{
  "source": "Local paid diagnostic run 2026-09-30 (bun test test/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-mode-routing.test.ts -t \"HOLD SCOPE\", Claude Code 2.1.251): one native call bundled routing, learnings and mode; its Submit review was taller than the viewport, so the heading and first question never rendered and the mode question displayed truncated with an ellipsis. The harness never submitted HOLD SCOPE and the case failed on its posture budget.",
  "screen": " │   B) Keep learnings project-scoped\n │     ✅ Hard isolation between codebases; nothing from another repo ever appears here\n │     ✅ Safest default when you work across multiple clients or employers\n │     ❌ Each new project starts cold and relearns the same environment quirks\n │   Net: faster compounding vs strict per-repo isolation.\n   → Enable cross-project (recommended)\n │ ● D3 — MODE: Which review mode for the saved-views plan?\n │   Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-oRKiaK on main; plan adds a saved_views table, CRUD endpoints, and a picker\n │   beside task filters.\n │   ELI10: The plan is an added capability on an existing product, roughly 12 changed files (estimate; no code in this\n │   checkout). It is right-shaped but leaves three edges undefined: what the list opens on (last view vs default), what\n │   happens when a saved filter references a deleted assignee or label, and whether views are personal-only forever or\n │   the schema should leave room for team-shared views. The mode decides how hard I push on scope: expand,\n │   cherry-pick, hold, or cut.\n │   Stakes if we pick wrong: Expand too far and a two-week pilot feature becomes a quarter of work; hold too tight and\n │   the schema ships without room for sharing, forcing a migration later.\n │   Recommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because those three edges are cheapest to decide while the migration is being\n │   written, and cherry-picking lets you accept or decline each one on its own without inflating the pilot.\n │   Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\n │   Pros / cons:\n │   A) SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)\n │     ✅ Hardens the current scope AND offers each expansion (open-on-last-view, sharing-ready schema, deleted-ref\n │   handling) as a separate yes/no\n │     ✅ Keeps the pilot small while avoiding a schema you regret in six months\n │     ❌ More decision prompts than HOLD SCOPE; you answer one question per candidate\n │   B) SCOPE EXPANSION\n │     ✅ Aims at the full ideal: team-shared views, default view per project, deep links, notifications on views\n │     ✅ Best if saved views are meant to become a platform primitive, not a pilot\n │     ❌ Turns a two-week pilot into a multi-sprint feature before you know anyone reuses views\n │   C) HOLD SCOPE\n │     ✅ Maximum rigor on exactly what is written: error paths, tests, observability, no additions\n │     ✅ Fastest path to an implementable spec for the pilot as scoped\n │     ❌ The three undefined edges get flagged as …\n   → HOLD SCOPE\n\nReady to submit your answers?\n\n❯ 1. Submit answers\n  2. Cancel\n",
  "transcript": {
    "status": "ready",
    "calls": [
      {
        "sessionId": "a56b9730-c001-4931-a6f0-d33cb55eac7b",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01AxxnwBhHQyNYqtP3rzwZ4s",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D1 — ADMIN-1: Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-oRKiaK on main, reviewing the saved-views plan.\nELI10: gstack skills work best when CLAUDE.md tells Claude which skill to reach for (bugs → /investigate, strategy → /plan-ceo-review, etc). This is a one-time onboarding prompt for this project. Note: we are in plan mode, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md append and commit happen after plan mode exits, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without routing, you invoke each skill by name manually; with it, a fixture repo gets an extra committed section it may not want.\nRecommendation: A because routing makes skill use automatic and the section is small and reversible.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Add routing rules (recommended)\n  ✅ Future requests auto-route to the right gstack skill without remembering names\n  ✅ One small appended section, plain markdown, easy to delete later\n  ❌ Adds a commit to a fixture repo that currently has a single seed commit\nB) No thanks, invoke manually\n  ✅ Keeps CLAUDE.md exactly as the fixture author wrote it\n  ✅ Zero writes to the repo; only a local ~/.gstack config flag is set\n  ❌ You must remember and type skill names yourself every time\nNet: convenience for future sessions vs keeping the fixture repo untouched.",
            "header": "Routing",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
                "description": "✅ Auto-routes future requests to the matching gstack skill. ✅ Small reversible markdown section. ❌ Adds a commit to the fixture repo (deferred until plan mode exits)."
              },
              {
                "label": "No thanks, invoke manually",
                "description": "✅ CLAUDE.md stays exactly as the fixture author wrote it. ✅ Only a local config flag is written. ❌ You type skill names yourself every time."
              }
            ]
          },
          {
            "question": "D2 — ADMIN-2: Let gstack search learnings from your other local projects?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-oRKiaK on main, reviewing the saved-views plan.\nELI10: gstack logs small lessons per project (command quirks, pitfalls). Cross-project mode lets this review also read lessons logged in your other repos on this machine. Nothing leaves the machine. Good for solo devs; skip if you juggle client codebases that must stay separate.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Enabled on a multi-client machine could surface a client-specific pattern in the wrong repo; disabled on a solo machine just means fewer prior-learning hits.\nRecommendation: A because this is a local machine flag and you appear to be one developer across these repos.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n  ✅ Reviews get smarter faster by reusing lessons from every repo on this machine\n  ✅ Stays fully local; a single config flag you can flip back any time\n  ❌ A learning from an unrelated codebase could be surfaced where it does not apply\nB) Keep learnings project-scoped\n  ✅ Hard isolation between codebases; nothing from another repo ever appears here\n  ✅ Safest default when you work across multiple clients or employers\n  ❌ Each new project starts cold and relearns the same environment quirks\nNet: faster compounding vs strict per-repo isolation.",
            "header": "Learnings",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
                "description": "✅ Reuses lessons from all local repos so reviews compound faster. ✅ Local-only flag, reversible. ❌ Unrelated-repo lesson could surface here."
              },
              {
                "label": "Keep project-scoped",
                "description": "✅ Hard isolation between codebases. ✅ Safest for multi-client work. ❌ Every project starts cold."
              }
            ]
          },
          {
            "question": "D3 — MODE: Which review mode for the saved-views plan?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-oRKiaK on main; plan adds a saved_views table, CRUD endpoints, and a picker beside task filters.\nELI10: The plan is an added capability on an existing product, roughly 12 changed files (estimate; no code in this checkout). It is right-shaped but leaves three edges undefined: what the list opens on (last view vs default), what happens when a saved filter references a deleted assignee or label, and whether views are personal-only forever or the schema should leave room for team-shared views. The mode decides how hard I push on scope: expand, cherry-pick, hold, or cut.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Expand too far and a two-week pilot feature becomes a quarter of work; hold too tight and the schema ships without room for sharing, forcing a migration later.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because those three edges are cheapest to decide while the migration is being written, and cherry-picking lets you accept or decline each one on its own without inflating the pilot.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)\n  ✅ Hardens the current scope AND offers each expansion (open-on-last-view, sharing-ready schema, deleted-ref handling) as a separate yes/no\n  ✅ Keeps the pilot small while avoiding a schema you regret in six months\n  ❌ More decision prompts than HOLD SCOPE; you answer one question per candidate\nB) SCOPE EXPANSION\n  ✅ Aims at the full ideal: team-shared views, default view per project, deep links, notifications on views\n  ✅ Best if saved views are meant to become a platform primitive, not a pilot\n  ❌ Turns a two-week pilot into a multi-sprint feature before you know anyone reuses views\nC) HOLD SCOPE\n  ✅ Maximum rigor on exactly what is written: error paths, tests, observability, no additions\n  ✅ Fastest path to an implementable spec for the pilot as scoped\n  ❌ The three undefined edges get flagged as risks but not offered as additions; schema may need a later migration for sharing\nD) SCOPE REDUCTION\n  ✅ Strips to the minimum (e.g. remember last filter, no named views) to test the premise cheapest\n  ✅ Lowest cost if you doubt members will bother naming views at all\n  ❌ Loses the multi-context use case (switching between named lists) that the goal explicitly names\nNet: how much of the six-month shape you want to settle now versus after the pilot proves reuse.",
            "header": "Review mode",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
                "description": "✅ Harden current scope, then a separate yes/no for each of the three undefined edges. ✅ Pilot stays small, schema avoids regret. ❌ More prompts than HOLD."
              },
              {
                "label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
                "description": "✅ Go for the full ideal: shared views, project defaults, deep links. ✅ Right if views become a platform primitive. ❌ Pilot becomes multi-sprint before reuse is proven."
              },
              {
                "label": "HOLD SCOPE",
                "description": "✅ Max rigor on exactly what is written; fastest to implementable spec. ✅ No additions. ❌ Undefined edges flagged as risks only; sharing may need a later migration."
              },
              {
                "label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
                "description": "✅ Strip to remember-last-filter to test the premise cheapest. ✅ Lowest cost if naming views is doubtful. ❌ Drops the multi-context case the goal names."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": false,
        "failed": false
      }
    ],
    "assistantMessages": []
  }
}