mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-11-03 07:18:03 +01:00
ac20ef1e13
* fix(make-pdf,design): real TOC page numbers and anchors; design models move to gpt-5.5 + gpt-image-2 (#2903, #2807) * ci: pin every action to a SHA, Scorecard, checksummed Bun, scoped Codex CLI in the CI image, macOS named-regressions job (#1948, #1706, #1997) * fix(cso,browse): Windows/macOS lease identity, retention skips bad runs, truthful 'not assessed' reports, env.kv false positive, Windows browse spawn fixes (#2894, #2912, #2048, #2637, #2805) * fix(outside-voice): one Codex model precedence for probe and dispatch, bounded timeouts with KILL escalation, probe cache identity, guarded mktemp, skills hidden in nested Codex (#2776, #2914, #2787, #2881, #2847) * feat(setup): install registry, ./setup --status, staged activation, per-scope migrations, host tiers and conformance kit, OpenCode/Hermes fixes, Copilot CLI (experimental), disabled_skills, slimmer CLAUDE.md (#1925, #2879, #2347, #2338, #2626, #2629, #2825, #2015, #393, #1206, #2096) Co-authored-by: Andrey Esipov <61357035+andrey-esipov@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Matthew Williams <5863886+ridermw@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Rocky Wu <92764750+lolisaigao1234@users.noreply.github.com> * fix(preamble): skills start in worktree-isolated Claude Code sessions — one literal skill-start line, context-recovery helper, no eval in skill blocks, $N token tripwire, honest plan-mode precedence (#2763, #2896, #2851) * fix(setup): per-install renders for renamed, vendored and custom-config installs, space-safe alias roots, per-host /cso launcher path (#1882, #2906) * test: free tests never write the real HOME (home-write tripwire), no orphaned browse daemons, symlinked-TMPDIR (macOS) fixes, gbrain-on-PATH isolation (#2895, #2816, #2829, #2841, #2982, #2911, #2909, #2908, #2910) * chore: integrate wave follow-ups — regenerate all hosts, README model docs, TODOS, touchfiles, duration seeds, Bun 1.3 telemetry test fix, replay fixtures pinned to their recorded bytes * v1.91.14.0: release metadata * test(browse): group-kill cleanup falls back to the leader when macOS returns EPERM for a live group * ci: Codex login steps run under bash (the CI container's default sh rejects pipefail) * fix: full-suite repairs — private state roots for 7 real-HOME writers, truthful home-guard attribution with --attribute-home, gstack-paths shim in ship-hook fixtures, Copilot in team-init probes, test-of-test detector, cookie review fixture pinned to the approved excerpt * fix(windows): LF for Dockerfiles, normalized home-guard exclusions, path.relative fixture containment, ship push test spawn timeouts * test(design-detect): widen the whole-scan budget test's timing margins so a loaded macOS runner can't time out the single-batch call * fix(evals): qa protocol names defined for the judge, async PTY judge so overlapping sessions keep their cleanup deadline, bws setup cases use the standard JUDGE_MS tier * test(pty): the non-blocking judge case is POSIX-only (its fake judge is a shebang script, like the PTY harness it covers) * test(evals): ship-coverage-audit names absolute skill paths, uses Read, and skips the Step 7 artifact nothing consumes (removes the mechanism behind 3 of 4 historical timeouts) * test: deflake terminal-agent concurrent startup (write the placeholder record before spawning, like the product) and qa-evidence resumed pipe (barrier on a full high-water mark instead of a sleep) * fix(design): daemon log stream handles open errors instead of crashing the daemon; shutdown test awaits the stubbed exit * test(evals): skillify checks the product's resolved state root (no GSTACK_HOME bypass), negative cases check every root; tpa shims live outside the agent's cwd and answer consistently * test(evals): coverage-audit detector splits parallel columns at │ rails and [+] groups; coverage prompts name absolute skill paths; TODOs from the gate eval census * fix(plan-eng-review): scope gate always sends the menu (no headless 'Scope pending' exit); PTY harness ends idle turn-ends and API-error panels promptly with a precise diagnostic * test(evals): one position-bound coverage-read rule credits read-only && chains (labels, context ranges, git displays in either order) and still rejects forged output * fix(ship): documentation section has one saved source inserted by cat (never retyped); spawned-marker evidence is the child output; refreshed codex/factory ship goldens * test(docsync): the byte-exact insert positive is POSIX-only (the bash-command observer refuses backslash paths by design) * test(evals): plan-design-with-ui focus-title rule accepts the comma-less 'dimensions or focus' wording (replayed on the captured CI run, negative controls kept) * fix(qa-callers): exploratory preflight says the scope/method Reads come after exploratory.md; design-review scan check credits an executed scan proven by one engine run over the changed files --------- Co-authored-by: Andrey Esipov <61357035+andrey-esipov@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Matthew Williams <5863886+ridermw@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Rocky Wu <92764750+lolisaigao1234@users.noreply.github.com>
186 lines
23 KiB
JSON
186 lines
23 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"provenance": {
|
|
"kind": "public native AskUserQuestion calls and answers only (observation.json transcript.calls, byte-exact)",
|
|
"runId": 37091743395,
|
|
"artifact": "paid-slice-8-a1",
|
|
"headSha": "987a937b126d8465d3eddfd73dd18297311c1114",
|
|
"testName": "reviews the supplied UI plan through an acknowledged Design finding",
|
|
"cliVersion": "2.1.284",
|
|
"recordedOutcome": "ceiling_reached",
|
|
"recordedReviewCount": 1,
|
|
"recordedStep0Count": 4,
|
|
"recordedPassed": false,
|
|
"note": "The Step 0D focus question was titled 'Review all 7 design dimensions or focus on specific areas?' (no comma); the runner reached the review ceiling on Issue 1 but the focus predicate rejected the title, so the gate failed."
|
|
},
|
|
"calls": [
|
|
{
|
|
"preReview": true,
|
|
"observedAtMs": 66323,
|
|
"call": {
|
|
"sessionId": "b7d9de19-26a2-4d99-a3cb-6327a36fb8fb",
|
|
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BPAMZE1XNsn7QXv7s8jJWV",
|
|
"questions": [
|
|
{
|
|
"question": "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-aX3JRn on main, starting the design review of the User Dashboard plan.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. Routing rules tell Claude which gstack skill to invoke when you ask for things like a bug fix, a review, or a ship. Without them you invoke skills by name each time.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Nothing breaks either way; you just get fewer automatic skill suggestions. Note: plan mode is active, so if you say yes the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after plan mode ends.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules are a one-time append with no runtime cost.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)\n ✅ Requests like 'review this diff' or 'ship it' route to the right skill automatically\n ✅ One-time append, committed once, never asked again for this project\n ❌ Adds a short section to CLAUDE.md that you may need to keep in sync with the skill list\nB) No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually\n ✅ CLAUDE.md stays exactly as the fixture seeded it\n ✅ Full manual control over when a skill runs\n ❌ You type skill names yourself and lose proactive suggestions\nNet: a small convenience append versus a pristine CLAUDE.md.",
|
|
"header": "Routing",
|
|
"multiSelect": false,
|
|
"options": [
|
|
{
|
|
"label": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)",
|
|
"description": "✅ Requests route to the right gstack skill automatically. ✅ One-time append, asked once per project. ❌ Adds a section to CLAUDE.md to keep in sync."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"label": "No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually",
|
|
"description": "✅ CLAUDE.md stays untouched. ✅ Full manual control over skill invocation. ❌ You type skill names yourself and lose proactive suggestions."
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"answered": true,
|
|
"failed": false,
|
|
"answers": {
|
|
"D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-aX3JRn on main, starting the design review of the User Dashboard plan.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. Routing rules tell Claude which gstack skill to invoke when you ask for things like a bug fix, a review, or a ship. Without them you invoke skills by name each time.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Nothing breaks either way; you just get fewer automatic skill suggestions. Note: plan mode is active, so if you say yes the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after plan mode ends.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules are a one-time append with no runtime cost.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)\n ✅ Requests like 'review this diff' or 'ship it' route to the right skill automatically\n ✅ One-time append, committed once, never asked again for this project\n ❌ Adds a short section to CLAUDE.md that you may need to keep in sync with the skill list\nB) No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually\n ✅ CLAUDE.md stays exactly as the fixture seeded it\n ✅ Full manual control over when a skill runs\n ❌ You type skill names yourself and lose proactive suggestions\nNet: a small convenience append versus a pristine CLAUDE.md.": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)"
|
|
},
|
|
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
|
"answeredAt": "2026-10-03T03:06:01.424Z"
|
|
}
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"preReview": true,
|
|
"observedAtMs": 111074,
|
|
"call": {
|
|
"sessionId": "b7d9de19-26a2-4d99-a3cb-6327a36fb8fb",
|
|
"toolUseId": "toolu_01KffPWJwJskvFZjJkFWsGc4",
|
|
"questions": [
|
|
{
|
|
"question": "D2 — Review all 7 design dimensions or focus on specific areas?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-aX3JRn on main, design review of the User Dashboard Page plan.\nELI10: I've rated this plan 4/10 on design completeness. The biggest gaps are hierarchy (no reading order across the three panels), state design (empty/modal/toast are named but not designed), and responsive/wayfinding (breakpoints only, no mobile layout, no page header). I'll generate visual mockups next, then review all 7 dimensions. Want me to focus on specific areas instead of all 7?\nStakes if we pick wrong: Narrowing skips passes where real gaps hide; going wide costs a few more decision questions.\nRecommendation: A because a 4/10 plan has gaps in every dimension and the full pass is the complete review.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=5/10\nPros / cons:\nA) All 7 dimensions (recommended)\n ✅ Every gap gets rated, explained, and resolved with its own decision\n ✅ The plan leaves with no unspecified state, layout, or interaction\n ❌ More decision questions; roughly 10-15 stops before the report\nB) Focus: interaction states + information architecture\n ✅ Hits the two largest gaps first: state design and panel hierarchy\n ✅ Fewer stops; quicker path to a usable plan\n ❌ Responsive, journey, a11y and slop risk stay unreviewed and unrated\nC) Focus: user journey + accessibility\n ✅ Covers login landing, wayfinding, modal/toast a11y end to end\n ✅ Good fit if the visual layout is already decided elsewhere\n ❌ Hierarchy, item anatomy and empty-state design stay as they are\nNet: full rigor on a thin plan versus a faster, narrower pass.",
|
|
"header": "Focus",
|
|
"multiSelect": false,
|
|
"options": [
|
|
{
|
|
"label": "All 7 dimensions (recommended)",
|
|
"description": "✅ Every gap rated, explained, resolved individually. ✅ No unspecified state or layout left. ❌ More decision stops before the report."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"label": "Focus: states + IA",
|
|
"description": "✅ Hits state design and panel hierarchy first. ✅ Fewer stops. ❌ Responsive, journey, a11y, slop risk stay unreviewed."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"label": "Focus: journey + a11y",
|
|
"description": "✅ Covers landing, wayfinding, modal/toast a11y end to end. ✅ Fits if layout is decided elsewhere. ❌ Hierarchy and empty states stay as-is."
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"answered": true,
|
|
"failed": false,
|
|
"answers": {
|
|
"D2 — Review all 7 design dimensions or focus on specific areas?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-aX3JRn on main, design review of the User Dashboard Page plan.\nELI10: I've rated this plan 4/10 on design completeness. The biggest gaps are hierarchy (no reading order across the three panels), state design (empty/modal/toast are named but not designed), and responsive/wayfinding (breakpoints only, no mobile layout, no page header). I'll generate visual mockups next, then review all 7 dimensions. Want me to focus on specific areas instead of all 7?\nStakes if we pick wrong: Narrowing skips passes where real gaps hide; going wide costs a few more decision questions.\nRecommendation: A because a 4/10 plan has gaps in every dimension and the full pass is the complete review.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=5/10\nPros / cons:\nA) All 7 dimensions (recommended)\n ✅ Every gap gets rated, explained, and resolved with its own decision\n ✅ The plan leaves with no unspecified state, layout, or interaction\n ❌ More decision questions; roughly 10-15 stops before the report\nB) Focus: interaction states + information architecture\n ✅ Hits the two largest gaps first: state design and panel hierarchy\n ✅ Fewer stops; quicker path to a usable plan\n ❌ Responsive, journey, a11y and slop risk stay unreviewed and unrated\nC) Focus: user journey + accessibility\n ✅ Covers login landing, wayfinding, modal/toast a11y end to end\n ✅ Good fit if the visual layout is already decided elsewhere\n ❌ Hierarchy, item anatomy and empty-state design stay as they are\nNet: full rigor on a thin plan versus a faster, narrower pass.": "All 7 dimensions (recommended)"
|
|
},
|
|
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
|
"answeredAt": "2026-10-03T03:06:49.299Z"
|
|
}
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"preReview": true,
|
|
"observedAtMs": 144795,
|
|
"call": {
|
|
"sessionId": "b7d9de19-26a2-4d99-a3cb-6327a36fb8fb",
|
|
"toolUseId": "toolu_01QJdE2m69TUXzfhsAaPAFrY",
|
|
"questions": [
|
|
{
|
|
"question": "D3 — Want outside design voices before the detailed review?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-aX3JRn on main, design review of the User Dashboard Page plan.\nELI10: Outside voices means two extra reviewers look at the plan before I run the 7 passes: Codex scores it against OpenAI's design hard rules and litmus checks, and an independent Claude subagent does a completeness read without seeing my notes. Where they disagree with me, both views show up in the relevant pass.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skipping it means findings rest on one reviewer; running it adds a few minutes and Codex may not be installed here.\nRecommendation: No, proceed without because the designer is unavailable this round and the plan's gaps are already clear enough to resolve directly.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Yes, run outside design voices\n ✅ Codex hard-rule + litmus scorecard plus an independent Claude completeness read\n ✅ Disagreements surface with both perspectives in the relevant pass\n ❌ Adds a few minutes; Codex may be missing here, in which case only the Claude voice runs and it's tagged single-model\nB) No, proceed without (recommended)\n ✅ Straight into the 7 passes with the approved mockup as anchor\n ✅ Fewest steps to a fixed plan\n ❌ Findings rest on one reviewer; no cross-model check on slop risk or hierarchy\nNet: a cross-model sanity check versus the shortest path to a fixed plan.",
|
|
"header": "Voices",
|
|
"multiSelect": false,
|
|
"options": [
|
|
{
|
|
"label": "Yes, run outside design voices",
|
|
"description": "✅ Codex hard-rule + litmus scorecard plus an independent Claude completeness read. ✅ Disagreements surface with both perspectives in the relevant pass. ❌ Adds a few minutes; Codex may be missing here, in which case only the Claude voice runs and it's tagged single-model."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"label": "No, proceed without (recommended)",
|
|
"description": "✅ Straight into the 7 passes with the approved mockup as anchor. ✅ Fewest steps to a fixed plan. ❌ Findings rest on one reviewer; no cross-model check on slop risk or hierarchy."
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"answered": true,
|
|
"failed": false,
|
|
"answers": {
|
|
"D3 — Want outside design voices before the detailed review?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-aX3JRn on main, design review of the User Dashboard Page plan.\nELI10: Outside voices means two extra reviewers look at the plan before I run the 7 passes: Codex scores it against OpenAI's design hard rules and litmus checks, and an independent Claude subagent does a completeness read without seeing my notes. Where they disagree with me, both views show up in the relevant pass.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skipping it means findings rest on one reviewer; running it adds a few minutes and Codex may not be installed here.\nRecommendation: No, proceed without because the designer is unavailable this round and the plan's gaps are already clear enough to resolve directly.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Yes, run outside design voices\n ✅ Codex hard-rule + litmus scorecard plus an independent Claude completeness read\n ✅ Disagreements surface with both perspectives in the relevant pass\n ❌ Adds a few minutes; Codex may be missing here, in which case only the Claude voice runs and it's tagged single-model\nB) No, proceed without (recommended)\n ✅ Straight into the 7 passes with the approved mockup as anchor\n ✅ Fewest steps to a fixed plan\n ❌ Findings rest on one reviewer; no cross-model check on slop risk or hierarchy\nNet: a cross-model sanity check versus the shortest path to a fixed plan.": "No, proceed without (recommended)"
|
|
},
|
|
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
|
"answeredAt": "2026-10-03T03:07:23.020Z"
|
|
}
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"preReview": true,
|
|
"observedAtMs": 168367,
|
|
"call": {
|
|
"sessionId": "b7d9de19-26a2-4d99-a3cb-6327a36fb8fb",
|
|
"toolUseId": "toolu_01QMVsFHMVbdrkG3MQ3JaJ19",
|
|
"questions": [
|
|
{
|
|
"question": "D4 — Let gstack search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-aX3JRn on main, design review of the User Dashboard Page plan.\nELI10: gstack can search learnings from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here. This stays local (no data leaves your machine). Recommended for solo developers. Skip if you work on multiple client codebases where cross-contamination would be a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Enabling on a multi-client machine could surface one client's patterns in another's review; disabling just means fewer prior learnings applied here.\nRecommendation: A because learnings stay on this machine and a fresh fixture project has no local history of its own to draw on.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n ✅ Design pitfalls found in other projects get applied to this review automatically\n ✅ Everything stays local on this machine; nothing is uploaded anywhere\n ❌ On a machine with multiple client codebases, patterns could cross between clients\nB) Keep learnings project-scoped only\n ✅ Strict isolation between codebases on this machine\n ✅ Simplest mental model: this project only sees its own history\n ❌ This project has zero learnings so far, so no prior insight applies today\nNet: compounding insight across projects versus strict per-project isolation.",
|
|
"header": "Learnings",
|
|
"multiSelect": false,
|
|
"options": [
|
|
{
|
|
"label": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)",
|
|
"description": "✅ Pitfalls from other local projects apply here automatically. ✅ Stays local on this machine. ❌ Patterns could cross between client codebases."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"label": "Keep learnings project-scoped only",
|
|
"description": "✅ Strict isolation between codebases. ✅ Simplest model: own history only. ❌ This project has zero learnings today, so nothing applies."
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"answered": true,
|
|
"failed": false,
|
|
"answers": {
|
|
"D4 — Let gstack search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-aX3JRn on main, design review of the User Dashboard Page plan.\nELI10: gstack can search learnings from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here. This stays local (no data leaves your machine). Recommended for solo developers. Skip if you work on multiple client codebases where cross-contamination would be a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Enabling on a multi-client machine could surface one client's patterns in another's review; disabling just means fewer prior learnings applied here.\nRecommendation: A because learnings stay on this machine and a fresh fixture project has no local history of its own to draw on.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n ✅ Design pitfalls found in other projects get applied to this review automatically\n ✅ Everything stays local on this machine; nothing is uploaded anywhere\n ❌ On a machine with multiple client codebases, patterns could cross between clients\nB) Keep learnings project-scoped only\n ✅ Strict isolation between codebases on this machine\n ✅ Simplest mental model: this project only sees its own history\n ❌ This project has zero learnings so far, so no prior insight applies today\nNet: compounding insight across projects versus strict per-project isolation.": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)"
|
|
},
|
|
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
|
"answeredAt": "2026-10-03T03:07:46.592Z"
|
|
}
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"preReview": false,
|
|
"observedAtMs": 250570,
|
|
"call": {
|
|
"sessionId": "b7d9de19-26a2-4d99-a3cb-6327a36fb8fb",
|
|
"toolUseId": "toolu_01WVKYXt2cnKzMhKZfjTVqT4",
|
|
"questions": [
|
|
{
|
|
"question": "D5 — Issue 1: What is the reading order and desktop layout of the dashboard?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-aX3JRn on main, Pass 1 (Information Architecture) of the User Dashboard plan.\nELI10: The plan lists activity, notifications, and quick actions but never says what the user should look at first. Without a stated order the engineer ships three equal boxes and the page becomes a card mosaic where nothing wins. Quick actions are two links; they don't earn a whole panel.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Users land after login and have to scan three competing regions to find what needs them; the one actionable item (unread notifications) gets lost.\nRecommendation: 1A because activity is the content that fills the viewport and changes daily, notifications are a short glanceable list whose unread count is the attention cue, and quick actions belong in the header as a utility strip (subtraction default).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=9/10, C=5/10\nPros / cons:\n1A) Two-column at lg: Activity primary (left, ~2/3), Notifications rail (right, ~1/3) with unread count in its heading; quick actions as a compact link strip under the page title (recommended)\n ✅ One clear primary region; notifications stay visible without competing for the main column\n ✅ Quick actions stop being a panel and become two links next to the title, removing a box\n ❌ Activity reads before notifications, so unread items rely on the count badge to draw the eye\n1B) Two-column at lg: Notifications primary (left, ~1/2), Activity secondary (right, ~1/2); quick actions as a header strip\n ✅ The actionable list (unread, mark all as read) reads first in left-to-right order\n ✅ Still removes the quick-actions panel\n ❌ Notifications are usually a short list, so the primary column sits mostly empty while activity is cramped\n1C) Keep three equal panels in a row as the plan implies\n ✅ Matches the plan text literally; no layout decision to defend\n ✅ Simplest grid to build\n ❌ Hard-rejection pattern: app UI made of equal cards instead of layout; quick actions panel holds two links\nNet: a stated primary column versus three boxes that compete.",
|
|
"header": "Layout",
|
|
"multiSelect": false,
|
|
"options": [
|
|
{
|
|
"label": "1A Activity primary, Notifications rail (recommended)",
|
|
"description": "✅ One clear primary region; notifications visible without competing. ✅ Quick actions become a header link strip, one less box. ❌ Unread items rely on the count badge to draw the eye."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"label": "1B Notifications primary, Activity secondary",
|
|
"description": "✅ Actionable unread list reads first. ✅ Still removes the quick-actions panel. ❌ Short notification list leaves the primary column mostly empty."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"label": "1C Three equal panels",
|
|
"description": "✅ Matches plan text literally. ✅ Simplest grid. ❌ Hard-rejection pattern: equal cards instead of layout; a panel for two links."
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"answered": true,
|
|
"failed": false,
|
|
"answers": {
|
|
"D5 — Issue 1: What is the reading order and desktop layout of the dashboard?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-aX3JRn on main, Pass 1 (Information Architecture) of the User Dashboard plan.\nELI10: The plan lists activity, notifications, and quick actions but never says what the user should look at first. Without a stated order the engineer ships three equal boxes and the page becomes a card mosaic where nothing wins. Quick actions are two links; they don't earn a whole panel.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Users land after login and have to scan three competing regions to find what needs them; the one actionable item (unread notifications) gets lost.\nRecommendation: 1A because activity is the content that fills the viewport and changes daily, notifications are a short glanceable list whose unread count is the attention cue, and quick actions belong in the header as a utility strip (subtraction default).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=9/10, C=5/10\nPros / cons:\n1A) Two-column at lg: Activity primary (left, ~2/3), Notifications rail (right, ~1/3) with unread count in its heading; quick actions as a compact link strip under the page title (recommended)\n ✅ One clear primary region; notifications stay visible without competing for the main column\n ✅ Quick actions stop being a panel and become two links next to the title, removing a box\n ❌ Activity reads before notifications, so unread items rely on the count badge to draw the eye\n1B) Two-column at lg: Notifications primary (left, ~1/2), Activity secondary (right, ~1/2); quick actions as a header strip\n ✅ The actionable list (unread, mark all as read) reads first in left-to-right order\n ✅ Still removes the quick-actions panel\n ❌ Notifications are usually a short list, so the primary column sits mostly empty while activity is cramped\n1C) Keep three equal panels in a row as the plan implies\n ✅ Matches the plan text literally; no layout decision to defend\n ✅ Simplest grid to build\n ❌ Hard-rejection pattern: app UI made of equal cards instead of layout; quick actions panel holds two links\nNet: a stated primary column versus three boxes that compete.": "1A Activity primary, Notifications rail (recommended)"
|
|
},
|
|
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
|
|
"answeredAt": "2026-10-03T03:09:08.798Z"
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
}
|