gstack/plan-devex-review/sections/review-sections.md.tmpl

## Review Sections (8 passes, after Step 0 is complete)

**Anti-skip rule:** Never condense, abbreviate, or skip any review pass (1-8) regardless of plan type (strategy, spec, code, infra). Every pass in this skill exists for a reason. "This is a strategy doc so DX passes don't apply" is always wrong — DX gaps are where adoption breaks down. If a pass genuinely has zero findings, say "No issues found" and move on — but you must evaluate it.

{{ANTI_SHORTCUT_CLAUSE}}

**Review continuity:** Evaluate all eight passes against the current plan and its
declared baseline. Continue the same working list from Step 0, retaining unresolved
gaps and required verification. Run the Decision gate before drafting options in
any pass or responding to outside findings; a new pass does not reset approvals.

- **Prior approval:** For a later or outside proposal, compare its evidence with the prior decision and options already considered.
  A disclosed tradeoff or rejected alternative is not new evidence merely because a reviewer prefers it;
  identify a concrete contradiction or changed assumption before reopening.
  Carry exact approved follow-through and the Decision gate's routine review work
  forward without a new approval. Inspect source before stating behavior or restoring
  a declared destination; if verification is unavailable, record that dependency.
  This does not authorize new presentation choices, behavior, channels or optional
  verification depth. New independent remedies remain pending decisions.
- **Scope:** Unverified loss of existing coverage remains a risk to verify,
  not proof that a new release policy is needed. Establish what the existing
  contract actually guarantees before claiming that a remedy or delay is required.
  If a necessary remedy crosses an explicit scope boundary, name that boundary and
  obtain scope approval before choosing or applying the remedy.
- **Options:** Name one changed commitment or value. For every option, try accepting
  one change while rejecting another; if viable, split them before asking.
  A code example and an optional checklist are separate choices, as are a timer and its release-gate policy.

In DX POLISH, improve the accepted journey using existing capabilities. A checklist
or Hall of Fame example is a lens, not a requirement to add its features. Identify
out-of-scope opportunities separately; do not add APIs or change established
behavior to earn 10/10. "FIX TO 10" means resolve evidenced, in-scope gaps through
the Decision gate; retain honest residual scores. Reuse prior decisions across
passes and outside voice. Implementation details and proof of one chosen behavior
stay together; independent policies each need their own decision.

{{LEARNINGS_SEARCH}}

### DX Trend Check

Before starting review passes, check for prior DX reviews on this project:

```bash
SLUG=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug --get SLUG 2>/dev/null)
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-read 2>/dev/null | grep plan-devex-review || echo "NO_PRIOR_DX_REVIEWS"
```

If prior reviews exist, display the trend:
```
DX TREND (prior reviews):
  Dimension        | Prior Score | Notes
  Getting Started  | 4/10        | from 2026-03-15
  ...
```

Error Messages, API/CLI/SDK and Overall DX are scored under the `dx_rubric` the row records.
When a prior row's `dx_rubric` is absent or differs from `agent-ready-v1`, print
"rubric changed, not comparable" for those three dimensions instead of a score or trend.

### Pass 1: Getting Started Experience (Zero Friction)

Rate 0-10: Can a developer go from zero to hello world in under 5 minutes?

**Evidence recall:** Reference the competitive benchmark from 0C (target tier), the
magical moment from 0D (delivery vehicle), and any Install/Hello World friction
points from 0F.

Load reference: Read the "## Pass 1" section from `~/.claude/skills/gstack/plan-devex-review/dx-hall-of-fame.md`.

Evaluate:
- **Installation**: One command? One click? No prerequisites?
- **First run**: Does the first command produce visible, meaningful output?
- **Sandbox/Playground**: Can developers try before installing?
- **Free tier**: No credit card, no sales call, no company email?
- **Quick start guide**: Copy-paste complete? Shows real output?
- **Auth/credential bootstrapping**: How many steps between "I want to try" and "it works"?
- **Magical moment delivery**: Is the vehicle chosen in 0D actually in the plan?
- **Competitive gap**: How far is the TTHW from the target tier chosen in 0C?

FIX TO 10: Write the ideal getting started sequence. Specify exact commands,
expected output, and time budget per step. Target: 3 steps or fewer, under the
time chosen in 0C.

Stripe test: Can a [persona from 0A] go from "never heard of this" to "it worked"
in one terminal session without leaving the terminal?

**STOP.** Run the Decision gate; ask only for a new or justified reopened decision. Recommend + WHY. Reference the persona.

### Pass 2: API/CLI/SDK Design (Usable + Useful)

Rate 0-10: Is the interface intuitive, consistent, and complete?

**Evidence recall:** Does the API surface match [persona from 0A]'s mental model?
A YC founder expects `tool.do(thing)`. A platform engineer expects
`tool.configure(options).execute(thing)`.

Load reference: Read the "## Pass 2" section from `~/.claude/skills/gstack/plan-devex-review/dx-hall-of-fame.md`.

Evaluate:
- **Naming**: Guessable without docs? Consistent grammar?
- **Defaults**: Every parameter has a sensible default? Simplest call gives useful result?
- **Consistency**: Same patterns across the entire API surface?
- **Completeness**: 100% coverage or do devs drop to raw HTTP for edge cases?
- **Discoverability**: Can devs explore from CLI/playground without docs?
- **Reliability/trust**: Latency, retries, rate limits, idempotency, offline behavior?
- **Progressive disclosure**: Simple case is production-ready, complexity revealed gradually?
- **Persona fit**: Does the interface match how [persona] thinks about the problem?
- **Agent ergonomics** (observational, recorded with evidence, not separately scored): non-interactive by default, structured output, layered `--help`.

Good API design test: Can a [persona] use this API correctly after seeing one example?

**STOP.** Run the Decision gate; ask only for a new or justified reopened decision. Recommend + WHY.

### Pass 3: Error Messages & Debugging (agent-ready)

Rate 0-10: When something goes wrong, can the reader, often an AI agent running unattended,
tell what happened, recover safely, and debug it without reading the source?

**Evidence recall:** Reference any error-related friction points from 0F and confusion
points from 0G. Pass 3 always evaluates the agent reader as a second lens beside the
persona from 0A.

Load reference: Read the "## Pass 3" section from `~/.claude/skills/gstack/plan-devex-review/dx-hall-of-fame.md`
before scoring: the full contract, calibration examples and the standards mapping.

{{DX_ERROR_COMPACT}}

The "## Pass 3" Hall of Fame section loaded above holds the full contract: the item table,
the per-surface channel rules and the evidence states.

**Trace 3 specific error paths plus one unexpected-failure path** (crash, dependency failure)
from the plan or codebase. When the plan names no unexpected-failure handling, record that
absence as the trace gap. Output one matrix, prose only for failures:

```
ERROR PATH MATRIX (agent-ready-v1)
Path                  | Class      | what | fix | recovery | code | context | trace | redaction | channel | Cap
[path]                | usage      | pass | fail| N/A      | pass | N/A     | N/A   | pass      | pass    | CAP6:fix
```

For each capped path, show what an agent sees today and the corrected error line. Also note
the permission and safety model (what can go wrong, how clear the blast radius is) and whether
a verbose or debug mode exists.

**DX TRIAGE:** report the cap-triggering gaps only, and always every CAP4 finding.

**STOP.** Run the Decision gate; ask only for a new or justified reopened decision. Recommend + WHY.

### Pass 4: Documentation & Learning (Findable + Learn by Doing)

Rate 0-10: Can a developer find what they need and learn by doing?

**Evidence recall:** Does the docs architecture match [persona from 0A]'s learning
style? A YC founder needs copy-paste examples front and center. A platform engineer
needs architecture docs and API reference.

Load reference: Read the "## Pass 4" section from `~/.claude/skills/gstack/plan-devex-review/dx-hall-of-fame.md`.

Evaluate:
- **Information architecture**: Find what they need in under 2 minutes?
- **Progressive disclosure**: Beginners see simple, experts find advanced?
- **Code examples**: Copy-paste complete? Work as-is? Real context?
- **Interactive elements**: Playgrounds, sandboxes, "try it" buttons?
- **Versioning**: Docs match the version dev is using?
- **Tutorials vs references**: Both exist?

**STOP.** Run the Decision gate; ask only for a new or justified reopened decision. Recommend + WHY.

### Pass 5: Upgrade & Migration Path (Credible)

Rate 0-10: Can developers upgrade without fear?

Load reference: Read the "## Pass 5" section from `~/.claude/skills/gstack/plan-devex-review/dx-hall-of-fame.md`.

Evaluate:
- **Backward compatibility**: What breaks? Blast radius limited?
- **Deprecation warnings**: Advance notice? Actionable? ("use newMethod() instead")
- **Migration guides**: Step-by-step for every breaking change?
- **Codemods**: Automated migration scripts?
- **Versioning strategy**: Semantic versioning? Clear policy?

**STOP.** Run the Decision gate; ask only for a new or justified reopened decision. Recommend + WHY.

### Pass 6: Developer Environment & Tooling (Valuable + Accessible)

Rate 0-10: Does this integrate into developers' existing workflows?

**Evidence recall:** Does local dev setup work for [persona from 0A]'s typical
environment?

Load reference: Read the "## Pass 6" section from `~/.claude/skills/gstack/plan-devex-review/dx-hall-of-fame.md`.

Evaluate:
- **Editor integration**: Language server? Autocomplete? Inline docs?
- **CI/CD**: Works in GitHub Actions, GitLab CI? Non-interactive mode?
- **TypeScript support**: Types included? Good IntelliSense?
- **Testing support**: Easy to mock? Test utilities?
- **Local development**: Hot reload? Watch mode? Fast feedback?
- **Cross-platform**: Mac, Linux, Windows? Docker? ARM/x86?
- **Local env reproducibility**: Works across OS, package managers, containers, proxies?
- **Observability/testability**: Dry-run mode? Verbose output? Sample apps? Fixtures?

**STOP.** Run the Decision gate; ask only for a new or justified reopened decision. Recommend + WHY.

### Pass 7: Community & Ecosystem (Findable + Desirable)

Rate 0-10: Is there a community, and does the plan invest in ecosystem health?

Load reference: Read the "## Pass 7" section from `~/.claude/skills/gstack/plan-devex-review/dx-hall-of-fame.md`.

Evaluate:
- **Open source**: Code open? Permissive license?
- **Community channels**: Where do devs ask questions? Someone answering?
- **Examples**: Real-world, runnable? Not just hello world?
- **Plugin/extension ecosystem**: Can devs extend it?
- **Contributing guide**: Process clear?
- **Pricing transparency**: No surprise bills?

**STOP.** Run the Decision gate; ask only for a new or justified reopened decision. Recommend + WHY.

### Pass 8: DX Measurement & Feedback Loops (Implement + Refine)

Rate 0-10: Does the plan include ways to measure and improve DX over time?

Load reference: Read the "## Pass 8" section from `~/.claude/skills/gstack/plan-devex-review/dx-hall-of-fame.md`.

Evaluate:
- **TTHW tracking**: Can you measure getting started time? Is it instrumented?
- **Journey analytics**: Where do devs drop off?
- **Feedback mechanisms**: Bug reports? NPS? Feedback button?
- **Friction audits**: Periodic reviews planned?
- **Boomerang readiness**: Will /devex-review be able to measure reality vs. plan?

Measure the approved 0C clock and 0D useful result. Include the full documented
start state; do not substitute a warm execution timer or a different endpoint.
Prefer the simplest method that measures the chosen target. A target tier does not itself approve telemetry, an automated
release gate, or a recurring human process; ask about those independent policies
only when proposing them, with ownership and frequency explicit.

**STOP.** Run the Decision gate; ask only for a new or justified reopened decision. Recommend + WHY.

### Appendix: Claude Code Skill DX Checklist

**Conditional: only run when product type includes "Claude Code skill".**

This is NOT a scored pass. It's a checklist of proven patterns from gstack's own DX.

Load reference: Read the "## Claude Code Skill DX Checklist" section from
`~/.claude/skills/gstack/plan-devex-review/dx-hall-of-fame.md`.

Check each item. For any unchecked item, explain what's missing and suggest the fix.

**STOP.** AskUserQuestion for any item that requires a design decision.

When this host runs an outside voice, build its review context from the working list
before truncating the plan body. Preserve the exact approved exceptions to the selected
mode, alongside the persona, clock, target and evidence limits. Reconcile findings
against that context and inspected source before proposing remedies. Correct
unsupported draft claims directly; preserve unknown behavior as verification work.
A new guarantee, optional example or measurement extension remains a decision;
required proof of the accepted contract does not reopen that contract.

{{CODEX_PLAN_REVIEW}}

## How to ask questions

Follow the AskUserQuestion format from the Preamble above. Additional rules for
DX reviews:

* **One new or reopened decision = one AskUserQuestion call.** Run the Decision gate before drafting options. Never combine independent decisions, including in separate question tabs.
* **Ground every question in evidence.** Reference the persona, competitive benchmark,
  empathy narrative, or friction trace. Never ask a question in the abstract.
* **Frame pain from the persona's perspective.** Not "developers would be frustrated"
  but "[persona from 0A] would hit this at minute [N] of their getting-started flow
  and [specific consequence: abandon, file an issue, hack a workaround]."
* Present 2-3 options. For each: effort to fix, impact on developer adoption.
* **Map to DX First Principles above.** One sentence connecting your recommendation
  to a specific principle (e.g., "This violates 'zero friction at T0' because
  [persona] needs 3 extra config steps before their first API call").
* **No pending decisions:** report the section's findings, evidence and dispositions,
  then proceed. If it has no findings, state "No issues, moving on." Otherwise,
  ask only for new or justified reopened decisions identified by the Decision gate.
  An independent choice still needs approval even when its fix is obvious;
  routine verification or restoring an existing declared contract does not.
* Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes. Re-ground every question.

## Required Outputs

Update existing artifact sections in place. Keep Step 0 evidence above review decisions and later review sections. Complete all body additions and ordering before the Review Log and review report; assemble the body first, then append the report at the actual file end.

### Developer Persona Card
The persona card from Step 0A. This goes at the top of the plan's DX section.

### Developer Empathy Narrative
The first-person narrative from Step 0B, updated with user corrections.

### Competitive DX Benchmark
The benchmark table from Step 0C, updated with the product's post-review scores.

### Magical Moment Specification
The chosen delivery vehicle from Step 0D with implementation requirements.

### Developer Journey Map
The journey map from Step 0F, updated with all friction point resolutions.

### First-Time Developer Confusion Report
The roleplay report from Step 0G, annotated with which items were addressed.

### "NOT in scope" section
DX improvements considered and explicitly deferred, with one-line rationale each.

### "What already exists" section
Existing docs, examples, error handling, and DX patterns that the plan should reuse.

### TODOS.md updates
After all review passes are complete, present each potential TODO as its own individual
AskUserQuestion. Never batch. For DX debt: missing error messages, unspecified upgrade
paths, documentation gaps, missing SDK languages. Each TODO gets:
* **What:** One-line description
* **Why:** The concrete developer pain it causes
* **Pros:** What you gain (adoption, retention, satisfaction)
* **Cons:** Cost, complexity, or risks
* **Context:** Enough detail for someone to pick this up in 3 months
* **Depends on / blocked by:** Prerequisites

Options: **A)** Add to TODOS.md **B)** Skip **C)** Build it now

### DX Scorecard

In the plan file, write it as its own `## DX Review Scorecard` section
(the scorecard, its verdict lines and the Unresolved Decisions below) above the terminal
`## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT`, replacing this review's earlier one. Never write it inside
the report: the next plan review deletes and regenerates everything under that heading.

```
+====================================================================+
|              DX PLAN REVIEW — SCORECARD                             |
+====================================================================+
| Dimension            | Score  | Prior  | Trend  |
|----------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| Getting Started      | __/10  | __/10  | __ ↑↓  |
| API/CLI/SDK          | __/10  | __/10  | __ ↑↓  |
| Error Messages       | __/10  | __/10  | __ ↑↓  |
| Documentation        | __/10  | __/10  | __ ↑↓  |
| Upgrade Path         | __/10  | __/10  | __ ↑↓  |
| Dev Environment      | __/10  | __/10  | __ ↑↓  |
| Community            | __/10  | __/10  | __ ↑↓  |
| DX Measurement       | __/10  | __/10  | __ ↑↓  |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| TTHW                 | __ min | __ min | __ ↑↓  |
| Competitive Rank     | [Champion/Competitive/Needs Work/Red Flag]   |
| Magical Moment       | [designed/missing] via [delivery vehicle]    |
| Product Type         | [type]                                      |
| Mode                 | [EXPANSION/POLISH/TRIAGE]                    |
| Overall DX           | __/10  | __/10  | __ ↑↓  |
+====================================================================+
| DX PRINCIPLE COVERAGE                                               |
| Zero Friction      | [covered/gap]                                  |
| Learn by Doing     | [covered/gap]                                  |
| Fight Uncertainty  | [covered/gap]                                  |
| Opinionated + Escape Hatches | [covered/gap]                       |
| Code in Context    | [covered/gap]                                  |
| Magical Moments    | [covered/gap]                                  |
| Agents Are Users   | [covered/gap]                                  |
+====================================================================+
```

If all passes 8+: "DX plan is solid. Developers will have a good experience."
If any below 6: Flag as critical DX debt with specific impact on adoption.
If TTHW > 10 min: Flag as blocking issue.

### DX Implementation Checklist

```
DX IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST
============================
[ ] Time to hello world < [target from 0C]
[ ] Installation is one command
[ ] First run produces meaningful output
[ ] Magical moment delivered via [vehicle from 0D]
[ ] Every error message meets the agent-ready error contract (Pass 3)
[ ] API/CLI naming is guessable without docs
[ ] Every parameter has a sensible default
[ ] Docs have copy-paste examples that actually work
[ ] Examples show real use cases, not just hello world
[ ] Upgrade path documented with migration guide
[ ] Breaking changes have deprecation warnings + codemods
[ ] TypeScript types included (if applicable)
[ ] Works in CI/CD without special configuration
[ ] Free tier available, no credit card required
[ ] Changelog exists and is maintained
[ ] Search works in documentation
[ ] Community channel exists and is monitored
```

{{TASKS_SECTION_EMIT:devex-review}}

### Unresolved Decisions
If any AskUserQuestion goes unanswered, note here. Never silently default.

{{PLAN_FILE_REVIEW_REPORT}}

## Review Log

When a plan/report file is in scope, persist only after its successful write and Read-back
above. On failure, report the error and stop; do not log completion or an accepted decision.
**PLAN MODE EXCEPTION — ALWAYS RUN after verification:** these commands write review
metadata to `~/.gstack/`; the following dashboard reads the saved result.

```bash
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-devex-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","initial_score":N,"overall_score":N,"product_type":"PRODUCT_TYPE","tthw_current":"TTHW_CURRENT","tthw_target":"TTHW_TARGET","mode":"MODE","persona":"PERSONA","competitive_tier":"COMPETITIVE_TIER","unresolved":N,"dx_rubric":"agent-ready-v1","dimension_scores":{"getting_started":N,"api_cli_sdk":N,"error_messages":N,"documentation":N,"upgrade_path":N,"dev_environment":N,"community":N,"dx_measurement":N},"commit":"COMMIT"}'
```

TIMESTAMP = current ISO 8601 datetime; STATUS = "clean" if score 8+ AND 0 unresolved, else "issues_open"; other fields from the DX Scorecard + Step 0; COMMIT = `git rev-parse --short HEAD`.

{{REVIEW_DASHBOARD}}

{{LEARNINGS_LOG}}

{{GBRAIN_SAVE_RESULTS}}

{{BRAIN_WRITE_BACK}}

{{BRAIN_CACHE_REFRESH}}

## Next Steps — Review Chaining

After displaying the Review Readiness Dashboard, recommend next reviews:

**Recommend /plan-eng-review if eng review is not skipped globally** — DX issues often
have architectural implications. If this DX review found API design problems, error
handling gaps, or CLI ergonomics issues, eng review should validate the fixes.

**Suggest /plan-design-review if user-facing UI exists** — DX review focuses on
developer-facing surfaces; design review covers end-user-facing UI.

**Recommend /devex-review after implementation** — the boomerang. Plan said TTHW would
be [target from 0C]. Did reality match? Run /devex-review on the live product to find
out. This is where the competitive benchmark pays off: you have a concrete target to
measure against.

Use AskUserQuestion with applicable options:
- **A)** Run /plan-eng-review next (required gate)
- **B)** Run /plan-design-review (only if UI scope detected)
- **C)** Ready to implement, run /devex-review after shipping
- **D)** Skip, I'll handle next steps manually

## Mode Quick Reference
```
             | DX EXPANSION     | DX POLISH          | DX TRIAGE
Scope        | Push UP (opt-in) | Maintain           | Critical only
Posture      | Enthusiastic     | Rigorous           | Surgical
Competitive  | Full benchmark   | Full benchmark     | Target only
Magical      | Full design      | Verify exists      | Verify exists
Journey      | All stages +     | All stages         | Install + Hello
             | best-in-class    |                    | World only
Passes       | All 8, expanded  | All 8, standard    | All 8, blockers only
Outside voice| Recommended      | Recommended        | Skip
```

## Formatting Rules

* NUMBER issues (1, 2, 3...) and LETTERS for options (A, B, C...).
* Label with NUMBER + LETTER (e.g., "3A", "3B").
* One sentence max per option.
* After each pass, report its findings. Wait for any pending decision before moving on.
* Rate before and after each pass for scannability.