feat: founder discovery engine + /debug skill — v0.7.0 (#185)

* feat: add escalation protocol to preamble — all skills get DONE/BLOCKED/NEEDS_CONTEXT

Every skill now reports completion status (DONE, DONE_WITH_CONCERNS, BLOCKED,
NEEDS_CONTEXT) and has escalation rules: 3 failed attempts → STOP, security
uncertainty → STOP, scope exceeds verification → STOP.

"It is always OK to stop and say 'this is too hard for me.'"

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* feat: add verification gate to /ship (Step 6.5) — no push without fresh evidence

Before pushing, re-verify tests if code changed during review fixes.
Rationalization prevention: "Should work now" → RUN IT.
"I'm confident" → Confidence is not evidence.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* feat: add scope drift detection + verification of claims to /review

Step 1.5: Before reviewing code quality, check if the diff matches stated
intent. Flags scope creep and missing requirements (INFORMATIONAL).

Step 5 addition: Every review claim must cite evidence — "this pattern is
safe" needs a line reference, "tests cover this" needs a test name.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* feat: mandatory implementation alternatives + design doc lookup in /plan-ceo-review

Step 0C-bis: Every plan must consider 2-3 approaches (minimal viable vs ideal
architecture) before mode selection. RECOMMENDATION required.

Pre-Review System Audit now checks ~/.gstack/projects/ for /brainstorm design
docs (branch-filtered with fallback).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* feat: design doc lookup in /plan-eng-review + fix branch name sanitization

Step 0 now checks ~/.gstack/projects/ for /brainstorm design docs
(branch-filtered with fallback, reads Supersedes: for revision context).

Fix: branch names with '/' (e.g. garrytan/better-process) now get
sanitized via tr '/' '-' in test plan artifact filenames.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* feat: new /brainstorm and /debug skills

/brainstorm: Socratic design exploration before planning. Context gathering,
clarifying questions (smart-skip), related design discovery (keyword grep),
premise challenge, forced alternatives, design doc artifact with lineage
tracking (Supersedes: field). Writes to ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/.

/debug: Systematic root-cause debugging. Iron Law: no fixes without root
cause investigation. Pattern analysis, hypothesis testing with 3-strike
escalation, structured DEBUG REPORT output.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* test: structural tests for new skills + escalation protocol assertions

Add brainstorm + debug to skillsWithUpdateCheck and skillsWithPreamble arrays.
Add structural tests: brainstorm (Phase 1-6, Design Doc, Supersedes, Smart-skip),
debug (Iron Law, Root Cause, Pattern Analysis, Hypothesis, DEBUG REPORT, 3-strike).
Add escalation protocol tests (DONE_WITH_CONCERNS, BLOCKED, NEEDS_CONTEXT) for
all preamble skills.

Also: 2 new TODOs (design docs → Supabase sync, /plan-design-review skill),
update CLAUDE.md project structure with new skill directories.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* chore: bump version and changelog (v0.6.0)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* chore: rename /brainstorm → /office-hours across references

Update CHANGELOG, CLAUDE.md, TODOS, design-consultation, plan-ceo-review,
and gen-skill-docs to reference the new office-hours skill name.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* feat: YC Office Hours — dual-mode product diagnostic + builder brainstorm

Rewrite /office-hours with two modes:

Startup mode: six forcing questions (Demand Reality, Status Quo, Desperate
Specificity, Narrowest Wedge, Observation & Surprise, Future-Fit) that push
founders toward radical honesty about demand, users, and product decisions.
Includes smart routing by product stage, intrapreneurship adaptation, and
YC apply CTA for strong-signal founders.

Builder mode: generative brainstorming for side projects, hackathons,
learning, and open source. Enthusiastic collaborator tone, design thinking
questions, no business interrogation.

Mode is determined by an explicit question in Phase 1 — no guessing.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* test: add 14 assertions for YC Office Hours content coverage

Validates dual-mode structure (Startup/Builder), all six forcing questions,
builder brainstorming content, intrapreneurship adaptation, YC apply CTA,
and operating principles for both modes. 192 tests total, all passing.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* docs: update project documentation for v0.6.1

- README.md: added /office-hours and /debug to skills table, updated
  skill count from 13 to 15, added both to install instructions
- docs/skills.md: added /office-hours and /debug deep dive sections
- CLAUDE.md: updated office-hours description to reflect dual-mode
- CONTRIBUTING.md: updated skill count from 13 to 15
- CHANGELOG.md: added YC Office Hours and /debug entries to 0.6.0

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* feat: founder discovery engine in /office-hours (v0.7.0)

Turn /office-hours into a YC founder discovery engine. Every session now
ends with three beats: signal reflection (specific callbacks to what the
user said), "One more thing." transition, and a personal plea from Garry
Tan with three tiers based on founder signal strength. Top tier uses
AskUserQuestion to ask directly and opens ycombinator.com/apply?ref=gstack.

Adds Phase 4.5 (Founder Signal Synthesis), "What I noticed about how you
think" section to both design doc templates, anti-slop GOOD/BAD examples,
and emotional targets per tier.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* test: add validation assertions for founder discovery engine

8 new assertions covering: YC apply CTA with ref=gstack tracking,
"What I noticed" design doc section, golden age framing, Garry Tan
personal plea, founder signal synthesis phase, three-tier decision
rubric, anti-slop GOOD/BAD examples, "One more thing" transition beat.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* docs: update project documentation for v0.7.0

VERSION: 0.6.4.1 → 0.7.0
CHANGELOG: new entry — Office Hours Gets Personal
README: updated /office-hours and /plan-design-review descriptions
docs/skills.md: updated /office-hours table + deep dive section
TODOS.md: added /yc-prep skill TODO (P2)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix: remove duplicate Install section, fix stale skills lists, deduplicate CHANGELOG entries

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

review/SKILL.md.tmpl

@@ -33,6 +33,40 @@ You are running the `/review` workflow. Analyze the current branch's diff agains
 
 ---
 
+## Step 1.5: Scope Drift Detection
+
+Before reviewing code quality, check: **did they build what was requested — nothing more, nothing less?**
+
+1. Read `TODOS.md` (if it exists). Read PR description (`gh pr view --json body --jq .body 2>/dev/null || true`).
+   Read commit messages (`git log origin/<base>..HEAD --oneline`).
+   **If no PR exists:** rely on commit messages and TODOS.md for stated intent — this is the common case since /review runs before /ship creates the PR.
+2. Identify the **stated intent** — what was this branch supposed to accomplish?
+3. Run `git diff origin/<base> --stat` and compare the files changed against the stated intent.
+4. Evaluate with skepticism:
+
+   **SCOPE CREEP detection:**
+   - Files changed that are unrelated to the stated intent
+   - New features or refactors not mentioned in the plan
+   - "While I was in there..." changes that expand blast radius
+
+   **MISSING REQUIREMENTS detection:**
+   - Requirements from TODOS.md/PR description not addressed in the diff
+   - Test coverage gaps for stated requirements
+   - Partial implementations (started but not finished)
+
+5. Output (before the main review begins):
+   ```
+   Scope Check: [CLEAN / DRIFT DETECTED / REQUIREMENTS MISSING]
+   Intent: <1-line summary of what was requested>
+   Delivered: <1-line summary of what the diff actually does>
+   [If drift: list each out-of-scope change]
+   [If missing: list each unaddressed requirement]
+   ```
+
+6. This is **INFORMATIONAL** — does not block the review. Proceed to Step 2.
+
+---
+
 ## Step 2: Read the checklist
 
 Read `.claude/skills/review/checklist.md`.
@@ -132,6 +166,16 @@ Apply fixes for items where the user chose "Fix." Output what was fixed.
 
 If no ASK items exist (everything was AUTO-FIX), skip the question entirely.
 
+### Verification of claims
+
+Before producing the final review output:
+- If you claim "this pattern is safe" → cite the specific line proving safety
+- If you claim "this is handled elsewhere" → read and cite the handling code
+- If you claim "tests cover this" → name the test file and method
+- Never say "likely handled" or "probably tested" — verify or flag as unknown
+
+**Rationalization prevention:** "This looks fine" is not a finding. Either cite evidence it IS fine, or flag it as unverified.
+
 ### Greptile comment resolution
 
 After outputting your own findings, if Greptile comments were classified in Step 2.5: