{
  "sessionId": "342a4ade-0ac4-414d-893e-9c105a1189b6",
  "toolUseId": "toolu_01UejNHDeBfix3rsNtczmySN",
  "questions": [
    {
      "question": "D3 — No design doc found for this branch. Run /office-hours first, or proceed with standard review? <gstack-qid:plan-devex-prereq-office-hours>\n\nELI10: /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives — it gives this DX review sharper input to work with. Takes about 10 minutes. The design doc is per-feature, not per-product — it captures the thinking behind this specific change.\n\nFor EvalKit's beta polish, the plan is already explicit about scope (DX POLISH, five specific contracts to review), so the review has strong grounding without a separate design doc.\n\nRecommendation: B — skip. The plan scope is already precise and the contracts are documented. /office-hours would help most when scope is still fuzzy.\n\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.",
      "header": "Design doc",
      "multiSelect": false,
      "options": [
        {
          "label": "Run /office-hours first",
          "description": "Produces a design doc with problem statement and alternatives. ~10 min. Pick up DX review after."
        },
        {
          "label": "Skip — proceed (Recommended)",
          "description": "Plan scope is already precise. Proceed with standard DX POLISH review."
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "answered": true,
  "failed": false,
  "answers": {
    "D3 — No design doc found for this branch. Run /office-hours first, or proceed with standard review? <gstack-qid:plan-devex-prereq-office-hours>\n\nELI10: /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives — it gives this DX review sharper input to work with. Takes about 10 minutes. The design doc is per-feature, not per-product — it captures the thinking behind this specific change.\n\nFor EvalKit's beta polish, the plan is already explicit about scope (DX POLISH, five specific contracts to review), so the review has strong grounding without a separate design doc.\n\nRecommendation: B — skip. The plan scope is already precise and the contracts are documented. /office-hours would help most when scope is still fuzzy.\n\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.": "Run /office-hours first"
  },
  "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
  "answeredAt": "2026-09-09T04:42:06.631Z"
}