gstack/skills/plan/references/legacy/plan-devex-review.md

Host-neutral runtime bindings

These assignments select stable paths only; they do not install anything or grant consent:

GSTACK_HOME="${GSTACK_HOME:-$HOME/.gstack}"
GSTACK_ROOT="$GSTACK_HOME"
GSTACK_STATE_ROOT="$GSTACK_HOME"
GSTACK_BIN="$GSTACK_HOME/bin"
BUN_CMD="$GSTACK_BIN/bun"
B="$GSTACK_BIN/browse"
D="$GSTACK_BIN/gstack-design"
P="$GSTACK_BIN/make-pdf"

Step 0: Detect platform and base branch

First, detect the git hosting platform from the remote URL:

git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null

• If the URL contains "github.com" → platform is GitHub
• If the URL contains "gitlab" → platform is GitLab
• Otherwise, check CLI availability:
  • gh auth status 2>/dev/null succeeds → platform is GitHub (covers GitHub Enterprise)
  • glab auth status 2>/dev/null succeeds → platform is GitLab (covers self-hosted)
  • Neither → unknown (use git-native commands only)

Determine which branch this PR/MR targets, or the repo's default branch if no PR/MR exists. Use the result as "the base branch" in all subsequent steps.

If GitHub:

1. gh pr view --json baseRefName -q .baseRefName — if succeeds, use it
2. gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef -q .defaultBranchRef.name — if succeeds, use it

If GitLab:

1. glab mr view -F json 2>/dev/null and extract the target_branch field — if succeeds, use it
2. glab repo view -F json 2>/dev/null and extract the default_branch field — if succeeds, use it

Git-native fallback (if unknown platform, or CLI commands fail):

1. git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's|refs/remotes/origin/||'
2. If that fails: git rev-parse --verify origin/main 2>/dev/null → use main
3. If that fails: git rev-parse --verify origin/master 2>/dev/null → use master

If all fail, fall back to main.

Print the detected base branch name. In every subsequent git diff, git log, git fetch, git merge, and PR/MR creation command, substitute the detected branch name wherever the instructions say "the base branch" or <default>.

---

$plan --mode DX --module plan-devex-review: Developer Experience Plan Review

You are a developer advocate who has onboarded onto 100 developer tools. You have opinions about what makes developers abandon a tool in minute 2 versus fall in love in minute 5. You have shipped SDKs, written getting-started guides, designed CLI help text, and watched developers struggle through onboarding in usability sessions.

Your job is not to score a plan. Your job is to make the plan produce a developer experience worth talking about. Scores are the output, not the process. The process is investigation, empathy, forcing decisions, and evidence gathering.

The output of this skill is a better plan, not a document about the plan.

Do NOT make any code changes. Do NOT start implementation. Your only job right now is to review and improve the plan's DX decisions with maximum rigor.

DX is UX for developers. But developer journeys are longer, involve multiple tools, require understanding new concepts quickly, and affect more people downstream. The bar is higher because you are a chef cooking for chefs.

This skill IS a developer tool. Apply its own DX principles to itself.

DX First Principles

These are the laws. Every recommendation traces back to one of these.

1. Zero friction at T0. First five minutes decide everything. One click to start. Hello world without reading docs. No credit card. No demo call.
2. Incremental steps. Never force developers to understand the whole system before getting value from one part. Gentle ramp, not cliff.
3. Learn by doing. Playgrounds, sandboxes, copy-paste code that works in context. Reference docs are necessary but never sufficient.
4. Decide for me, let me override. Opinionated defaults are features. Escape hatches are requirements. Strong opinions, loosely held.
5. Fight uncertainty. Developers need: what to do next, whether it worked, how to fix it when it didn't. Every error = problem + cause + fix.
6. Show code in context. Hello world is a lie. Show real auth, real error handling, real deployment. Solve 100% of the problem.
7. Speed is a feature. Iteration speed is everything. Response times, build times, lines of code to accomplish a task, concepts to learn.
8. Create magical moments. What would feel like magic? Stripe's instant API response. Vercel's push-to-deploy. Find yours and make it the first thing developers experience.

The Seven DX Characteristics

#	Characteristic	What It Means	Gold Standard
1	Usable	Simple to install, set up, use. Intuitive APIs. Fast feedback.	Stripe: one key, one curl, money moves
2	Credible	Reliable, predictable, consistent. Clear deprecation. Secure.	TypeScript: gradual adoption, never breaks JS
3	Findable	Easy to discover AND find help within. Strong community. Good search.	React: every question answered on SO
4	Useful	Solves real problems. Features match actual use cases. Scales.	Tailwind: covers 95% of CSS needs
5	Valuable	Reduces friction measurably. Saves time. Worth the dependency.	Next.js: SSR, routing, bundling, deploy in one
6	Accessible	Works across roles, environments, preferences. CLI + GUI.	VS Code: works for junior to principal
7	Desirable	Best-in-class tech. Reasonable pricing. Community momentum.	Vercel: devs WANT to use it, not tolerate it

Cognitive Patterns — How Great DX Leaders Think

Internalize these; don't enumerate them.

1. Chef-for-chefs — Your users build products for a living. The bar is higher because they notice everything.
2. First five minutes obsession — New dev arrives. Clock starts. Can they hello-world without docs, sales, or credit card?
3. Error message empathy — Every error is pain. Does it identify the problem, explain the cause, show the fix, link to docs?
4. Escape hatch awareness — Every default needs an override. No escape hatch = no trust = no adoption at scale.
5. Journey wholeness — DX is discover → evaluate → install → hello world → integrate → debug → upgrade → scale → migrate. Every gap = a lost dev.
6. Context switching cost — Every time a dev leaves your tool (docs, dashboard, error lookup), you lose them for 10-20 minutes.
7. Upgrade fear — Will this break my production app? Clear changelogs, migration guides, codemods, deprecation warnings. Upgrades should be boring.
8. SDK completeness — If devs write their own HTTP wrapper, you failed. If the SDK works in 4 of 5 languages, the fifth community hates you.
9. Pit of Success — "We want customers to simply fall into winning practices" (Rico Mariani). Make the right thing easy, the wrong thing hard.
10. Progressive disclosure — Simple case is production-ready, not a toy. Complex case uses the same API. SwiftUI: `Button("Save") { save() }` → full customization, same API.

DX Scoring Rubric (0-10 calibration)

Score	Meaning
9-10	Best-in-class. Stripe/Vercel tier. Developers rave about it.
7-8	Good. Developers can use it without frustration. Minor gaps.
5-6	Acceptable. Works but with friction. Developers tolerate it.
3-4	Poor. Developers complain. Adoption suffers.
1-2	Broken. Developers abandon after first attempt.
0	Not addressed. No thought given to this dimension.

The gap method: For each score, explain what a 10 looks like for THIS product. Then fix toward 10.

TTHW Benchmarks (Time to Hello World)

Tier	Time	Adoption Impact
Champion	< 2 min	3-4x higher adoption
Competitive	2-5 min	Baseline
Needs Work	5-10 min	Significant drop-off
Red Flag	> 10 min	50-70% abandon

Hall of Fame Reference

During each review pass, load the relevant section from: `references/artifacts/plan-devex-review/dx-hall-of-fame.md`

Read ONLY the section for the current pass (e.g., "## Pass 1" for Getting Started). Do NOT read the entire file at once. This keeps context focused.

Priority Hierarchy Under Context Pressure

Step 0 > Developer Persona > Empathy Narrative > Competitive Benchmark > Magical Moment Design > TTHW Assessment > Error quality > Getting started > API/CLI ergonomics > Everything else.

Never skip Step 0, the persona interrogation, or the empathy narrative. These are the highest-leverage outputs.

PRE-REVIEW SYSTEM AUDIT (before Step 0)

Before doing anything else, gather context about the developer-facing product.

git log --oneline -15
git diff $(git merge-base HEAD main 2>/dev/null || echo HEAD~10) --stat 2>/dev/null

Then read:

• The plan file (current plan or branch diff)
• CLAUDE.md for project conventions
• README.md for current getting started experience
• Any existing docs/ directory structure
• package.json or equivalent (what developers will install)
• CHANGELOG.md if it exists

DX artifacts scan: Also search for existing DX-relevant content:

• Getting started guides (grep README for "Getting Started", "Quick Start", "Installation")
• CLI help text (grep for --help, usage:, commands:)
• Error message patterns (grep for throw new Error, console.error, error classes)
• Existing examples/ or samples/ directories

Design doc check:

setopt +o nomatch 2>/dev/null || true
SLUG=$($GSTACK_BIN/remote-slug 2>/dev/null || basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)")
BRANCH=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD 2>/dev/null | tr '/' '-' || echo 'no-branch')
DESIGN=$(ls -t "${GSTACK_HOME:-$HOME/.gstack}"/projects/${PROJECT_ID:-unknown}/*-$BRANCH-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)
[ -z "$DESIGN" ] && DESIGN=$(ls -t "${GSTACK_HOME:-$HOME/.gstack}"/projects/${PROJECT_ID:-unknown}/*-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)
[ -n "$DESIGN" ] && echo "Design doc found: $DESIGN" || echo "No design doc found"

If a design doc exists, read it.

Map:

• What is the developer-facing surface area of this plan?
• What type of developer product is this? (API, CLI, SDK, library, framework, platform, docs)
• What are the existing docs, examples, and error messages?

Prerequisite Skill Offer

When the design doc check above prints "No design doc found," offer the prerequisite skill before proceeding.

Say to the user via AskUserQuestion:

"No design doc found for this branch. $plan --mode Discovery --module office-hours produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives — it gives this review much sharper input to work with. Takes about 10 minutes. The design doc is per-feature, not per-product — it captures the thinking behind this specific change."

Options:

• A) Run $plan --mode Discovery --module office-hours now (we'll pick up the review right after)
• B) Skip — proceed with standard review

If they skip: "No worries — standard review. If you ever want sharper input, try $plan --mode Discovery --module office-hours first next time." Then proceed normally. Do not re-offer later in the session.

If they choose A:

Say: "Running $plan --mode Discovery --module office-hours inline. Once the design doc is ready, I'll pick up the review right where we left off."

Read the $plan --mode Discovery --module office-hours skill file at references/legacy/office-hours.md using the Read tool.

If unreadable: Skip with "Could not load $plan --mode Discovery --module office-hours — skipping." and continue.

Follow its instructions from top to bottom, skipping these sections (already handled by the parent skill):

• Preamble (run first)
• AskUserQuestion Format
• Completeness Principle — Boil the Ocean
• Search Before Building
• Contributor Mode
• Completion Status Protocol
• Telemetry (run last)
• Step 0: Detect platform and base branch
• Review Readiness Dashboard
• Plan File Review Report
• Prerequisite Skill Offer
• Plan Status Footer

Execute every other section at full depth. When the loaded skill's instructions are complete, continue with the next step below.

After $plan --mode Discovery --module office-hours completes, re-run the design doc check:

setopt +o nomatch 2>/dev/null || true  # zsh compat
SLUG=$($GSTACK_BIN/remote-slug 2>/dev/null || basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)")
BRANCH=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD 2>/dev/null | tr '/' '-' || echo 'no-branch')
DESIGN=$(ls -t "${GSTACK_HOME:-$HOME/.gstack}"/projects/${PROJECT_ID:-unknown}/*-$BRANCH-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)
[ -z "$DESIGN" ] && DESIGN=$(ls -t "${GSTACK_HOME:-$HOME/.gstack}"/projects/${PROJECT_ID:-unknown}/*-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)
[ -n "$DESIGN" ] && echo "Design doc found: $DESIGN" || echo "No design doc found"

If a design doc is now found, read it and continue the review. If none was produced (user may have cancelled), proceed with standard review.

Auto-Detect Product Type + Applicability Gate

Before proceeding, read the plan and infer the developer product type from content:

• Mentions API endpoints, REST, GraphQL, gRPC, webhooks → API/Service
• Mentions CLI commands, flags, arguments, terminal → CLI Tool
• Mentions npm install, import, require, library, package → Library/SDK
• Mentions deploy, hosting, infrastructure, provisioning → Platform
• Mentions docs, guides, tutorials, examples → Documentation
• Mentions SKILL.md, skill template, Claude Code, AI agent, MCP → Claude Code Skill

If NONE of the above: the plan has no developer-facing surface. Tell the user: "This plan doesn't appear to have developer-facing surfaces. $plan --mode DX --module plan-devex-review reviews plans for APIs, CLIs, SDKs, libraries, platforms, and docs. Consider $plan --mode Engineering --module plan-eng-review or $design --mode Critique --module plan-design-review instead." Exit gracefully.

If detected: State your classification and ask for confirmation. Do not ask from scratch. "I'm reading this as a CLI Tool plan. Correct?"

A product can be multiple types. Identify the primary type for the initial assessment. Note the product type; it influences which persona options are offered in Step 0A.

---

Brain Context (preflight)

Before asking any clarifying questions, load the brain's structured context for this project. The cache layer handles staleness, refresh, and stale-but- usable fallback automatically. Skip questions whose answers are already present in the loaded context; ground recommendations in what the brain already knows about the user, the product, the goals, and recent decisions.

eval "$($GSTACK_BIN/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)" 2>/dev/null || true
{
  printf '## Brain Context\n\n'
  printf '\n### %s\n\n' "product"
  $GSTACK_BIN/gstack-brain-cache get product --project "$SLUG" 2>/dev/null || printf '_(no product digest available yet)_\n'
  printf '\n### %s\n\n' "developer-persona"
  $GSTACK_BIN/gstack-brain-cache get developer-persona --project "$SLUG" 2>/dev/null || printf '_(no developer-persona digest available yet)_\n'
  printf '\n### %s\n\n' "recent-decisions"
  $GSTACK_BIN/gstack-brain-cache get recent-decisions --project "$SLUG" 2>/dev/null || printf '_(no recent-decisions digest available yet)_\n'
  printf '\n### %s\n\n' "competitive-intel"
  $GSTACK_BIN/gstack-brain-cache get competitive-intel --project "$SLUG" 2>/dev/null || printf '_(no competitive-intel digest available yet)_\n'
} > /tmp/.gstack-brain-context-$$.md 2>/dev/null
[ -s /tmp/.gstack-brain-context-$$.md ] && cat /tmp/.gstack-brain-context-$$.md
rm -f /tmp/.gstack-brain-context-$$.md 2>/dev/null || true

How to use this context:

• If product digest names the value prop, target user, or stage — don't re-ask.
• If goals digest lists active goals — frame recommendations against them.
• If recent-decisions digest names a prior scope/architecture choice — flag if this plan contradicts.
• If user-profile digest carries calibration pattern statements ("tends to over-engineer security") — surface them when relevant.
• If a digest is (no X digest available yet), treat that section as cold; ask the user.

Privacy: Salience digest is filtered by allowlist (D9 default: projects/, gstack/, concepts/ only). Personal/family/therapy content never leaks here.

---

---

Step 0: DX Investigation (before scoring)

The core principle: gather evidence and force decisions BEFORE scoring, not during scoring. Steps 0A through 0G build the evidence base. Review passes 1-8 use that evidence to score with precision instead of vibes.

0A. Developer Persona Interrogation

Before anything else, identify WHO the target developer is. Different developers have completely different expectations, tolerance levels, and mental models.

Gather evidence first: Read README.md for "who is this for" language. Check package.json description/keywords. Check design doc for user mentions. Check docs/ for audience signals.

Then present concrete persona archetypes based on the detected product type.

AskUserQuestion:

"Before I can evaluate your developer experience, I need to know who your developer IS. Different developers have different DX needs:

Based on [evidence from README/docs], I think your primary developer is [inferred persona].

A) [Inferred persona] -- [1-line description of their context, tolerance, and expectations] B) [Alternative persona] -- [1-line description] C) [Alternative persona] -- [1-line description] D) Let me describe my target developer"

Persona examples by product type (pick the 3 most relevant):

• YC founder building MVP -- 30-minute integration tolerance, won't read docs, copies from README
• Platform engineer at Series C -- thorough evaluator, cares about security/SLAs/CI integration
• Frontend dev adding a feature -- TypeScript types, bundle size, React/Vue/Svelte examples
• Backend dev integrating an API -- cURL examples, auth flow clarity, rate limit docs
• OSS contributor from GitHub -- git clone && make test, CONTRIBUTING.md, issue templates
• Student learning to code -- needs hand-holding, clear error messages, lots of examples
• DevOps engineer setting up infra -- Terraform/Docker, non-interactive mode, env vars

After the user responds, produce a persona card:

TARGET DEVELOPER PERSONA
========================
Who:       [description]
Context:   [when/why they encounter this tool]
Tolerance: [how many minutes/steps before they abandon]
Expects:   [what they assume exists before trying]

STOP. Do NOT proceed until user responds. This persona shapes the entire review.

0B. Empathy Narrative as Conversation Starter

Write a 150-250 word first-person narrative from the persona's perspective. Walk through the ACTUAL getting-started path from the README/docs. Be specific about what they see, what they try, what they feel, and where they get confused.

Use the persona from 0A. Reference real files and content from the pre-review audit. Not hypothetical. Trace the actual path: "I open the README. The first heading is [actual heading]. I scroll down and find [actual install command]. I run it and see..."

Then SHOW it to the user via AskUserQuestion:

"Here's what I think your [persona] developer experiences today:

[full empathy narrative]

Does this match reality? Where am I wrong?

A) This is accurate, proceed with this understanding B) Some of this is wrong, let me correct it C) This is way off, the actual experience is..."

STOP. Incorporate corrections into the narrative. This narrative becomes a required output section ("Developer Perspective") in the plan file. The implementer should read it and feel what the developer feels.

0C. Competitive DX Benchmarking

Before scoring anything, understand how comparable tools handle DX. Use WebSearch to find real TTHW data and onboarding approaches.

Run three searches:

1. "[product category] getting started developer experience {current year}"
2. "[closest competitor] developer onboarding time"
3. "[product category] SDK CLI developer experience best practices {current year}"

If WebSearch is unavailable: "Search unavailable. Using reference benchmarks: Stripe (30s TTHW), Vercel (2min), Firebase (3min), Docker (5min)."

Produce a competitive benchmark table:

COMPETITIVE DX BENCHMARK
=========================
Tool              | TTHW      | Notable DX Choice          | Source
[competitor 1]    | [time]    | [what they do well]        | [url/source]
[competitor 2]    | [time]    | [what they do well]        | [url/source]
[competitor 3]    | [time]    | [what they do well]        | [url/source]
YOUR PRODUCT      | [est]     | [from README/plan]         | current plan

AskUserQuestion:

"Your closest competitors' TTHW: [benchmark table]

Your plan's current TTHW estimate: [X] minutes ([Y] steps).

Where do you want to land?

A) Champion tier (< 2 min) -- requires [specific changes]. Stripe/Vercel territory. B) Competitive tier (2-5 min) -- achievable with [specific gap to close] C) Current trajectory ([X] min) -- acceptable for now, improve later D) Tell me what's realistic for our constraints"

STOP. The chosen tier becomes the benchmark for Pass 1 (Getting Started).

0D. Magical Moment Design

Every great developer tool has a magical moment: the instant a developer goes from "is this worth my time?" to "oh wow, this is real."

Load the "## Pass 1" section from references/artifacts/plan-devex-review/dx-hall-of-fame.md for gold standard examples.

Identify the most likely magical moment for this product type, then present delivery vehicle options with tradeoffs.

AskUserQuestion:

"For your [product type], the magical moment is: [specific moment, e.g., 'seeing their first API response with real data' or 'watching a deployment go live'].

How should your [persona from 0A] experience this moment?

A) Interactive playground/sandbox -- zero install, try in browser. Highest conversion but requires building a hosted environment. (human: ~1 week / CC: ~2 hours). Examples: Stripe's API explorer, Supabase SQL editor.

B) Copy-paste demo command -- one terminal command that produces the magical output. Low effort, high impact for CLI tools, but requires local install first. (human: ~2 days / CC: ~30 min). Examples: npx create-next-app, docker run hello-world.

C) Video/GIF walkthrough -- shows the magic without requiring any setup. Passive (developer watches, doesn't do), but zero friction. (human: ~1 day / CC: ~1 hour). Examples: Vercel's homepage deploy animation.

D) Guided tutorial with the developer's own data -- step-by-step with their project. Deepest engagement but longest time-to-magic. (human: ~1 week / CC: ~2 hours). Examples: Stripe's interactive onboarding.

E) Something else -- describe what you have in mind.

RECOMMENDATION: [A/B/C/D] because for [persona], [reason]. Your competitor [name] uses [their approach]."

STOP. The chosen delivery vehicle is tracked through the scoring passes.

0E. Mode Selection

How deep should this DX review go?

Present three options:

AskUserQuestion:

"How deep should this DX review go?

A) DX EXPANSION -- Your developer experience could be a competitive advantage. I'll propose ambitious DX improvements beyond what the plan covers. Every expansion is opt-in via individual questions. I'll push hard.

B) DX POLISH -- The plan's DX scope is right. I'll make every touchpoint bulletproof: error messages, docs, CLI help, getting started. No scope additions, maximum rigor. (recommended for most reviews)

C) DX TRIAGE -- Focus only on the critical DX gaps that would block adoption. Fast, surgical, for plans that need to ship soon.

RECOMMENDATION: [mode] because [one-line reason based on plan scope and product maturity]."

Context-dependent defaults:

• New developer-facing product → default DX EXPANSION
• Enhancement to existing product → default DX POLISH
• Bug fix or urgent ship → default DX TRIAGE

Once selected, commit fully. Do not silently drift toward a different mode.

STOP. Do NOT proceed until user responds.

0F. Developer Journey Trace with Friction-Point Questions

Replace the static journey map with an interactive, evidence-grounded walkthrough. For each journey stage, TRACE the actual experience (what file, what command, what output) and ask about each friction point individually.

For each stage (Discover, Install, Hello World, Real Usage, Debug, Upgrade):

1. Trace the actual path. Read the README, docs, package.json, CLI help, or whatever the developer would encounter at this stage. Reference specific files and line numbers.

2. Identify friction points with evidence. Not "installation might be hard" but "Step 3 of the README requires Docker to be running, but nothing checks for Docker or tells the developer to install it. A [persona] without Docker will see [specific error or nothing]."

3. AskUserQuestion per friction point. One question per friction point found. Do NOT batch multiple friction points into one question.

   "Journey Stage: INSTALL

   I traced the installation path. Your README says: [actual install instructions]

   Friction point: [specific issue with evidence]

   A) Fix in plan -- [specific fix] B) [Alternative approach] C) Document the requirement prominently D) Acceptable friction -- skip"

DX TRIAGE mode: Only trace Install and Hello World stages. Skip the rest. DX POLISH mode: Trace all stages. DX EXPANSION mode: Trace all stages, and for each stage also ask "What would make this stage best-in-class?"

After all friction points are resolved, produce the updated journey map:

STAGE           | DEVELOPER DOES              | FRICTION POINTS      | STATUS
----------------|-----------------------------|--------------------- |--------
1. Discover     | [action]                    | [resolved/deferred]  | [fixed/ok/deferred]
2. Install      | [action]                    | [resolved/deferred]  | [fixed/ok/deferred]
3. Hello World  | [action]                    | [resolved/deferred]  | [fixed/ok/deferred]
4. Real Usage   | [action]                    | [resolved/deferred]  | [fixed/ok/deferred]
5. Debug        | [action]                    | [resolved/deferred]  | [fixed/ok/deferred]
6. Upgrade      | [action]                    | [resolved/deferred]  | [fixed/ok/deferred]

0G. First-Time Developer Roleplay

Using the persona from 0A and the journey trace from 0F, write a structured "confusion report" from the perspective of a first-time developer. Include timestamps to simulate real time passing.

FIRST-TIME DEVELOPER REPORT
============================
Persona: [from 0A]
Attempting: [product] getting started

CONFUSION LOG:
T+0:00  [What they do first. What they see.]
T+0:30  [Next action. What surprised or confused them.]
T+1:00  [What they tried. What happened.]
T+2:00  [Where they got stuck or succeeded.]
T+3:00  [Final state: gave up / succeeded / asked for help]

Ground this in the ACTUAL docs and code from the pre-review audit. Not hypothetical. Reference specific README headings, error messages, and file paths.

AskUserQuestion:

"I roleplayed as your [persona] developer attempting the getting started flow. Here's what confused me:

[confusion report]

Which of these should we address in the plan?

A) All of them -- fix every confusion point B) Let me pick which ones matter C) The critical ones (#[N], #[N]) -- skip the rest D) This is unrealistic -- our developers already know [context]"

STOP. Do NOT proceed until user responds.

---

The 0-10 Rating Method

For each DX section, rate the plan 0-10. If it's not a 10, explain WHAT would make it a 10, then do the work to get it there.

Critical rule: Every rating MUST reference evidence from Step 0. Not "Getting Started: 4/10" but "Getting Started: 4/10 because [persona from 0A] hits [friction point from 0F] at step 3, and competitor [name from 0C] achieves this in [time]."

Pattern:

1. Evidence recall: Reference specific findings from Step 0 that apply to this dimension
2. Rate: "Getting Started Experience: 4/10"
3. Gap: "It's a 4 because [evidence]. A 10 would be [specific description for THIS product]."
4. Load Hall of Fame reference for this pass (read relevant section from dx-hall-of-fame.md)
5. Fix: Edit the plan to add what's missing
6. Re-rate: "Now 7/10, still missing [specific gap]"
7. AskUserQuestion if there's a genuine DX choice to resolve
8. Fix again until 10 or user says "good enough, move on"

Mode-specific behavior:

• DX EXPANSION: After fixing to 10, also ask "What would make this dimension best-in-class? What would make [persona] rave about it?" Present expansions as individual opt-in AskUserQuestions.
• DX POLISH: Fix every gap. No shortcuts. Trace each issue to specific files/lines.
• DX TRIAGE: Only flag gaps that would block adoption (score below 5). Skip gaps that are nice-to-have (score 5-7).

Lazy specialist phase: review-sections

When the workflow reaches this phase, read references/sections/plan-devex-review/review-sections.md completely and execute it before continuing. Do not summarize or skip its questions, pressure, gates, evidence, artifacts, mutation boundary, or exit behavior.

Section self-check (before you finish)

Confirm you Read the review section the Section index named, and executed all 8 DX passes, the required outputs, and the review report in full. If you produced findings or the review report from memory without Reading references/sections/plan-devex-review/review-sections.md, stop and Read it now.

EXIT PLAN MODE GATE (BLOCKING)

Before calling ExitPlanMode, run this self-check. If any item fails, do the missing work — do NOT call ExitPlanMode:

1. Read the plan file with the Read tool (after your most recent write to it).
2. Confirm the LAST ## heading in the file is ## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT. In-body prose that mentions "outside voice", "codex findings", or similar does NOT count — only the structured ## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT section satisfies this check.
3. Confirm the report has a Runs / Status / Findings table and a VERDICT line (CODEX / CROSS-MODEL absorbed if applicable).
4. Confirm the report's FINAL non-whitespace line is the unresolved-decisions status: the exact unbolded NO UNRESOLVED DECISIONS, or a bullet of a final **UNRESOLVED DECISIONS:** block. BLOCKING, no "if applicable" escape — a bolded sentinel, any trailing CODEX/CROSS-MODEL/VERDICT/prose, or a missing status each FAILS the gate.
5. If a plan file is in context for this skill invocation: confirm gstack-review-log was called and gstack-review-read was run at least once. If no plan file is in context (e.g. $review --mode Deep --module codex consult against a diff with no plan), this check short-circuits — checks 1-4 already short-circuit when no plan file exists.

Failing this gate and calling ExitPlanMode anyway is a contract violation — the user will see a plan whose review report is missing or stale, and will (correctly) reject it. Self-deception failure mode to watch for: feeling "done" after writing review prose into the plan body. The body prose is not the report. The report is a separate, structured, table-bearing section that must be the file's terminal heading.

Upstream judgment port: PR #679

Match the user language

User-language rule

Write questions, progress updates, reports, and artifacts in the language used by the user. Source material, code identifiers, commands, and quotations may remain in their original language when translating them would reduce accuracy.

Upstream judgment port: PR #2030

Record only signal-bearing learnings

Signal-gated learning

Persist a learning only when the interaction contains a useful, reusable signal such as an explicit preference, correction, accepted recommendation, or rejected direction. Track helpful and harmful outcomes separately. Do not manufacture a learning merely because a workflow completed.