gstack/test/fixtures/devex-handoff-z-call.json

{
  "calls": [
    {
      "sessionId": "c863dd11-6557-4988-b509-ac5229e24427",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01YYoD4nRXm4BfiePigvsrN6",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D1 \u2014 Does this empathy narrative match your ML engineer developer's actual experience?\n\nPersona: ML engineer, Python daily, terminal-oriented, target TTHW < 2 min\nMode: DX POLISH (pre-settled)\n\nI traced the actual path from README.md. Here's what your developer experiences today:\n\n> I install evalkit==2.0.0b1, set EVALKIT_API_KEY. The README says to run\n> `python examples/first_eval.py`. I try it:\n>\n> ```\n> python: can't open file 'examples/first_eval.py': [Errno 2] No such file or directory\n> ```\n>\n> The file is not in the published package (confirmed: docs/package-contents.txt).\n> After some confusion I find the demo command. I run `python -m evalkit.demo`.\n> For five minutes I watch: \"Waiting for CI check: 90s elapsed of 300s...\".\n> No explanation of why this check runs locally. Then: scores appear.\n> Total time: 6-7 min. First command failed. I'm not confident in this tool.\n\nI found 5 friction points. Settled decisions (persona, DX POLISH mode, terminal demo, benchmark) are not re-litigated \u2014 I'll go straight to the issues. <gstack-qid:plan-devex-review-empathy-confirm>",
          "header": "Narrative",
          "multiSelect": false,
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "Accurate \u2014 proceed to issues (Recommended)",
              "description": "This is accurate. Proceed to walk through the 5 friction points one at a time."
            },
            {
              "label": "Some details wrong",
              "description": "The general picture is right but some specifics are off \u2014 describe corrections."
            },
            {
              "label": "Way off",
              "description": "The actual getting-started experience is significantly different from this \u2014 describe what's actually happening."
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D1 \u2014 Does this empathy narrative match your ML engineer developer's actual experience?\n\nPersona: ML engineer, Python daily, terminal-oriented, target TTHW < 2 min\nMode: DX POLISH (pre-settled)\n\nI traced the actual path from README.md. Here's what your developer experiences today:\n\n> I install evalkit==2.0.0b1, set EVALKIT_API_KEY. The README says to run\n> `python examples/first_eval.py`. I try it:\n>\n> ```\n> python: can't open file 'examples/first_eval.py': [Errno 2] No such file or directory\n> ```\n>\n> The file is not in the published package (confirmed: docs/package-contents.txt).\n> After some confusion I find the demo command. I run `python -m evalkit.demo`.\n> For five minutes I watch: \"Waiting for CI check: 90s elapsed of 300s...\".\n> No explanation of why this check runs locally. Then: scores appear.\n> Total time: 6-7 min. First command failed. I'm not confident in this tool.\n\nI found 5 friction points. Settled decisions (persona, DX POLISH mode, terminal demo, benchmark) are not re-litigated \u2014 I'll go straight to the issues. <gstack-qid:plan-devex-review-empathy-confirm>": "Accurate \u2014 proceed to issues (Recommended)"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:05:40.860Z"
    },
    {
      "sessionId": "c863dd11-6557-4988-b509-ac5229e24427",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01Hi3US42PswPmBjW2NvsUhi",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D2 \u2014 Friction point 1: `examples/first_eval.py` is referenced in README but doesn't exist in the published package.\n\nPlan file: README.md line 11: \"follow the quickstart's command: `python examples/first_eval.py`\"\nEvidence: docs/package-contents.txt explicitly states: \"The quickstart references examples/first_eval.py, but that file is absent from both the published package and the release examples archive.\"\n\nYour ML engineer developer hits a FileNotFoundError on their very first command. This violates DX First Principle #1 (Zero friction at T0) and is the most visible broken contract in the release. The terminal demo (`python -m evalkit.demo`) is already in the package and works \u2014 it just needs to be the primary getting-started command.\n\nRecommendation: A \u2014 update README to point to `python -m evalkit.demo` as the canonical first command. It's already documented as the chosen delivery vehicle; the README just hasn't been updated to match.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=7/10, C=2/10 <gstack-qid:plan-devex-review-fp1-missing-quickstart>",
          "header": "FP1 Quickstart",
          "multiSelect": false,
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "Fix in plan: update README to use python -m evalkit.demo (Recommended)",
              "description": "Remove the reference to examples/first_eval.py from README. Replace with python -m evalkit.demo as the canonical first-run command. Completeness: 9/10."
            },
            {
              "label": "Fix in plan: include the missing file in the release",
              "description": "Add examples/first_eval.py to the published package. Requires writing and testing the file before release. Completeness: 7/10."
            },
            {
              "label": "Acceptable \u2014 skip",
              "description": "Leave the broken reference in place. Completeness: 2/10 \u2014 first command fails for every developer following the README."
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D2 \u2014 Friction point 1: `examples/first_eval.py` is referenced in README but doesn't exist in the published package.\n\nPlan file: README.md line 11: \"follow the quickstart's command: `python examples/first_eval.py`\"\nEvidence: docs/package-contents.txt explicitly states: \"The quickstart references examples/first_eval.py, but that file is absent from both the published package and the release examples archive.\"\n\nYour ML engineer developer hits a FileNotFoundError on their very first command. This violates DX First Principle #1 (Zero friction at T0) and is the most visible broken contract in the release. The terminal demo (`python -m evalkit.demo`) is already in the package and works \u2014 it just needs to be the primary getting-started command.\n\nRecommendation: A \u2014 update README to point to `python -m evalkit.demo` as the canonical first command. It's already documented as the chosen delivery vehicle; the README just hasn't been updated to match.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=7/10, C=2/10 <gstack-qid:plan-devex-review-fp1-missing-quickstart>": "Fix in plan: update README to use python -m evalkit.demo (Recommended)"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:05:54.895Z"
    },
    {
      "sessionId": "c863dd11-6557-4988-b509-ac5229e24427",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01J4HW3Qwn9KWXkCgRHhPtEn",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D3 \u2014 Friction point 2: mandatory 5-minute CI wait on first run, no skip flag.\n\nEvidence: docs/current-contracts.md: \"On a developer's first local evaluation, the SDK requires a successful remote CI check and blocks for five minutes before returning a result. There is no skip flag or offline first-run path.\"\nEvidence: docs/benchmarks.md: \"EvalKit took 6 minutes... The agreed target is under 2 minutes.\"\n\nYour ML engineer wants a local result first, before hooking up CI. The 5-minute mandatory wait IS the entire 4-minute gap between current TTHW (6 min) and the agreed target (< 2 min). No other single change closes this gap.\n\nThe plan retains this gate as-is. DX POLISH mode means working within existing release scope \u2014 but a gap this large between stated target and actual behavior is a contract worth calling out explicitly in the plan, even if the full fix isn't in scope.\n\nRecommendation: B \u2014 document the TTHW gap prominently in the plan and add a note that a --skip-ci-check flag is a prerequisite for hitting the < 2 min target. No scope addition now; P1 blocker for a follow-on.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=8/10, C=4/10 <gstack-qid:plan-devex-review-fp2-ci-wait>",
          "header": "FP2 CI wait",
          "multiSelect": false,
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "Add --skip-ci-check to scope (Recommended if target matters)",
              "description": "Add a --skip-ci-check or EVALKIT_SKIP_CI=1 flag to this release. Required to hit the < 2 min TTHW target. Completeness: 10/10."
            },
            {
              "label": "Document gap in plan, flag as P1 follow-up (Recommended for DX POLISH)",
              "description": "Keep the 5-min wait. Add an explicit note in the plan that the < 2 min target is currently unachievable and a --skip-ci-check flag is the prerequisite. Completeness: 8/10."
            },
            {
              "label": "Retain as-is, no change",
              "description": "Keep the mandatory wait and don't call it out. The stated TTHW target remains unmet without explanation. Completeness: 4/10."
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D3 \u2014 Friction point 2: mandatory 5-minute CI wait on first run, no skip flag.\n\nEvidence: docs/current-contracts.md: \"On a developer's first local evaluation, the SDK requires a successful remote CI check and blocks for five minutes before returning a result. There is no skip flag or offline first-run path.\"\nEvidence: docs/benchmarks.md: \"EvalKit took 6 minutes... The agreed target is under 2 minutes.\"\n\nYour ML engineer wants a local result first, before hooking up CI. The 5-minute mandatory wait IS the entire 4-minute gap between current TTHW (6 min) and the agreed target (< 2 min). No other single change closes this gap.\n\nThe plan retains this gate as-is. DX POLISH mode means working within existing release scope \u2014 but a gap this large between stated target and actual behavior is a contract worth calling out explicitly in the plan, even if the full fix isn't in scope.\n\nRecommendation: B \u2014 document the TTHW gap prominently in the plan and add a note that a --skip-ci-check flag is a prerequisite for hitting the < 2 min target. No scope addition now; P1 blocker for a follow-on.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=8/10, C=4/10 <gstack-qid:plan-devex-review-fp2-ci-wait>": "Add --skip-ci-check to scope (Recommended if target matters)"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:06:10.945Z"
    },
    {
      "sessionId": "c863dd11-6557-4988-b509-ac5229e24427",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_016Kwybn1nSkZJvdeGXbZDmp",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D4 \u2014 Friction point 3: `AuthError(\"request failed\")` tells the developer nothing useful.\n\nEvidence: docs/api.md: \"For an invalid API key, the SDK raises AuthError('request failed'). There is no authentication error code, explanation of the cause, or instruction for replacing the key. The plan retains this message.\"\nEvidence: docs/current-contracts.md: \"Authentication errors behave exactly as documented in docs/api.md. All other errors already identify the cause, relevant argument or file, and an actionable fix.\"\n\nThis is the only error that doesn't follow the pattern your other errors already follow. Your ML engineer sets a wrong API key and sees:\n  AuthError: request failed\n\nThey don't know: was it a network error? A bad key? A rate limit? They have no idea what to fix. The Hall of Fame Tier 1 standard: problem + cause + fix. You're at Tier 3 (just a message string).\n\nA minimal fix: `AuthError(\"invalid API key \u2014 check EVALKIT_API_KEY or regenerate at [dashboard]\")`\n\nRecommendation: A \u2014 update the error message. It's a one-line change. Completeness: A=9/10, B=6/10, C=3/10 <gstack-qid:plan-devex-review-fp3-auth-error>",
          "header": "FP3 AuthError",
          "multiSelect": false,
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "Fix in plan: update AuthError message to name cause + fix (Recommended)",
              "description": "Change the message to identify the problem (invalid API key), cause (key mismatch), and fix (check EVALKIT_API_KEY or regenerate). One-line change. Completeness: 9/10."
            },
            {
              "label": "Add error code only",
              "description": "Add a structured error code (e.g., auth/invalid-key) without changing the prose message. Partial improvement. Completeness: 6/10."
            },
            {
              "label": "Retain 'request failed' as-is",
              "description": "Leave the message unchanged. Every developer with a bad key will be confused. Completeness: 3/10."
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D4 \u2014 Friction point 3: `AuthError(\"request failed\")` tells the developer nothing useful.\n\nEvidence: docs/api.md: \"For an invalid API key, the SDK raises AuthError('request failed'). There is no authentication error code, explanation of the cause, or instruction for replacing the key. The plan retains this message.\"\nEvidence: docs/current-contracts.md: \"Authentication errors behave exactly as documented in docs/api.md. All other errors already identify the cause, relevant argument or file, and an actionable fix.\"\n\nThis is the only error that doesn't follow the pattern your other errors already follow. Your ML engineer sets a wrong API key and sees:\n  AuthError: request failed\n\nThey don't know: was it a network error? A bad key? A rate limit? They have no idea what to fix. The Hall of Fame Tier 1 standard: problem + cause + fix. You're at Tier 3 (just a message string).\n\nA minimal fix: `AuthError(\"invalid API key \u2014 check EVALKIT_API_KEY or regenerate at [dashboard]\")`\n\nRecommendation: A \u2014 update the error message. It's a one-line change. Completeness: A=9/10, B=6/10, C=3/10 <gstack-qid:plan-devex-review-fp3-auth-error>": "Fix in plan: update AuthError message to name cause + fix (Recommended)"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:06:28.980Z"
    },
    {
      "sessionId": "c863dd11-6557-4988-b509-ac5229e24427",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01PgqUSGF7FHPd1cVUJoURXX",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D5 \u2014 Friction point 4: v1\u2192v2 upgrade removes Client.evaluate() immediately, no deprecation or compat alias.\n\nEvidence: docs/api.md: \"Version 1 exposes Client.evaluate(). Version 2 replaces it with Client.run() and removes the old name immediately. No compatibility alias, deprecation warning, migration guide, or codemod is provided.\"\n\nAny v1 user who runs pip install --upgrade evalkit will immediately get:\n  AttributeError: 'Client' object has no attribute 'evaluate'\n\nNo warning before it happens. No message telling them what to call instead. They have to go to the changelog to find out `evaluate()` is now `run()`. The changelog is otherwise complete, so the information exists \u2014 it's just not surfaced at the point of failure.\n\nMinimum viable fix: keep `Client.evaluate()` as a one-version deprecation shim:\n  def evaluate(self, *args, **kwargs):\n      import warnings\n      warnings.warn(\"evaluate() is renamed run() in v2; remove this call by v2.1\", DeprecationWarning, stacklevel=2)\n      return self.run(*args, **kwargs)\n\nThis is what 'DX POLISH' means for upgrades \u2014 the right thing should be to not break users silently.\n\nRecommendation: A \u2014 add the deprecation shim. One function. Surfaces the fix at the point of failure, and validates that run() accepts the same args.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=7/10, C=5/10, D=2/10 <gstack-qid:plan-devex-review-fp4-v1v2-upgrade>",
          "header": "FP4 v1\u2192v2",
          "multiSelect": false,
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "Fix in plan: add Client.evaluate() deprecation shim (Recommended)",
              "description": "Add a one-function compat wrapper that raises DeprecationWarning and delegates to run(). Removes silently broken upgrades. Completeness: 9/10."
            },
            {
              "label": "Fix in plan: update changelog/error to name the replacement",
              "description": "When AttributeError fires, Python's default message is unclear. Catch it or add a __getattr__ that names run() as the replacement. No compat shim. Completeness: 7/10."
            },
            {
              "label": "Add migration guide to docs only",
              "description": "Write a v1\u2192v2 migration guide. Developers must find it before upgrading. No protection at upgrade time. Completeness: 5/10."
            },
            {
              "label": "Retain immediate removal as-is",
              "description": "Keep the hard break. v1 users get AttributeError with no guidance. Completeness: 2/10."
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D5 \u2014 Friction point 4: v1\u2192v2 upgrade removes Client.evaluate() immediately, no deprecation or compat alias.\n\nEvidence: docs/api.md: \"Version 1 exposes Client.evaluate(). Version 2 replaces it with Client.run() and removes the old name immediately. No compatibility alias, deprecation warning, migration guide, or codemod is provided.\"\n\nAny v1 user who runs pip install --upgrade evalkit will immediately get:\n  AttributeError: 'Client' object has no attribute 'evaluate'\n\nNo warning before it happens. No message telling them what to call instead. They have to go to the changelog to find out `evaluate()` is now `run()`. The changelog is otherwise complete, so the information exists \u2014 it's just not surfaced at the point of failure.\n\nMinimum viable fix: keep `Client.evaluate()` as a one-version deprecation shim:\n  def evaluate(self, *args, **kwargs):\n      import warnings\n      warnings.warn(\"evaluate() is renamed run() in v2; remove this call by v2.1\", DeprecationWarning, stacklevel=2)\n      return self.run(*args, **kwargs)\n\nThis is what 'DX POLISH' means for upgrades \u2014 the right thing should be to not break users silently.\n\nRecommendation: A \u2014 add the deprecation shim. One function. Surfaces the fix at the point of failure, and validates that run() accepts the same args.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=7/10, C=5/10, D=2/10 <gstack-qid:plan-devex-review-fp4-v1v2-upgrade>": "Fix in plan: add Client.evaluate() deprecation shim (Recommended)"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:06:51.037Z"
    },
    {
      "sessionId": "c863dd11-6557-4988-b509-ac5229e24427",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01BSgdeurwMUzvxqPYoVXyDg",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D6 \u2014 Friction point 5: `run_eval` and `run_batch` have reversed positional argument order.\n\nEvidence: docs/api.md: \"`run_eval(dataset, evaluator)` and `run_batch(evaluator, dataset)`. Both argument names describe the same concepts. The reversed positional order is intentional in the current draft; neither function requires keyword arguments.\"\n\nA developer who uses both functions will likely swap arguments at least once. Python won't catch it \u2014 both args are objects, so the wrong order silently passes and produces wrong results (or crashes deep in the evaluator). This violates the Hall of Fame anti-pattern 'Inconsistent naming'.\n\nThe 'intentional' note in the plan is a flag that this needs a decision, not a justification.\n\nOptions:\n  A) Fix the API \u2014 make both `(dataset, evaluator)` or both `(evaluator, dataset)`. One is changed, both become consistent. Requires updating docs.\n  B) Enforce keyword-only args \u2014 add `*` to force keyword use: `run_eval(*, dataset, evaluator)`, `run_batch(*, evaluator, dataset)`. Prevents silent swaps even with inconsistent ordering.\n  C) Document the difference prominently \u2014 add a warning to the API docs and docstrings. The inconsistency stays; developers are warned.\n\nRecommendation: A \u2014 fix the arg order to be consistent. Silent wrong-result bugs from swapped positional args are the worst kind. The API is in beta; this is the time to fix it.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=8/10, C=5/10 <gstack-qid:plan-devex-review-fp5-arg-order>",
          "header": "FP5 Arg order",
          "multiSelect": false,
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "Fix in plan: standardize to one ordering (Recommended)",
              "description": "Pick one order (dataset, evaluator) for both functions. Beta is the time to fix APIs before they're locked in. Completeness: 10/10."
            },
            {
              "label": "Fix in plan: force keyword-only arguments",
              "description": "Add `*` to both signatures so callers must use keyword args. Prevents silent swaps without changing the underlying order. Completeness: 8/10."
            },
            {
              "label": "Document the difference, leave ordering as-is",
              "description": "Add a prominent warning to API docs and docstrings. Inconsistency stays; developers are warned. Completeness: 5/10."
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D6 \u2014 Friction point 5: `run_eval` and `run_batch` have reversed positional argument order.\n\nEvidence: docs/api.md: \"`run_eval(dataset, evaluator)` and `run_batch(evaluator, dataset)`. Both argument names describe the same concepts. The reversed positional order is intentional in the current draft; neither function requires keyword arguments.\"\n\nA developer who uses both functions will likely swap arguments at least once. Python won't catch it \u2014 both args are objects, so the wrong order silently passes and produces wrong results (or crashes deep in the evaluator). This violates the Hall of Fame anti-pattern 'Inconsistent naming'.\n\nThe 'intentional' note in the plan is a flag that this needs a decision, not a justification.\n\nOptions:\n  A) Fix the API \u2014 make both `(dataset, evaluator)` or both `(evaluator, dataset)`. One is changed, both become consistent. Requires updating docs.\n  B) Enforce keyword-only args \u2014 add `*` to force keyword use: `run_eval(*, dataset, evaluator)`, `run_batch(*, evaluator, dataset)`. Prevents silent swaps even with inconsistent ordering.\n  C) Document the difference prominently \u2014 add a warning to the API docs and docstrings. The inconsistency stays; developers are warned.\n\nRecommendation: A \u2014 fix the arg order to be consistent. Silent wrong-result bugs from swapped positional args are the worst kind. The API is in beta; this is the time to fix it.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=8/10, C=5/10 <gstack-qid:plan-devex-review-fp5-arg-order>": "Fix in plan: standardize to one ordering (Recommended)"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:07:13.609Z"
    },
    {
      "sessionId": "c863dd11-6557-4988-b509-ac5229e24427",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_016oCjoi96WfcniXDZhDYr8g",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D7 \u2014 TODO: should the demo add one explanatory line when the CI check starts?\n\nCurrently, developers running `python -m evalkit.demo` (without --skip-ci-check) see:\n  Waiting for CI check: 30s elapsed of 300s\n  Waiting for CI check: 60s elapsed of 300s\n  ...\n\nThere is no explanation of what the CI check is validating or why it runs on a local machine. Developers wait 5 minutes without context. After the --skip-ci-check flag lands (T2), this matters less for new developers. But developers who run without the flag, or in CI where it's intentional, get no explanation.\n\nProposed one-line fix (at first progress line):\n  \"First-run quality gate: verifying sample integrity via remote CI check (~5 min). Skip with --skip-ci-check for local dev.\"\n\nWhy: it's the same pattern as the other good error messages \u2014 problem + cause + fix.\n\nCompleteness: A=9/10 (complete), B=2/10 (minimal) <gstack-qid:plan-devex-review-todo1-ci-explanation>",
          "header": "TODO-1 CI note",
          "multiSelect": false,
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "Add to TODOS.md \u2014 include one-line CI explanation in plan (Recommended)",
              "description": "Add this as a P2 implementation task. One-line change to demo output. Follows the error-message pattern already established in the SDK. Completeness: 9/10."
            },
            {
              "label": "Skip \u2014 --skip-ci-check flag (T2) makes this less critical",
              "description": "New developers will use --skip-ci-check after T2 lands. Explanation not worth the scope. Completeness: 2/10."
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D7 \u2014 TODO: should the demo add one explanatory line when the CI check starts?\n\nCurrently, developers running `python -m evalkit.demo` (without --skip-ci-check) see:\n  Waiting for CI check: 30s elapsed of 300s\n  Waiting for CI check: 60s elapsed of 300s\n  ...\n\nThere is no explanation of what the CI check is validating or why it runs on a local machine. Developers wait 5 minutes without context. After the --skip-ci-check flag lands (T2), this matters less for new developers. But developers who run without the flag, or in CI where it's intentional, get no explanation.\n\nProposed one-line fix (at first progress line):\n  \"First-run quality gate: verifying sample integrity via remote CI check (~5 min). Skip with --skip-ci-check for local dev.\"\n\nWhy: it's the same pattern as the other good error messages \u2014 problem + cause + fix.\n\nCompleteness: A=9/10 (complete), B=2/10 (minimal) <gstack-qid:plan-devex-review-todo1-ci-explanation>": "Add to TODOS.md \u2014 include one-line CI explanation in plan (Recommended)"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:10:09.658Z"
    },
    {
      "sessionId": "c863dd11-6557-4988-b509-ac5229e24427",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01QVaGJ8sDovuePEycGQ5kEA",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D8 \u2014 TODO: should the plan include a v1\u2192v2 written migration guide?\n\nThe deprecation shim (T4) handles the runtime experience: v1 callers get a DeprecationWarning naming `run()` as the replacement. But there is currently no written migration guide in docs/.\n\nA one-page migration guide covers:\n- What changed (`evaluate()` \u2192 `run()`)\n- What stayed the same (all other APIs)\n- How to find and update callsites (grep for `\\.evaluate(`)\n- When the shim is removed (e.g., v2.1)\n\nWithout it, developers upgrading a large codebase need to discover the change at each call site rather than planning the migration upfront. The changelog has the what; the guide provides the how and the timeline.\n\nCompleteness: A=9/10 (complete), B=6/10 (runtime-only, no planning), C=2/10 <gstack-qid:plan-devex-review-todo2-migration-guide>",
          "header": "TODO-2 Migration",
          "multiSelect": false,
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "Add to TODOS.md \u2014 include migration guide in plan (Recommended)",
              "description": "Add docs/migration-v1-v2.md as a P2 task. One page covering the rename, unchanged APIs, grep command to find callsites, and shim removal timeline. Completeness: 9/10."
            },
            {
              "label": "Deprecation shim is enough \u2014 skip the guide",
              "description": "Runtime warning names the replacement. Developers can upgrade call-by-call without a guide. Completeness: 6/10."
            },
            {
              "label": "Skip entirely",
              "description": "No guide, no shim documentation. Developers discover the change at each AttributeError or DeprecationWarning. Completeness: 2/10."
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D8 \u2014 TODO: should the plan include a v1\u2192v2 written migration guide?\n\nThe deprecation shim (T4) handles the runtime experience: v1 callers get a DeprecationWarning naming `run()` as the replacement. But there is currently no written migration guide in docs/.\n\nA one-page migration guide covers:\n- What changed (`evaluate()` \u2192 `run()`)\n- What stayed the same (all other APIs)\n- How to find and update callsites (grep for `\\.evaluate(`)\n- When the shim is removed (e.g., v2.1)\n\nWithout it, developers upgrading a large codebase need to discover the change at each call site rather than planning the migration upfront. The changelog has the what; the guide provides the how and the timeline.\n\nCompleteness: A=9/10 (complete), B=6/10 (runtime-only, no planning), C=2/10 <gstack-qid:plan-devex-review-todo2-migration-guide>": "Add to TODOS.md \u2014 include migration guide in plan (Recommended)"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:10:21.700Z"
    },
    {
      "sessionId": "c863dd11-6557-4988-b509-ac5229e24427",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01TfHvZPe3RWqFgtAKyiyPJu",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D9 \u2014 What's next?\n\nDX review complete. 7 tasks specified (5 P1 block ship, 2 P2 same branch). DX score: 5/10 \u2192 8/10. TTHW: 6 min \u2192 < 2 min (Champion tier) after T2 lands.\n\nThe API changes (T2, T4, T5) have architectural implications that warrant an eng review. <gstack-qid:plan-devex-review-next-steps>",
          "header": "Next steps",
          "multiSelect": false,
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "Run /plan-eng-review next (Recommended)",
              "description": "API changes (T2, T4, T5) have architectural implications. Eng review validates the --skip-ci-check design, deprecation shim contract, and argument-order change scope before implementation."
            },
            {
              "label": "Ready to implement",
              "description": "Skip eng review. Start implementing T1\u2013T7 directly. Run /devex-review after shipping to measure the real TTHW against the < 2 min target."
            },
            {
              "label": "Skip \u2014 handle next steps manually",
              "description": "No follow-up review needed right now."
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D9 \u2014 What's next?\n\nDX review complete. 7 tasks specified (5 P1 block ship, 2 P2 same branch). DX score: 5/10 \u2192 8/10. TTHW: 6 min \u2192 < 2 min (Champion tier) after T2 lands.\n\nThe API changes (T2, T4, T5) have architectural implications that warrant an eng review. <gstack-qid:plan-devex-review-next-steps>": "Run /plan-eng-review next (Recommended)"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:14:02.183Z"
    }
  ],
  "reportContent": "# DX Plan Review: EvalKit SDK beta release polish\n\n**Mode:** DX POLISH \u2014 make every existing touchpoint bulletproof\n**Product type:** Library / SDK (Python)\n**Session date:** 2026-09-09\n\n---\n\n## Context\n\nEvalKit is a Python SDK for ML engineers evaluating LLM responses. The beta release plan\ncommits to shipping `evalkit==2.0.0b1`. Persona, delivery vehicle, and onboarding benchmark\nare pre-approved per PLAN.md and README.md. This review operates on the existing documented\ncontracts, identifying which are broken and specifying repairs.\n\n---\n\n## Developer Persona Card\n\n```\nTARGET DEVELOPER PERSONA\n========================\nWho:       ML engineer who evaluates LLM responses\nContext:   Integrating an eval SDK into an existing Python workflow or CI pipeline\nTolerance: Wants a local result first \u2014 target < 2 min before connecting to CI\nExpects:   pip install \u2192 set env var \u2192 one command \u2192 see scores\nEnvironment: Python 3.10+, terminal, macOS/Linux/Windows (no Docker)\n```\n\n---\n\n## Competitive DX Benchmark (settled, from docs/benchmarks.md)\n\n```\nCOMPETITIVE DX BENCHMARK\n=========================\nTool             | TTHW     | Tier\n-----------------|----------|---------------------------\nPeer SDK A       | 2 min    | Champion (agreed target)\nPeer SDK C       | 3 min    | Competitive\nPeer SDK B       | 4 min    | Competitive\nEvalKit (before) | 6 min    | Needs Work\nEvalKit (after)  | < 2 min  | Champion \u2014 after --skip-ci-check lands\n```\n\n---\n\n## Magical Moment Specification (settled)\n\n- **Delivery vehicle:** Copy-paste demo command \u2014 `python -m evalkit.demo`\n- **Output:** Bundled sample eval \u2014 per-example scores + overall score printed to terminal\n- **No hosted playground.** Demo module and sample data are already in the published package.\n- **FP1 repair:** README must be updated to route first-time developers to `python -m evalkit.demo`\n  instead of the missing `examples/first_eval.py`.\n\n---\n\n## Developer Empathy Narrative (confirmed accurate)\n\n*From the ML engineer's perspective, following README.md as currently written:*\n\n> I install evalkit==2.0.0b1, set EVALKIT_API_KEY. The README says:\n> \"follow the quickstart's command: `python examples/first_eval.py`\"\n>\n> ```\n> python: can't open file 'examples/first_eval.py': [Errno 2] No such file or directory\n> ```\n>\n> The file isn't in the package. After confusion I find `python -m evalkit.demo`.\n> I run it. Five minutes of: \"Waiting for CI check: 90s elapsed of 300s...\"\n> No explanation of what this check is validating on my local machine.\n>\n> After 5 min: `example 1: score=0.80 / example 2: score=1.00 / overall: score=0.90`\n>\n> Total time: ~7 min. First command failed. Not confident in this tool.\n\n**After this plan's repairs:** 1. `pip install evalkit==2.0.0b1` \u2192 2. `export EVALKIT_API_KEY=...`\n\u2192 3. `python -m evalkit.demo --skip-ci-check` \u2192 scores in ~10s. Under 2 minutes, first command works.\n\n---\n\n## Friction Points \u2014 All Decisions Collected\n\n| # | Stage | Issue | Decision | Task |\n|---|-------|-------|----------|------|\n| FP1 | Hello World | `examples/first_eval.py` absent from published package | **Fix: update README to `python -m evalkit.demo`** | T1 |\n| FP2 | Hello World | Mandatory 5-min CI wait, no skip flag; TTHW 6 min vs. < 2 min target | **Scope addition: add `--skip-ci-check` flag** | T2 |\n| FP3 | Debug | `AuthError(\"request failed\")` \u2014 no cause, no fix | **Fix: update message to name cause + fix** | T3 |\n| FP4 | Upgrade | v1\u2192v2 removes `Client.evaluate()` immediately, no deprecation | **Fix: add deprecation shim** | T4 |\n| FP5 | API | `run_eval(dataset, evaluator)` vs `run_batch(evaluator, dataset)` reversed | **Fix: standardize to `(dataset, evaluator)`** | T5 |\n| TODO-1 | Hello World | No explanation when CI check starts \u2014 why does it run? | **Fix: one-line explanation at first progress message** | T6 |\n| TODO-2 | Upgrade | No written v1\u2192v2 migration guide | **Fix: add docs/migration-v1-v2.md** | T7 |\n\n---\n\n## Developer Journey Map (final)\n\n```\nSTAGE           | DEVELOPER DOES                            | FRICTION                 | STATUS\n----------------|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------|--------\n1. Discover     | Finds README.md                           | None                     | OK\n2. Install      | pip install evalkit==2.0.0b1               | None                     | OK\n3. Hello World  | python -m evalkit.demo --skip-ci-check    | Was: file missing (FP1)  | FIXED\n4. First result | Scores in < 2 min                         | Was: 5-min wait (FP2)    | FIXED\n5. Auth debug   | AuthError: invalid API key \u2014 check...     | Was: \"request failed\"    | FIXED\n6. CI wait info | \"First-run quality gate... (~5 min)...\"   | Was: no explanation      | FIXED\n7. Upgrade v1\u2192v2| DeprecationWarning \u2192 migrate to run()    | Was: silent AttributeErr  | FIXED\n8. v1\u2192v2 docs   | docs/migration-v1-v2.md                   | Was: no written guide    | FIXED\n9. API use      | run_eval(dataset, evaluator) both fns     | Was: reversed order (FP5) | FIXED\n```\n\n---\n\n## First-Time Developer Confusion Report (annotated)\n\n```\nFIRST-TIME DEVELOPER REPORT\n============================\nPersona: ML engineer, Python daily, terminal, < 2 min tolerance\n\nT+0:00  Reads README. Install: clean. Sets EVALKIT_API_KEY.\nT+0:30  Runs: python examples/first_eval.py\n        \u2192 FileNotFoundError \u2190 FIXED by T1 (README routes to python -m evalkit.demo)\nT+1:00  [After T1+T2]: runs python -m evalkit.demo --skip-ci-check\nT+1:10  Scores appear. < 2 min. First command works.\n        \u2192 \"Waiting for CI check...\" with no explanation \u2190 FIXED by T6 (one-line context)\n        \u2192 5-min wait \u2190 FIXED by T2 (--skip-ci-check flag)\n```\n\n---\n\n## What Already Exists (retain as-is)\n\n- CI progress messages every 30s: `\"Waiting for CI check: 90s elapsed of 300s\"` \u2713\n- All non-auth errors: already identify cause + argument/file + actionable fix \u2713\n- Offline sample data, mock transport, noninteractive CI mode \u2713\n- Type annotations, API reference, support contact, changelog, contributor guide \u2713\n- Timing instrumentation and post-beta feedback survey \u2713\n- `evalkit/demo.py` and `evalkit/sample_responses.json` in published package \u2713\n- Evaluation IDs, bounded retries, secrets redaction \u2713\n\n---\n\n## NOT In Scope (DX POLISH \u2014 no new surface area)\n\n- Hosted interactive playground\n- Additional language bindings beyond Python\n- Community program (Slack/Discord/GitHub Discussions)\n- Automated codemod for v1\u2192v2 migration (shim is the scoped fix)\n- Browser-based UI\n- Keyword-only argument enforcement (consistent positional order is the fix)\n\n---\n\n## Pass 1: Getting Started Experience\n\n**Before: 2/10 \u2014 After: 8/10**\n\nEvidence: FP1 (FileNotFoundError on first command) + FP2 (5-min mandatory wait, 4 min over target).\nCompetitive reference: Peer SDK A at 2 min is the champion tier target (docs/benchmarks.md).\n\nAfter T1 + T2: golden path is 3 steps, under 2 minutes:\n1. `pip install evalkit==2.0.0b1` (~30s)\n2. `export EVALKIT_API_KEY=...`\n3. `python -m evalkit.demo --skip-ci-check` (~10s)\n\n**Stripe test:** YES \u2014 ML engineer goes from zero to scores in one terminal session, no docs required.\n\n**Remaining gap (\u2192 10):** Install still requires the full version pin (`==2.0.0b1`). A\n`pip install evalkit` that resolves to the beta would reduce one friction point. Not scoped.\n\n---\n\n## Pass 2: API / SDK Design\n\n**Before: 5/10 \u2014 After: 9/10**\n\nEvidence: FP5 \u2014 `run_eval(dataset, evaluator)` vs `run_batch(evaluator, dataset)` reversed order.\nSilent wrong-result bugs for any developer using both functions. Fixed by T5: standardize both\nto `(dataset, evaluator)`.\n\nAfter T5:\n- Naming: guessable without docs \u2713\n- Consistency: same positional convention across all eval functions \u2713\n- Type annotations \u2713, mock transport \u2713, offline sample data \u2713\n\n**Remaining gap (\u2192 10):** No keyword-only enforcement (`*` in signatures). Belt-and-suspenders\nagainst future arg-order regressions. Not scoped; consistent order is the primary fix.\n\n---\n\n## Pass 3: Error Messages & Debugging\n\n**Before: 5/10 \u2014 After: 9/10**\n\nEvidence: FP3 \u2014 `AuthError(\"request failed\")` was the only error without cause or fix.\nAll other errors follow the established (cause + argument/file + fix) pattern. Fixed by T3:\n\n```python\nAuthError(\"invalid API key \u2014 verify EVALKIT_API_KEY or regenerate at your dashboard\")\n```\n\n**Remaining gap (\u2192 10):** No structured error code (`auth/invalid-key`) and no docs URL in\nthe message. These would help programmatic handling and deep debugging. Not scoped for this release.\n\n---\n\n## Pass 4: Documentation & Learning\n\n**Before: 6/10 \u2014 After: 8/10**\n\nFP1 repair (T1) fixes the broken getting-started path. CI check explanation (T6) adds\ncontext for developers who hit the wait. Other docs are complete for beta.\n\n**Remaining gap (\u2192 10):** No interactive examples, no versioned docs, no tutorial track beyond\nthe demo. Post-beta scope.\n\n---\n\n## Pass 5: Upgrade & Migration Path\n\n**Before: 3/10 \u2014 After: 9/10**\n\nEvidence: FP4 \u2014 `Client.evaluate()` removed immediately in v2, no deprecation warning.\nv1 upgraders hit `AttributeError` with no guidance. Fixed by T4 (deprecation shim) + T7\n(written migration guide).\n\nAfter T4 + T7: upgrade sequence is:\n1. `pip install --upgrade evalkit` \u2192 `DeprecationWarning: evaluate() renamed run(); migrate by v2.1`\n2. Read `docs/migration-v1-v2.md` for grep command and timeline\n3. Rename callsites \u2192 done\n\n**Remaining gap (\u2192 10):** No automated codemod. Not scoped; shim + guide is the DX POLISH fix.\n\n---\n\n## Pass 6: Developer Environment & Tooling\n\n**Score: 8/10 (no new findings)**\n\nPython 3.10+, macOS/Linux/Windows, no Docker \u2713 \u00b7 Noninteractive CI mode \u2713 \u00b7 Mock transport \u2713\nType annotations \u2713 \u00b7 Offline sample data \u2713 \u00b7 Evaluation IDs, bounded retries, rate limit handling \u2713\n\nGap to 10: No IDE integration or language server. Post-beta scope.\n\n---\n\n## Pass 7: Community & Ecosystem\n\n**Score: 6/10 (no new findings; post-beta scope)**\n\nSupport contact \u2713 \u00b7 Contributor guide \u2713 \u00b7 Changelog \u2713 \u00b7 License assumed present.\nNo community channels mentioned. Acceptable for beta; deferred per PLAN.md.\n\n---\n\n## Pass 8: DX Measurement & Feedback Loops\n\n**Score: 8/10 (no new findings)**\n\nTiming instrumentation \u2713 \u00b7 Post-beta feedback survey \u2713 \u00b7 TTHW target established (< 2 min) \u2713\n\nGap to 10: No journey analytics (where do devs drop off between install and first result?).\nNot scoped.\n\n---\n\n## DX Scorecard\n\n```\n+====================================================================+\n|              DX PLAN REVIEW \u2014 SCORECARD                            |\n+====================================================================+\n| Dimension            | Before | After  | Trend   |\n|----------------------|--------|--------|---------|\n| Getting Started      |  2/10  |  8/10  |  +6 \u2191   |\n| API/CLI/SDK          |  5/10  |  9/10  |  +4 \u2191   |\n| Error Messages       |  5/10  |  9/10  |  +4 \u2191   |\n| Documentation        |  6/10  |  8/10  |  +2 \u2191   |\n| Upgrade Path         |  3/10  |  9/10  |  +6 \u2191   |\n| Dev Environment      |  8/10  |  8/10  |   0 \u2192   |\n| Community            |  6/10  |  6/10  |   0 \u2192   |\n| DX Measurement       |  8/10  |  8/10  |   0 \u2192   |\n+--------------------------------------------------------------------+\n| TTHW                 |  6 min | < 2 min|  -4m \u2191  |\n| Competitive Rank     | Needs Work \u2192 Champion (after T2 lands)      |\n| Magical Moment       | designed via terminal demo (python -m demo)  |\n| Product Type         | Library / SDK (Python)                       |\n| Mode                 | DX POLISH                                    |\n| Overall DX           |  5/10  |  8/10  |  +3 \u2191   |\n+====================================================================+\n| DX PRINCIPLE COVERAGE                                               |\n| Zero Friction      | gap (FP1+FP2) \u2192 covered after T1+T2           |\n| Learn by Doing     | covered (demo with real scores)                |\n| Fight Uncertainty  | gap (FP3) \u2192 covered after T3                  |\n| Opinionated + Escape Hatches | gap (no CI skip) \u2192 covered (T2)    |\n| Code in Context    | covered (demo prints real output)              |\n| Magical Moments    | designed (terminal demo, real scores)          |\n+====================================================================+\n```\n\n---\n\n## DX Implementation Checklist\n\n```\nDX IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST\n============================\n[x] Installation is one command \u2014 pip install evalkit==2.0.0b1\n[x] First run produces meaningful output \u2014 demo prints per-example + overall scores\n[x] Magical moment delivered via terminal demo\n[x] Every other error message has: problem + cause + fix \u2014 already done\n[x] Works in CI/CD without special configuration \u2014 noninteractive CI mode exists\n[x] Changelog exists and is maintained\n[x] Type annotations included\n\n[ ] T1: README \u2014 replace examples/first_eval.py reference with python -m evalkit.demo\n[ ] T2: Add --skip-ci-check / EVALKIT_SKIP_CI=1 flag \u2192 enables < 2 min TTHW\n[ ] T3: Update AuthError message: name cause + fix (not \"request failed\")\n[ ] T4: Add Client.evaluate() deprecation shim \u2192 Client.run() with DeprecationWarning\n[ ] T5: Standardize run_eval and run_batch to (dataset, evaluator) positional order\n[ ] T6: Add one-line CI check explanation at first progress message in demo\n[ ] T7: Write docs/migration-v1-v2.md \u2014 rename, grep command, shim removal timeline\n```\n\n---\n\n## Implementation Tasks\n\nSynthesized from this review's findings. P1 blocks ship; P2 should land same branch.\n\n- [ ] **T1 (P1, human: ~30min / CC: ~5min)** \u2014 README \u2014 Fix getting-started command\n  - Surfaced by: Pass 1 / FP1 \u2014 `examples/first_eval.py` absent from published package\n  - Files: `README.md`\n  - Verify: `python -m evalkit.demo` is the canonical first command; no `examples/first_eval.py` reference remains\n\n- [ ] **T2 (P1, human: ~1 day / CC: ~30min)** \u2014 evalkit/demo.py + evalkit/client.py \u2014 Add `--skip-ci-check` flag\n  - Surfaced by: Pass 1 / FP2 \u2014 mandatory 5-min CI wait is the entire TTHW gap vs. agreed target\n  - Files: `evalkit/demo.py`, `evalkit/client.py`, `README.md`\n  - Verify: `python -m evalkit.demo --skip-ci-check` completes in < 30s and prints scores; `EVALKIT_SKIP_CI=1` env var also works\n\n- [ ] **T3 (P1, human: ~1h / CC: ~10min)** \u2014 evalkit/client.py \u2014 Fix AuthError message\n  - Surfaced by: Pass 3 / FP3 \u2014 only error in the SDK without cause or fix\n  - Files: `evalkit/client.py`\n  - Verify: With a bad API key, error message names the problem (invalid key), cause (key mismatch), and fix action\n\n- [ ] **T4 (P1, human: ~2h / CC: ~15min)** \u2014 evalkit/client.py \u2014 Add Client.evaluate() deprecation shim\n  - Surfaced by: Pass 5 / FP4 \u2014 v1\u2192v2 silent breaking change, no warning\n  - Files: `evalkit/client.py`\n  - Verify: `client.evaluate(...)` raises `DeprecationWarning` naming `run()` as the replacement and still returns a valid result\n\n- [ ] **T5 (P1, human: ~2h / CC: ~15min)** \u2014 evalkit/client.py \u2014 Standardize run_eval/run_batch argument order\n  - Surfaced by: Pass 2 / FP5 \u2014 reversed positional order causes silent wrong-result bugs\n  - Files: `evalkit/client.py`, `evalkit/__init__.py`, API docs\n  - Verify: Both `run_eval(dataset, evaluator)` and `run_batch(dataset, evaluator)` use identical positional order; all doc examples updated\n\n- [ ] **T6 (P2, human: ~30min / CC: ~5min)** \u2014 evalkit/demo.py \u2014 Add CI check explanation\n  - Surfaced by: Pass 4 / TODO-1 \u2014 no context for 5-min wait\n  - Files: `evalkit/demo.py`\n  - Verify: First progress line reads something like: \"First-run quality gate: verifying sample integrity (~5 min). Skip with --skip-ci-check for local dev.\"\n\n- [ ] **T7 (P2, human: ~2h / CC: ~15min)** \u2014 docs/ \u2014 Write v1\u2192v2 migration guide\n  - Surfaced by: Pass 5 / TODO-2 \u2014 no written migration guide for the planned breaking change\n  - Files: `docs/migration-v1-v2.md`\n  - Verify: Guide covers: what changed, what stayed the same, grep command for callsites, shim removal timeline (v2.1 target)\n\n---\n\n## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\n\n| Review | Trigger | Why | Runs | Status | Findings |\n|--------|---------|-----|------|--------|----------|\n| CEO Review | `/plan-ceo-review` | Scope & strategy | 0 | \u2014 | \u2014 |\n| Outside Review | disabled | Independent 2nd opinion | 0 | disabled | codex_reviews=disabled |\n| Eng Review | `/plan-eng-review` | Architecture & tests (required) | 0 | \u2014 | \u2014 |\n| Design Review | `/plan-design-review` | UI/UX gaps | 0 | \u2014 | \u2014 |\n| DX Review | `/plan-devex-review` | Developer experience gaps | 1 | issues_open | score: 5/10 \u2192 8/10, TTHW: 6min \u2192 <2min |\n\n**OUTSIDE COVERAGE:** Codex disabled (codex_reviews=disabled). No outside voice this run.\n\n**VERDICT:** DX Review complete (issues_open \u2014 7 tasks specified) \u2014 eng review required\n\nNO UNRESOLVED DECISIONS\n",
  "pendingExit": {
    "sessionId": "c863dd11-6557-4988-b509-ac5229e24427",
    "toolUseId": "toolu_019H5e2wALZGyJNX2Xf9SxCE",
    "cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-rVZvol/tmp/gstack-plan-count-u2oA0P",
    "transcriptPath": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-rVZvol/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2786471-HlBxFP/with-skills/.claude/projects/-tmp-gstack-paid-shard-rVZvol-tmp-gstack-plan-count-u2oA0P/c863dd11-6557-4988-b509-ac5229e24427.jsonl",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-09T12:14:38.022Z"
  },
  "screen": "\n - Overall: 5/10 \u2192 8/10\n - TTHW: 6 min \u2192 < 2 min (Champion tier, after T2)\n - 5 P1 tasks, 2 P2 tasks\n\n GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\n\n \u250c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2510\n \u2502   Review   \u2502       Trigger       \u2502          Why          \u2502 Runs \u2502   Status    \u2502            Findings            \u2502\n \u251c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2524\n \u2502 CEO Review \u2502 /plan-ceo-review    \u2502 Scope & strategy      \u2502 0    \u2502 \u2014           \u2502 \u2014                              \u2502\n \u251c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2524\n \u2502 Outside    \u2502 disabled            \u2502 Independent 2nd       \u2502 0    \u2502 disabled    \u2502 codex_reviews=disabled         \u2502\n \u2502 Review     \u2502                     \u2502 opinion               \u2502      \u2502             \u2502                                \u2502\n \u251c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2524\n \u2502 Eng Review \u2502 /plan-eng-review    \u2502 Architecture & tests  \u2502 0    \u2502 \u2014           \u2502 \u2014                              \u2502\n \u2502            \u2502                     \u2502 (required)            \u2502      \u2502             \u2502                                \u2502\n \u251c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2524\n \u2502 Design     \u2502 /plan-design-review \u2502 UI/UX gaps            \u2502 0    \u2502 \u2014           \u2502 \u2014                              \u2502\n \u2502 Review     \u2502                     \u2502                       \u2502      \u2502             \u2502                                \u2502\n \u251c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2524\n \u2502 DX Review  \u2502 /plan-devex-review  \u2502 Developer experience  \u2502 1    \u2502 issues_open \u2502 score: 5/10 \u2192 8/10, TTHW: 6min \u2502\n \u2502            \u2502                     \u2502 gaps                  \u2502      \u2502             \u2502  \u2192 <2min                       \u2502\n \u2514\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2518\n\n OUTSIDE COVERAGE: Codex disabled (codex_reviews=disabled). No outside voice this run.\n\n VERDICT: DX Review complete (issues_open \u2014 7 tasks specified) \u2014 eng review required\n\n NO UNRESOLVED DECISIONS\n\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\n\n\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Claude has written up a plan and is ready to execute. Would you like to proceed?\n\n \u276f 1. Yes, and use auto mode\n   2. Yes, manually approve edits\n   3. Tell Claude what to change\n      shift+tab to approve with this feedback\n",
  "provenance": {
    "evidence": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/ship-source-z-full-paid-20260909-1158/devex-exit-audit-v1/proof.json",
    "reportMtimeMs": 1788956000538.91,
    "reportSha256": "86ba1fa4f10c4ce4bd2f6383d0dbfdbfa718b873532a963d8354454bbe477aca",
    "capture": {
      "skill": "plan-devex-review",
      "runId": "ship-source-z-full-paid-20260909-1158-5",
      "cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-rVZvol/tmp/gstack-plan-count-u2oA0P",
      "claudeConfigDir": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-rVZvol/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2786471-HlBxFP/with-skills/.claude",
      "at": "2026-09-09T12:23:10.424Z"
    },
    "startedAt": "2026-09-09T12:00:28Z",
    "rawCounts": {
      "step0Count": 3,
      "reviewCount": 6,
      "administrativeCount": 0
    }
  }
}