mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-05-18 18:32:28 +08:00
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/garrytan/community-mode' into garrytan/persistent-docs
# Conflicts: # .agents/skills/gstack-browse/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-design-consultation/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-design-review/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-document-release/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-investigate/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-office-hours/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-plan-design-review/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-plan-eng-review/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-qa-only/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-qa/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-retro/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-review/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-setup-browser-cookies/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-ship/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack/SKILL.md # SKILL.md # browse/SKILL.md # codex/SKILL.md # design-consultation/SKILL.md # design-review/SKILL.md # document-release/SKILL.md # investigate/SKILL.md # office-hours/SKILL.md # plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md # plan-design-review/SKILL.md # plan-eng-review/SKILL.md # qa-only/SKILL.md # qa/SKILL.md # retro/SKILL.md # review/SKILL.md # scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts # setup-browser-cookies/SKILL.md # ship/SKILL.md
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan
@@ -10,14 +10,12 @@ description: |
|
||||
or "is this ambitious enough".
|
||||
Proactively suggest when the user is questioning scope or ambition of a plan,
|
||||
or when the plan feels like it could be thinking bigger.
|
||||
benefits-from: [office-hours]
|
||||
allowed-tools:
|
||||
- Read
|
||||
- Grep
|
||||
- Glob
|
||||
- Bash
|
||||
- AskUserQuestion
|
||||
- WebSearch
|
||||
---
|
||||
<!-- AUTO-GENERATED from SKILL.md.tmpl — do not edit directly -->
|
||||
<!-- Regenerate: bun run gen:skill-docs -->
|
||||
@@ -44,6 +42,12 @@ _TEL_START=$(date +%s)
|
||||
_SESSION_ID="$$-$(date +%s)"
|
||||
echo "TELEMETRY: ${_TEL:-off}"
|
||||
echo "TEL_PROMPTED: $_TEL_PROMPTED"
|
||||
_EMAIL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get email 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
_COMM_PROMPTED=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.community-prompted ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
|
||||
_AUTH_OK=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-auth-refresh --check 2>/dev/null && echo "yes" || echo "no")
|
||||
echo "EMAIL: ${_EMAIL:-none}"
|
||||
echo "COMM_PROMPTED: $_COMM_PROMPTED"
|
||||
echo "AUTH: $_AUTH_OK"
|
||||
mkdir -p ~/.gstack/analytics
|
||||
echo '{"skill":"plan-ceo-review","ts":"'$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)'","repo":"'$(basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null)" 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")'"}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/skill-usage.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
for _PF in ~/.gstack/analytics/.pending-*; do [ -f "$_PF" ] && ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-telemetry-log --event-type skill_run --skill _pending_finalize --outcome unknown --session-id "$_SESSION_ID" 2>/dev/null || true; break; done
|
||||
@@ -69,28 +73,31 @@ Only run `open` if the user says yes. Always run `touch` to mark as seen. This o
|
||||
If `TEL_PROMPTED` is `no` AND `LAKE_INTRO` is `yes`: After the lake intro is handled,
|
||||
ask the user about telemetry. Use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
|
||||
> Help gstack get better! Community mode shares usage data (which skills you use, how long
|
||||
> they take, crash info) with a stable device ID so we can track trends and fix bugs faster.
|
||||
> No code, file paths, or repo names are ever sent.
|
||||
> gstack can share usage data (which skills you use, how long they take, crash info)
|
||||
> to help improve the project. No code, file paths, or repo names are ever sent.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> The **community tier** unlocks extra features:
|
||||
> - **Cloud backup** of your gstack config + history (restore on new machines)
|
||||
> - **Benchmarks**: see how your usage compares to other builders
|
||||
> - **Skill recommendations** based on community patterns
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Change anytime with `gstack-config set telemetry off`.
|
||||
|
||||
Options:
|
||||
- A) Help gstack get better! (recommended)
|
||||
- B) No thanks
|
||||
- A) Community — share data + email for backup, benchmarks & recommendations (recommended)
|
||||
- B) Anonymous — share data only, no account
|
||||
- C) No thanks
|
||||
|
||||
If A: run `~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set telemetry community`
|
||||
If A: ask for their email via a follow-up AskUserQuestion, then run:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set telemetry community
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-auth <user-provided-email>
|
||||
```
|
||||
The auth script will send a verification code to their email. Wait for them to enter the 6-digit code.
|
||||
If auth succeeds, continue with the skill. If it fails, fall back to anonymous tier.
|
||||
|
||||
If B: ask a follow-up AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
|
||||
> How about anonymous mode? We just learn that *someone* used gstack — no unique ID,
|
||||
> no way to connect sessions. Just a counter that helps us know if anyone's out there.
|
||||
|
||||
Options:
|
||||
- A) Sure, anonymous is fine
|
||||
- B) No thanks, fully off
|
||||
|
||||
If B→A: run `~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set telemetry anonymous`
|
||||
If B→B: run `~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set telemetry off`
|
||||
If B: run `~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set telemetry anonymous`
|
||||
If C: run `~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set telemetry off`
|
||||
|
||||
Always run:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
@@ -99,6 +106,33 @@ touch ~/.gstack/.telemetry-prompted
|
||||
|
||||
This only happens once. If `TEL_PROMPTED` is `yes`, skip this entirely.
|
||||
|
||||
If `TELEMETRY` is `anonymous` AND `COMM_PROMPTED` is `no`: After the main skill workflow
|
||||
begins (not during preamble), offer the community tier upgrade once. Use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
|
||||
> You're already sharing anonymous usage data — nice! Want to unlock more?
|
||||
>
|
||||
> The **community tier** adds:
|
||||
> - Cloud backup of your gstack config (restore on new machines)
|
||||
> - Benchmarks: see how your /qa times compare to the community
|
||||
> - Skill recommendations based on what other builders use
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Just needs your email (verified via a one-time code).
|
||||
|
||||
Options:
|
||||
- A) Yes, join community (enter email)
|
||||
- B) Not now
|
||||
|
||||
If A: ask for their email, then run `~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-auth <email>`.
|
||||
Wait for the verification code. On success, run `~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set telemetry community`.
|
||||
If B: do nothing.
|
||||
|
||||
Always run:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
touch ~/.gstack/.community-prompted
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
This only happens once. If `COMM_PROMPTED` is `yes`, skip this entirely.
|
||||
|
||||
## AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
|
||||
**ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:**
|
||||
@@ -136,26 +170,6 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
|
||||
**Three layers of knowledge:**
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
|
||||
- **Layer 2** (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
|
||||
- **Layer 3** (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka moment:** When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
|
||||
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
|
||||
|
||||
Log eureka moments:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
@@ -225,10 +239,15 @@ Determine the skill name from the `name:` field in this file's YAML frontmatter.
|
||||
Determine the outcome from the workflow result (success if completed normally, error
|
||||
if it failed, abort if the user interrupted).
|
||||
|
||||
**PLAN MODE EXCEPTION — ALWAYS RUN:** This command writes telemetry to
|
||||
`~/.gstack/analytics/` (user config directory, not project files). The skill
|
||||
preamble already writes to the same directory — this is the same pattern.
|
||||
Skipping this command loses session duration and outcome data.
|
||||
**For errors:** Also determine:
|
||||
- `ERROR_CLASS`: a short category — one of: `timeout`, `test_failure`, `build_failure`,
|
||||
`git_error`, `auth_error`, `network_error`, `browse_error`, `lint_error`,
|
||||
`merge_conflict`, `permission_error`, `unknown_error`. Pick the most specific match.
|
||||
- `ERROR_MESSAGE`: a one-line summary of what went wrong (max 200 chars). Include the
|
||||
command that failed and the key error text. Example: `"bun test: 3 tests failed in
|
||||
auth.test.ts — expected 200 got 401"`. Never include file paths, secrets, or PII.
|
||||
- `FAILED_STEP`: which step in the skill workflow failed. Example: `"run_tests"`,
|
||||
`"create_pr"`, `"merge_base"`, `"build"`, `"qa_browse"`. Use snake_case, max 30 chars.
|
||||
|
||||
Run this bash:
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -238,12 +257,16 @@ _TEL_DUR=$(( _TEL_END - _TEL_START ))
|
||||
rm -f ~/.gstack/analytics/.pending-"$_SESSION_ID" 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-telemetry-log \
|
||||
--skill "SKILL_NAME" --duration "$_TEL_DUR" --outcome "OUTCOME" \
|
||||
--used-browse "USED_BROWSE" --session-id "$_SESSION_ID" 2>/dev/null &
|
||||
--used-browse "USED_BROWSE" --session-id "$_SESSION_ID" \
|
||||
--error-class "ERROR_CLASS" --error-message "ERROR_MESSAGE" \
|
||||
--failed-step "FAILED_STEP" 2>/dev/null &
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Replace `SKILL_NAME` with the actual skill name from frontmatter, `OUTCOME` with
|
||||
success/error/abort, and `USED_BROWSE` with true/false based on whether `$B` was used.
|
||||
If you cannot determine the outcome, use "unknown". This runs in the background and
|
||||
For `ERROR_CLASS`, `ERROR_MESSAGE`, and `FAILED_STEP`: use empty string `""` if the
|
||||
outcome is not error. If the outcome is error but you cannot determine the details,
|
||||
use `"unknown_error"`, `""`, and `""` respectively. This runs in the background and
|
||||
never blocks the user.
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 0: Detect base branch
|
||||
@@ -353,94 +376,6 @@ DESIGN=$(ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head
|
||||
```
|
||||
If a design doc exists (from `/office-hours`), read it. Use it as the source of truth for the problem statement, constraints, and chosen approach. If it has a `Supersedes:` field, note that this is a revised design.
|
||||
|
||||
**Handoff note check** (reuses $SLUG and $BRANCH from the design doc check above):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
HANDOFF=$(ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-ceo-handoff-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)
|
||||
[ -n "$HANDOFF" ] && echo "HANDOFF_FOUND: $HANDOFF" || echo "NO_HANDOFF"
|
||||
```
|
||||
If this block runs in a separate shell from the design doc check, recompute $SLUG and $BRANCH first using the same commands from that block.
|
||||
If a handoff note is found: read it. This contains system audit findings and discussion
|
||||
from a prior CEO review session that paused so the user could run `/office-hours`. Use it
|
||||
as additional context alongside the design doc. The handoff note helps you avoid re-asking
|
||||
questions the user already answered. Do NOT skip any steps — run the full review, but use
|
||||
the handoff note to inform your analysis and avoid redundant questions.
|
||||
|
||||
Tell the user: "Found a handoff note from your prior CEO review session. I'll use that
|
||||
context to pick up where we left off."
|
||||
|
||||
## 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. `/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 /office-hours first (in another window, then come back)
|
||||
- B) Skip — proceed with standard review
|
||||
|
||||
If they skip: "No worries — standard review. If you ever want sharper input, try
|
||||
/office-hours first next time." Then proceed normally. Do not re-offer later in the session.
|
||||
|
||||
**Handoff note save (BENEFITS_FROM):** If the user chose A (run /office-hours first),
|
||||
save a handoff context note before they leave. Reuse $SLUG and $BRANCH from the
|
||||
design doc check block above (they use the same `remote-slug || basename` fallback
|
||||
that handles repos without an origin remote). Then run:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG
|
||||
USER=$(whoami)
|
||||
DATETIME=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)
|
||||
```
|
||||
Write to `~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/$USER-$BRANCH-ceo-handoff-$DATETIME.md`:
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# CEO Review Handoff Note
|
||||
|
||||
Generated by /plan-ceo-review on {date}
|
||||
Branch: {branch}
|
||||
Repo: {owner/repo}
|
||||
|
||||
## Why I paused
|
||||
User chose to run /office-hours first (no design doc found).
|
||||
|
||||
## System Audit Summary
|
||||
{Summarize what the system audit found — recent git history, diff scope,
|
||||
CLAUDE.md key points, TODOS.md relevant items, known pain points}
|
||||
|
||||
## Discussion So Far
|
||||
{Empty — handoff happened before Step 0. Frontend/UI scope detection has not
|
||||
run yet — it will be assessed when the review resumes.}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Tell the user: "Context saved. Run /office-hours in another window. When you come back
|
||||
and invoke /plan-ceo-review, I'll pick up the context automatically — including the
|
||||
design doc /office-hours produces."
|
||||
|
||||
**Mid-session detection:** During Step 0A (Premise Challenge), if the user can't
|
||||
articulate the problem, keeps changing the problem statement, answers with "I'm not
|
||||
sure," or is clearly exploring rather than reviewing — offer `/office-hours`:
|
||||
|
||||
> "It sounds like you're still figuring out what to build — that's totally fine, but
|
||||
> that's what /office-hours is designed for. Want to pause this review and run
|
||||
> /office-hours first? It'll help you nail down the problem and approach, then come
|
||||
> back here for the strategic review."
|
||||
|
||||
Options: A) Yes, run /office-hours first. B) No, keep going.
|
||||
If they keep going, proceed normally — no guilt, no re-asking.
|
||||
|
||||
**Handoff note save (mid-session):** If the user chose A (run /office-hours first from
|
||||
mid-session detection), save a handoff context note with the same format above, but
|
||||
include any Step 0A progress in the "Discussion So Far" section — premises discussed,
|
||||
problem framing attempts, user answers so far. Use the same bash block to generate the
|
||||
file path.
|
||||
|
||||
Tell the user: "Context saved with your discussion so far. Run /office-hours, then
|
||||
come back to /plan-ceo-review."
|
||||
|
||||
When reading TODOS.md, specifically:
|
||||
* Note any TODOs this plan touches, blocks, or unlocks
|
||||
* Check if deferred work from prior reviews relates to this plan
|
||||
@@ -463,22 +398,6 @@ Analyze the plan. If it involves ANY of: new UI screens/pages, changes to existi
|
||||
Identify 2-3 files or patterns in the existing codebase that are particularly well-designed. Note them as style references for the review. Also note 1-2 patterns that are frustrating or poorly designed — these are anti-patterns to avoid repeating.
|
||||
Report findings before proceeding to Step 0.
|
||||
|
||||
### Landscape Check
|
||||
|
||||
Read ETHOS.md for the Search Before Building framework (the preamble's Search Before Building section has the path). Before challenging scope, understand the landscape. WebSearch for:
|
||||
- "[product category] landscape {current year}"
|
||||
- "[key feature] alternatives"
|
||||
- "why [incumbent/conventional approach] [succeeds/fails]"
|
||||
|
||||
If WebSearch is unavailable, skip this check and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
Run the three-layer synthesis:
|
||||
- **[Layer 1]** What's the tried-and-true approach in this space?
|
||||
- **[Layer 2]** What are the search results saying?
|
||||
- **[Layer 3]** First-principles reasoning — where might the conventional wisdom be wrong?
|
||||
|
||||
Feed into the Premise Challenge (0A) and Dream State Mapping (0C). If you find a eureka moment, surface it during the Expansion opt-in ceremony as a differentiation opportunity. Log it (see preamble).
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 0: Nuclear Scope Challenge + Mode Selection
|
||||
|
||||
### 0A. Premise Challenge
|
||||
@@ -600,70 +519,6 @@ Repo: {owner/repo}
|
||||
|
||||
Derive the feature slug from the plan being reviewed (e.g., "user-dashboard", "auth-refactor"). Use the date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
|
||||
|
||||
After writing the CEO plan, run the spec review loop on it:
|
||||
|
||||
## Spec Review Loop
|
||||
|
||||
Before presenting the document to the user for approval, run an adversarial review.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 1: Dispatch reviewer subagent**
|
||||
|
||||
Use the Agent tool to dispatch an independent reviewer. The reviewer has fresh context
|
||||
and cannot see the brainstorming conversation — only the document. This ensures genuine
|
||||
adversarial independence.
|
||||
|
||||
Prompt the subagent with:
|
||||
- The file path of the document just written
|
||||
- "Read this document and review it on 5 dimensions. For each dimension, note PASS or
|
||||
list specific issues with suggested fixes. At the end, output a quality score (1-10)
|
||||
across all dimensions."
|
||||
|
||||
**Dimensions:**
|
||||
1. **Completeness** — Are all requirements addressed? Missing edge cases?
|
||||
2. **Consistency** — Do parts of the document agree with each other? Contradictions?
|
||||
3. **Clarity** — Could an engineer implement this without asking questions? Ambiguous language?
|
||||
4. **Scope** — Does the document creep beyond the original problem? YAGNI violations?
|
||||
5. **Feasibility** — Can this actually be built with the stated approach? Hidden complexity?
|
||||
|
||||
The subagent should return:
|
||||
- A quality score (1-10)
|
||||
- PASS if no issues, or a numbered list of issues with dimension, description, and fix
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 2: Fix and re-dispatch**
|
||||
|
||||
If the reviewer returns issues:
|
||||
1. Fix each issue in the document on disk (use Edit tool)
|
||||
2. Re-dispatch the reviewer subagent with the updated document
|
||||
3. Maximum 3 iterations total
|
||||
|
||||
**Convergence guard:** If the reviewer returns the same issues on consecutive iterations
|
||||
(the fix didn't resolve them or the reviewer disagrees with the fix), stop the loop
|
||||
and persist those issues as "Reviewer Concerns" in the document rather than looping
|
||||
further.
|
||||
|
||||
If the subagent fails, times out, or is unavailable — skip the review loop entirely.
|
||||
Tell the user: "Spec review unavailable — presenting unreviewed doc." The document is
|
||||
already written to disk; the review is a quality bonus, not a gate.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 3: Report and persist metrics**
|
||||
|
||||
After the loop completes (PASS, max iterations, or convergence guard):
|
||||
|
||||
1. Tell the user the result — summary by default:
|
||||
"Your doc survived N rounds of adversarial review. M issues caught and fixed.
|
||||
Quality score: X/10."
|
||||
If they ask "what did the reviewer find?", show the full reviewer output.
|
||||
|
||||
2. If issues remain after max iterations or convergence, add a "## Reviewer Concerns"
|
||||
section to the document listing each unresolved issue. Downstream skills will see this.
|
||||
|
||||
3. Append metrics:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
mkdir -p ~/.gstack/analytics
|
||||
echo '{"skill":"plan-ceo-review","ts":"'$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)'","iterations":ITERATIONS,"issues_found":FOUND,"issues_fixed":FIXED,"remaining":REMAINING,"quality_score":SCORE}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/spec-review.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace ITERATIONS, FOUND, FIXED, REMAINING, SCORE with actual values from the review.
|
||||
|
||||
### 0E. Temporal Interrogation (EXPANSION, SELECTIVE EXPANSION, and HOLD modes)
|
||||
Think ahead to implementation: What decisions will need to be made during implementation that should be resolved NOW in the plan?
|
||||
```
|
||||
@@ -1044,28 +899,12 @@ List every ASCII diagram in files this plan touches. Still accurate?
|
||||
### Unresolved Decisions
|
||||
If any AskUserQuestion goes unanswered, note it here. Never silently default.
|
||||
|
||||
## Handoff Note Cleanup
|
||||
|
||||
After producing the Completion Summary, clean up any handoff notes for this branch —
|
||||
the review is complete and the context is no longer needed.
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)
|
||||
rm -f ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-ceo-handoff-*.md 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Review Log
|
||||
|
||||
After producing the Completion Summary above, persist the review result.
|
||||
|
||||
**PLAN MODE EXCEPTION — ALWAYS RUN:** This command writes review metadata to
|
||||
`~/.gstack/` (user config directory, not project files). The skill preamble
|
||||
already writes to `~/.gstack/sessions/` and `~/.gstack/analytics/` — this is
|
||||
the same pattern. The review dashboard depends on this data. Skipping this
|
||||
command breaks the review readiness dashboard in /ship.
|
||||
After producing the Completion Summary above, persist the review result:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-ceo-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","unresolved":N,"critical_gaps":N,"mode":"MODE","scope_proposed":N,"scope_accepted":N,"scope_deferred":N,"commit":"COMMIT"}'
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-ceo-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","unresolved":N,"critical_gaps":N,"mode":"MODE","commit":"COMMIT"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Before running this command, substitute the placeholder values from the Completion Summary you just produced:
|
||||
@@ -1074,9 +913,6 @@ Before running this command, substitute the placeholder values from the Completi
|
||||
- **unresolved**: number from "Unresolved decisions" in the summary
|
||||
- **critical_gaps**: number from "Failure modes: ___ CRITICAL GAPS" in the summary
|
||||
- **MODE**: the mode the user selected (SCOPE_EXPANSION / SELECTIVE_EXPANSION / HOLD_SCOPE / SCOPE_REDUCTION)
|
||||
- **scope_proposed**: number from "Scope proposals: ___ proposed" in the summary (0 for HOLD/REDUCTION)
|
||||
- **scope_accepted**: number from "Scope proposals: ___ accepted" in the summary (0 for HOLD/REDUCTION)
|
||||
- **scope_deferred**: number of items deferred to TODOS.md from scope decisions (0 for HOLD/REDUCTION)
|
||||
- **COMMIT**: output of `git rev-parse --short HEAD`
|
||||
|
||||
## Review Readiness Dashboard
|
||||
@@ -1087,7 +923,7 @@ After completing the review, read the review log and config to display the dashb
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-read
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, plan-eng-review, plan-design-review, design-review-lite, adversarial-review, codex-review). Ignore entries with timestamps older than 7 days. For the Adversarial row, show whichever is more recent between `adversarial-review` (new auto-scaled) and `codex-review` (legacy). For Design Review, show whichever is more recent between `plan-design-review` (full visual audit) and `design-review-lite` (code-level check). Append "(FULL)" or "(LITE)" to the status to distinguish. Display:
|
||||
Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, plan-eng-review, plan-design-review, design-review-lite, codex-review). Ignore entries with timestamps older than 7 days. For Design Review, show whichever is more recent between `plan-design-review` (full visual audit) and `design-review-lite` (code-level check). Append "(FULL)" or "(LITE)" to the status to distinguish. Display:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
+====================================================================+
|
||||
@@ -1098,7 +934,7 @@ Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, pl
|
||||
| Eng Review | 1 | 2026-03-16 15:00 | CLEAR | YES |
|
||||
| CEO Review | 0 | — | — | no |
|
||||
| Design Review | 0 | — | — | no |
|
||||
| Adversarial | 0 | — | — | no |
|
||||
| Codex Review | 0 | — | — | no |
|
||||
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||||
| VERDICT: CLEARED — Eng Review passed |
|
||||
+====================================================================+
|
||||
@@ -1108,7 +944,7 @@ Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, pl
|
||||
- **Eng Review (required by default):** The only review that gates shipping. Covers architecture, code quality, tests, performance. Can be disabled globally with \`gstack-config set skip_eng_review true\` (the "don't bother me" setting).
|
||||
- **CEO Review (optional):** Use your judgment. Recommend it for big product/business changes, new user-facing features, or scope decisions. Skip for bug fixes, refactors, infra, and cleanup.
|
||||
- **Design Review (optional):** Use your judgment. Recommend it for UI/UX changes. Skip for backend-only, infra, or prompt-only changes.
|
||||
- **Adversarial Review (automatic):** Auto-scales by diff size. Small diffs (<50 lines) skip adversarial. Medium diffs (50–199) get cross-model adversarial. Large diffs (200+) get all 4 passes: Claude structured, Codex structured, Claude adversarial subagent, Codex adversarial. No configuration needed.
|
||||
- **Codex Review (optional):** Independent second opinion from OpenAI Codex CLI. Shows pass/fail gate. Recommend for critical code changes where a second AI perspective adds value. Skip when Codex CLI is not installed.
|
||||
|
||||
**Verdict logic:**
|
||||
- **CLEARED**: Eng Review has >= 1 entry within 7 days with status "clean" (or \`skip_eng_review\` is \`true\`)
|
||||
@@ -1122,73 +958,6 @@ Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, pl
|
||||
- For entries without a \`commit\` field (legacy entries): display "Note: {skill} review from {date} has no commit tracking — consider re-running for accurate staleness detection"
|
||||
- If all reviews match the current HEAD, do not display any staleness notes
|
||||
|
||||
## Plan File Review Report
|
||||
|
||||
After displaying the Review Readiness Dashboard in conversation output, also update the
|
||||
**plan file** itself so review status is visible to anyone reading the plan.
|
||||
|
||||
### Detect the plan file
|
||||
|
||||
1. Check if there is an active plan file in this conversation (the host provides plan file
|
||||
paths in system messages — look for plan file references in the conversation context).
|
||||
2. If not found, skip this section silently — not every review runs in plan mode.
|
||||
|
||||
### Generate the report
|
||||
|
||||
Read the review log output you already have from the Review Readiness Dashboard step above.
|
||||
Parse each JSONL entry. Each skill logs different fields:
|
||||
|
||||
- **plan-ceo-review**: \`status\`, \`unresolved\`, \`critical_gaps\`, \`mode\`, \`scope_proposed\`, \`scope_accepted\`, \`scope_deferred\`, \`commit\`
|
||||
→ Findings: "{scope_proposed} proposals, {scope_accepted} accepted, {scope_deferred} deferred"
|
||||
→ If scope fields are 0 or missing (HOLD/REDUCTION mode): "mode: {mode}, {critical_gaps} critical gaps"
|
||||
- **plan-eng-review**: \`status\`, \`unresolved\`, \`critical_gaps\`, \`issues_found\`, \`mode\`, \`commit\`
|
||||
→ Findings: "{issues_found} issues, {critical_gaps} critical gaps"
|
||||
- **plan-design-review**: \`status\`, \`initial_score\`, \`overall_score\`, \`unresolved\`, \`decisions_made\`, \`commit\`
|
||||
→ Findings: "score: {initial_score}/10 → {overall_score}/10, {decisions_made} decisions"
|
||||
- **codex-review**: \`status\`, \`gate\`, \`findings\`, \`findings_fixed\`
|
||||
→ Findings: "{findings} findings, {findings_fixed}/{findings} fixed"
|
||||
|
||||
All fields needed for the Findings column are now present in the JSONL entries.
|
||||
For the review you just completed, you may use richer details from your own Completion
|
||||
Summary. For prior reviews, use the JSONL fields directly — they contain all required data.
|
||||
|
||||
Produce this markdown table:
|
||||
|
||||
\`\`\`markdown
|
||||
## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT
|
||||
|
||||
| Review | Trigger | Why | Runs | Status | Findings |
|
||||
|--------|---------|-----|------|--------|----------|
|
||||
| CEO Review | \`/plan-ceo-review\` | Scope & strategy | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
|
||||
| Codex Review | \`/codex review\` | Independent 2nd opinion | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
|
||||
| Eng Review | \`/plan-eng-review\` | Architecture & tests (required) | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
|
||||
| Design Review | \`/plan-design-review\` | UI/UX gaps | {runs} | {status} | {findings} |
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
Below the table, add these lines (omit any that are empty/not applicable):
|
||||
|
||||
- **CODEX:** (only if codex-review ran) — one-line summary of codex fixes
|
||||
- **CROSS-MODEL:** (only if both Claude and Codex reviews exist) — overlap analysis
|
||||
- **UNRESOLVED:** total unresolved decisions across all reviews
|
||||
- **VERDICT:** list reviews that are CLEAR (e.g., "CEO + ENG CLEARED — ready to implement").
|
||||
If Eng Review is not CLEAR and not skipped globally, append "eng review required".
|
||||
|
||||
### Write to the plan file
|
||||
|
||||
**PLAN MODE EXCEPTION — ALWAYS RUN:** This writes to the plan file, which is the one
|
||||
file you are allowed to edit in plan mode. The plan file review report is part of the
|
||||
plan's living status.
|
||||
|
||||
- Search the plan file for a \`## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\` section **anywhere** in the file
|
||||
(not just at the end — content may have been added after it).
|
||||
- If found, **replace it** entirely using the Edit tool. Match from \`## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\`
|
||||
through either the next \`## \` heading or end of file, whichever comes first. This ensures
|
||||
content added after the report section is preserved, not eaten. If the Edit fails
|
||||
(e.g., concurrent edit changed the content), re-read the plan file and retry once.
|
||||
- If no such section exists, **append it** to the end of the plan file.
|
||||
- Always place it as the very last section in the plan file. If it was found mid-file,
|
||||
move it: delete the old location and append at the end.
|
||||
|
||||
## Next Steps — Review Chaining
|
||||
|
||||
After displaying the Review Readiness Dashboard, recommend the next review(s) based on what this CEO review discovered. Read the dashboard output to see which reviews have already been run and whether they are stale.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user