From f9b61afe205e8d555950bcc1aa4f70631a4a4d8e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Garry Tan Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2026 17:03:23 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] 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. --- autoplan/SKILL.md | 143 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- autoplan/SKILL.md.tmpl | 143 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 2 files changed, 276 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/autoplan/SKILL.md b/autoplan/SKILL.md index 8ad8e37c..6f144f5e 100644 --- a/autoplan/SKILL.md +++ b/autoplan/SKILL.md @@ -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=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; } + codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/gstack). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only. + + Read the plan file at . Evaluate this plan's developer experience. + + Also consider these findings from prior review phases: + CEO: + Eng: + + You are a developer who has never seen this product. Evaluate: + 1. Time to hello world: how many steps from zero to working? Target is under 5 minutes. + 2. Error messages: when something goes wrong, does the dev know what, why, and how to fix? + 3. API/CLI design: are names guessable? Are defaults sensible? Is it consistent? + 4. Docs: can a dev find what they need in under 2 minutes? Are examples copy-paste-complete? + 5. Upgrade path: can devs upgrade without fear? Migration guides? Deprecation warnings? + Be adversarial. Think like a developer who is evaluating this against 3 competitors." -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only --enable web_search_cached + ``` + Timeout: 10 minutes + + **Claude DX subagent** (via Agent tool): + "Read the plan file at . 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. diff --git a/autoplan/SKILL.md.tmpl b/autoplan/SKILL.md.tmpl index 2193fb39..035311bf 100644 --- a/autoplan/SKILL.md.tmpl +++ b/autoplan/SKILL.md.tmpl @@ -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=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; } + codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/gstack). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only. + + Read the plan file at . Evaluate this plan's developer experience. + + Also consider these findings from prior review phases: + CEO: + Eng: + + You are a developer who has never seen this product. Evaluate: + 1. Time to hello world: how many steps from zero to working? Target is under 5 minutes. + 2. Error messages: when something goes wrong, does the dev know what, why, and how to fix? + 3. API/CLI design: are names guessable? Are defaults sensible? Is it consistent? + 4. Docs: can a dev find what they need in under 2 minutes? Are examples copy-paste-complete? + 5. Upgrade path: can devs upgrade without fear? Migration guides? Deprecation warnings? + Be adversarial. Think like a developer who is evaluating this against 3 competitors." -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only --enable web_search_cached + ``` + Timeout: 10 minutes + + **Claude DX subagent** (via Agent tool): + "Read the plan file at . 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.