagrams — these must exist on disk or in the plan file when the review completes. If they don't exist, the review is incomplete.
|
||||
- **Sequential order.** CEO → Design → Eng. Each phase builds on the last.
|
||||
- **Sequential order.** CEO → Design → Eng → DX. Each phase builds on the last.
|
||||
|
||||
+138
-5
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: autoplan
|
||||
preamble-tier: 3
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
Auto-review pipeline — reads the full CEO, design, and eng review skills from disk
|
||||
Auto-review pipeline — reads the full CEO, design, eng, and DX review skills from disk
|
||||
and runs them sequentially with auto-decisions using 6 decision principles. Surfaces
|
||||
taste decisions (close approaches, borderline scope, codex disagreements) at a final
|
||||
approval gate. One command, fully reviewed plan out.
|
||||
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ allowed-tools:
|
||||
|
||||
One command. Rough plan in, fully reviewed plan out.
|
||||
|
||||
/autoplan reads the full CEO, design, and eng review skill files from disk and follows
|
||||
/autoplan reads the full CEO, design, eng, and DX review skill files from disk and follows
|
||||
them at full depth — same rigor, same sections, same methodology as running each skill
|
||||
manually. The only difference: intermediate AskUserQuestion calls are auto-decided using
|
||||
the 6 principles below. Taste decisions (where reasonable people could disagree) are
|
||||
@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ preference." The user still decides, but the framing is appropriately urgent.
|
||||
|
||||
## Sequential Execution — MANDATORY
|
||||
|
||||
Phases MUST execute in strict order: CEO → Design → Eng.
|
||||
Phases MUST execute in strict order: CEO → Design → Eng → DX.
|
||||
Each phase MUST complete fully before the next begins.
|
||||
NEVER run phases in parallel — each builds on the previous.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -191,6 +191,14 @@ Then prepend a one-line HTML comment to the plan file:
|
||||
- Detect UI scope: grep the plan for view/rendering terms (component, screen, form,
|
||||
button, modal, layout, dashboard, sidebar, nav, dialog). Require 2+ matches. Exclude
|
||||
false positives ("page" alone, "UI" in acronyms).
|
||||
- Detect DX scope: grep the plan for developer-facing terms (API, endpoint, REST,
|
||||
GraphQL, gRPC, webhook, CLI, command, flag, argument, terminal, shell, SDK, library,
|
||||
package, npm, pip, import, require, SKILL.md, skill template, Claude Code, MCP, agent,
|
||||
OpenClaw, action, developer docs, getting started, onboarding, integration, debug,
|
||||
implement, error message). Require 2+ matches. Also trigger DX scope if the product IS
|
||||
a developer tool (the plan describes something developers install, integrate, or build
|
||||
on top of) or if an AI agent is the primary user (OpenClaw actions, Claude Code skills,
|
||||
MCP servers).
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 3: Load skill files from disk
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -198,6 +206,7 @@ Read each file using the Read tool:
|
||||
- `~/.claude/skills/gstack/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md`
|
||||
- `~/.claude/skills/gstack/plan-design-review/SKILL.md` (only if UI scope detected)
|
||||
- `~/.claude/skills/gstack/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md`
|
||||
- `~/.claude/skills/gstack/plan-devex-review/SKILL.md` (only if DX scope detected)
|
||||
|
||||
**Section skip list — when following a loaded skill file, SKIP these sections
|
||||
(they are already handled by /autoplan):**
|
||||
@@ -216,7 +225,7 @@ Read each file using the Read tool:
|
||||
|
||||
Follow ONLY the review-specific methodology, sections, and required outputs.
|
||||
|
||||
Output: "Here's what I'm working with: [plan summary]. UI scope: [yes/no].
|
||||
Output: "Here's what I'm working with: [plan summary]. UI scope: [yes/no]. DX scope: [yes/no].
|
||||
Loaded review skills from disk. Starting full review pipeline with auto-decisions."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
@@ -516,6 +525,109 @@ Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = fl
|
||||
- Completion Summary (the full summary from the Eng skill)
|
||||
- TODOS.md updates (collected from all phases)
|
||||
|
||||
**PHASE 3 COMPLETE.** Emit phase-transition summary:
|
||||
> **Phase 3 complete.** Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
|
||||
> Consensus: [X/6 confirmed, Y disagreements → surfaced at gate].
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 3.5 (DX Review) or Phase 4 (Final Gate).
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 3.5: DX Review (conditional — skip if no developer-facing scope)
|
||||
|
||||
Follow plan-devex-review/SKILL.md — all 8 DX dimensions, full depth.
|
||||
Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
|
||||
**Skip condition:** If DX scope was NOT detected in Phase 0, skip this phase entirely.
|
||||
Log: "Phase 3.5 skipped — no developer-facing scope detected."
|
||||
|
||||
**Override rules:**
|
||||
- Focus areas: all relevant DX dimensions (P1)
|
||||
- Getting started friction: always optimize toward fewer steps (P5, simpler over clever)
|
||||
- Error message quality: always require problem + cause + fix (P1, completeness)
|
||||
- API/CLI naming: consistency wins over cleverness (P5)
|
||||
- DX taste decisions (e.g., opinionated defaults vs flexibility): mark TASTE DECISION
|
||||
- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
|
||||
|
||||
**Codex DX voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
_REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
|
||||
codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/gstack). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only.
|
||||
|
||||
Read the plan file at <plan_path>. Evaluate this plan's developer experience.
|
||||
|
||||
Also consider these findings from prior review phases:
|
||||
CEO: <insert CEO consensus summary>
|
||||
Eng: <insert Eng consensus summary>
|
||||
|
||||
You are a developer who has never seen this product. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Time to hello world: how many steps from zero to working? Target is under 5 minutes.
|
||||
2. Error messages: when something goes wrong, does the dev know what, why, and how to fix?
|
||||
3. API/CLI design: are names guessable? Are defaults sensible? Is it consistent?
|
||||
4. Docs: can a dev find what they need in under 2 minutes? Are examples copy-paste-complete?
|
||||
5. Upgrade path: can devs upgrade without fear? Migration guides? Deprecation warnings?
|
||||
Be adversarial. Think like a developer who is evaluating this against 3 competitors." -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only --enable web_search_cached
|
||||
```
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude DX subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
"Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent DX engineer
|
||||
reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
|
||||
1. Getting started: how many steps from zero to hello world? What's the TTHW?
|
||||
2. API/CLI ergonomics: naming consistency, sensible defaults, progressive disclosure?
|
||||
3. Error handling: does every error path specify problem + cause + fix + docs link?
|
||||
4. Documentation: copy-paste examples? Information architecture? Interactive elements?
|
||||
5. Escape hatches: can developers override every opinionated default?
|
||||
For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix."
|
||||
NO prior-phase context — subagent must be truly independent.
|
||||
|
||||
Error handling: same as Phase 1 (both foreground/blocking, degradation matrix applies).
|
||||
|
||||
- DX choices: if codex disagrees with a DX decision with valid developer empathy reasoning
|
||||
→ TASTE DECISION. Scope changes both models agree on → USER CHALLENGE.
|
||||
|
||||
**Required execution checklist (DX):**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Step 0 (DX Scope Assessment): Auto-detect product type. Map the developer journey.
|
||||
Rate initial DX completeness 0-10. Assess TTHW.
|
||||
|
||||
2. Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent (foreground) first, then Codex. Present
|
||||
under CODEX SAYS (DX — developer experience challenge) and CLAUDE SUBAGENT
|
||||
(DX — independent review) headers. Produce DX consensus table:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
DX DUAL VOICES — CONSENSUS TABLE:
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
Dimension Claude Codex Consensus
|
||||
──────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
|
||||
1. Getting started < 5 min? — — —
|
||||
2. API/CLI naming guessable? — — —
|
||||
3. Error messages actionable? — — —
|
||||
4. Docs findable & complete? — — —
|
||||
5. Upgrade path safe? — — —
|
||||
6. Dev environment friction-free? — — —
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ (→ taste decision).
|
||||
Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = flagged regardless.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
3. Passes 1-8: Run each from loaded skill. Rate 0-10. Auto-decide each issue.
|
||||
DISAGREE items from consensus table → raised in the relevant pass with both perspectives.
|
||||
|
||||
4. DX Scorecard: Produce the full scorecard with all 8 dimensions scored.
|
||||
|
||||
**Mandatory outputs from Phase 3.5:**
|
||||
- Developer journey map (9-stage table)
|
||||
- Developer empathy narrative (first-person perspective)
|
||||
- DX Scorecard with all 8 dimension scores
|
||||
- DX Implementation Checklist
|
||||
- TTHW assessment with target
|
||||
|
||||
**PHASE 3.5 COMPLETE.** Emit phase-transition summary:
|
||||
> **Phase 3.5 complete.** DX overall: [N]/10. TTHW: [N] min → [target] min.
|
||||
> Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
|
||||
> Consensus: [X/6 confirmed, Y disagreements → surfaced at gate].
|
||||
> Passing to Phase 4 (Final Gate).
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Decision Audit Trail
|
||||
@@ -570,6 +682,15 @@ produced. Check the plan file and conversation for each item.
|
||||
- [ ] Dual voices ran (Codex + Claude subagent, or noted unavailable)
|
||||
- [ ] Eng consensus table produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 3.5 (DX) outputs — only if DX scope detected:**
|
||||
- [ ] All 8 DX dimensions evaluated with scores
|
||||
- [ ] Developer journey map produced
|
||||
- [ ] Developer empathy narrative written
|
||||
- [ ] TTHW assessment with target
|
||||
- [ ] DX Implementation Checklist produced
|
||||
- [ ] Dual voices ran (or noted unavailable/skipped with phase)
|
||||
- [ ] DX consensus table produced
|
||||
|
||||
**Cross-phase:**
|
||||
- [ ] Cross-phase themes section written
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -624,6 +745,8 @@ I recommend [X] — [principle]. But [Y] is also viable:
|
||||
- Design Voices: Codex [summary], Claude subagent [summary], Consensus [X/7 confirmed] (or "skipped")
|
||||
- Eng: [summary]
|
||||
- Eng Voices: Codex [summary], Claude subagent [summary], Consensus [X/6 confirmed]
|
||||
- DX: [summary or "skipped, no developer-facing scope"]
|
||||
- DX Voices: Codex [summary], Claude subagent [summary], Consensus [X/6 confirmed] (or "skipped")
|
||||
|
||||
### Cross-Phase Themes
|
||||
[For any concern that appeared in 2+ phases' dual voices independently:]
|
||||
@@ -677,6 +800,11 @@ If Phase 2 ran (UI scope):
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-design-review","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","unresolved":N,"via":"autoplan","commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If Phase 3.5 ran (DX scope):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-devex-review","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","initial_score":N,"overall_score":N,"product_type":"TYPE","tthw_current":"TTHW","tthw_target":"TARGET","unresolved":N,"via":"autoplan","commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Dual voice logs (one per phase that ran):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"autoplan-voices","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","phase":"ceo","via":"autoplan","consensus_confirmed":N,"consensus_disagree":N,"commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
|
||||
@@ -689,6 +817,11 @@ If Phase 2 ran (UI scope), also log:
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"autoplan-voices","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","phase":"design","via":"autoplan","consensus_confirmed":N,"consensus_disagree":N,"commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If Phase 3.5 ran (DX scope), also log:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"autoplan-voices","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","phase":"dx","via":"autoplan","consensus_confirmed":N,"consensus_disagree":N,"commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
SOURCE = "codex+subagent", "codex-only", "subagent-only", or "unavailable".
|
||||
Replace N values with actual consensus counts from the tables.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -703,4 +836,4 @@ Suggest next step: `/ship` when ready to create the PR.
|
||||
- **Log every decision.** No silent auto-decisions. Every choice gets a row in the audit trail.
|
||||
- **Full depth means full depth.** Do not compress or skip sections from the loaded skill files (except the skip list in Phase 0). "Full depth" means: read the code the section asks you to read, produce the outputs the section requires, identify every issue, and decide each one. A one-sentence summary of a section is not "full depth" — it is a skip. If you catch yourself writing fewer than 3 sentences for any review section, you are likely compressing.
|
||||
- **Artifacts are deliverables.** Test plan artifact, failure modes registry, error/rescue table, ASCII diagrams — these must exist on disk or in the plan file when the review completes. If they don't exist, the review is incomplete.
|
||||
- **Sequential order.** CEO → Design → Eng. Each phase builds on the last.
|
||||
- **Sequential order.** CEO → Design → Eng → DX. Each phase builds on the last.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user