Garry Tanandcapy-ai[bot]
ef99eb5a55
* feat: retire /investigate after a no-gain eval (GST-1717)
Co-authored-by: capy-ai[bot] <230910855+capy-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
* fix(skill-start): core routing offer drops every non-core rule line (GST-1717)
The retired /investigate rule became 'Bugs/errors → fix them directly', which no
longer matches '→ invoke /', so proactive=core leaked it into the offered section.
Match any '- … → ' rule line.
Co-authored-by: capy-ai[bot] <230910855+capy-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
* revert(review): keep review/checklist.md at its no-loss-pinned bytes (GST-1717)
The pin names replay GSTA-224 H1; a reviewer checklist edit merges only after a
passing no-loss replay (crew rule 15). The /investigate flake line stays until a
replayed repin.
Co-authored-by: capy-ai[bot] <230910855+capy-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
* test: repair free-suite fallout from retiring /investigate (GST-1717)
CI run 42340956269 at 83a8a9a: drop fixtures, ledger rows, allowlist entries and
counts for the retired skill and its deleted paid files; record the harness
change as non-behavioral; the test-of-test detector accepts path.join(ROOT, 'bin');
uncovered-prompt fixtures use a tracked prompt, since an untracked path now
reads as a deleted one.
Co-authored-by: capy-ai[bot] <230910855+capy-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
* fix(relink): back up a retired skill's real SKILL.md before cleaning it (GST-1717)
With the skill's source gone, the customized-file check never ran, so a
banner-carrying local copy of investigate/SKILL.md was deleted instead of moved
to the backup root (red-team review, pass 1).
Co-authored-by: capy-ai[bot] <230910855+capy-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
* fix(qm): restore the review checklist's flake-line rewrite (GST-1717)
review/checklist.md keeps its pinned /investigate line, so the QM edition needs
its replaceText rule back; qm/ stays fresh against the generator.
Co-authored-by: capy-ai[bot] <230910855+capy-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
* docs(changelog): name the setup flag break, the relink backup and the pinned checklist line (GST-1717)
Co-authored-by: capy-ai[bot] <230910855+capy-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
* fix(setup,relink): back up a retired skill's real SKILL.md instead of deleting it (GST-1717)
Scoped fix round under grant a-360dd62bd46a (outside-voice blocking finding and
adversarial #1, #4). setup's prune compares a copied host entry with the render
before removing that render, and backs up a copy that differs or whose render is
gone; relink no longer takes the marker's rm -rf for a skill whose source is
gone, so a real SKILL.md is backed up and the user's files stay. setup reports a
failed remove-source of the retired gate hooks on stderr.
Co-authored-by: capy-ai[bot] <230910855+capy-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
* fix(pr-profile): a changed prompt counts as deleted only when it is gone from disk (GST-1717)
An untracked prompt file on disk still needs prompt validation (targeted review
finding); harness change recorded as non-behavioral.
Co-authored-by: capy-ai[bot] <230910855+capy-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
* docs(changelog): exact backup wording, the hook-removal warning and GST-1744 (GST-1717)
Co-authored-by: capy-ai[bot] <230910855+capy-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
* fix(setup): one backup folder per host for a retired skill's copies (GST-1717)
Under grant a-c95576b8b1f9 (fix-check#1): every copy host moved its
gstack-investigate/SKILL.md to the same backup path, so a later host's copy
overwrote an earlier host's edits. A sandboxed ./setup --host factory run showed
gen-skill-docs removes the retired render before the prune, so every real copy
is backed up; each host now gets its own folder.
Co-authored-by: capy-ai[bot] <230910855+capy-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
* docs(changelog): say exactly what setup backs up for a retired skill (GST-1717)
Co-authored-by: capy-ai[bot] <230910855+capy-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
* docs(changelog): end the two colon sentences prose-lint flagged (GST-1717)
Co-authored-by: capy-ai[bot] <230910855+capy-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
* test(retired-skills): name plan-eng-review once behind a pregate-literal waiver (GST-1717)
pregate's literals check read the GSTACK_RETIRED_SKILLS change as an old
value still in the tests. plan-eng-review is still retired; investigate was
appended. The fixture names it once, with the waiver.
Co-authored-by: capy-ai[bot] <230910855+capy-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
---------
Co-authored-by: capy-ai[bot] <230910855+capy-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
2.5 KiB
Coding Tasks (gstack)
Rules (non-negotiable)
-
Always spawn, never redirect. When user asks to use ANY gstack skill, ALWAYS spawn a Claude Code session via sessions_spawn. Never tell user to open Claude Code himself. Never say "this needs to run in Claude Code." Never say "you'll need to open Claude Code for that." Just do it.
-
Resolve the repo. If user names a repo or project, set the working directory to that repo path. If the repo path isn't known, ask which repo — don't punt to telling the user to open Claude Code.
-
Autoplan runs end-to-end. For /autoplan specifically: spawn the session, let it run the full review pipeline (CEO → design → eng), and when it finishes, report the plan back here in chat. Write the plan to memory so the user can find it later. User should never have to leave Telegram.
Dispatch Routing
When asked for coding work, pick the dispatch tier:
SIMPLE: "fix this typo," "update that config," single-file changes → sessions_spawn(runtime: "acp", prompt: "")
MEDIUM: multi-file features, refactors, skill edits → sessions_spawn(runtime: "acp", prompt: "\n\n")
HEAVY: needs a specific gstack methodology → sessions_spawn(runtime: "acp", prompt: "Load gstack. Run /qa https://...") Skills: /cso, /review, /qa, /ship, /design-review, /benchmark, /gstack-upgrade
FULL: build a complete feature, multi-day scope, needs planning + review → sessions_spawn(runtime: "acp", prompt: "\n\n") Claude Code runs: /autoplan → implement → /ship → report back
PLAN: user wants to plan a Claude Code project, spec out a feature, or design something before any code is written → sessions_spawn(runtime: "acp", prompt: "\n\n") Claude Code runs: /office-hours → /autoplan → saves plan file → reports back Persist the plan link to memory/knowledge store. When the user is ready to implement, spawn a new FULL session pointing at the plan.
Decision Heuristic
- Can it be done in <10 lines of code? → SIMPLE
- Does it touch multiple files but the approach is obvious? → MEDIUM
- Does the user name a specific skill (/cso, /review, /qa)? → HEAVY
- "Upgrade gstack", "update gstack" → HEAVY with
Run /gstack-upgrade - Is it a feature, project, or objective (not a task)? → FULL
- Does the user want to PLAN something without implementing yet? → PLAN