mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-05-09 05:59:48 +08:00
fix: Codex description limit + wrong-repo bug
Move skill routing table from root SKILL.md.tmpl description (1017/1024 chars) to body where there's no length limit. Add 900-char warning threshold test. Add -C flag to all codex exec calls so Codex always runs in the correct git root directory. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan
@@ -20,28 +20,6 @@ If `PROACTIVE` is `false`: do NOT proactively suggest other gstack skills during
|
||||
Only run skills the user explicitly invokes. This preference persists across sessions via
|
||||
`gstack-config`.
|
||||
|
||||
If `PROACTIVE` is `true` (default): suggest adjacent gstack skills when relevant to the
|
||||
user's workflow stage:
|
||||
- Brainstorming → /office-hours
|
||||
- Strategy → /plan-ceo-review
|
||||
- Architecture → /plan-eng-review
|
||||
- Design → /plan-design-review or /design-consultation
|
||||
- Auto-review → /autoplan
|
||||
- Debugging → /investigate
|
||||
- QA → /qa
|
||||
- Code review → /review
|
||||
- Visual audit → /design-review
|
||||
- Shipping → /ship
|
||||
- Docs → /document-release
|
||||
- Retro → /retro
|
||||
- Second opinion → /codex
|
||||
- Prod safety → /careful or /guard
|
||||
- Scoped edits → /freeze or /unfreeze
|
||||
- Upgrades → /gstack-upgrade
|
||||
|
||||
If the user opts out of suggestions, run `gstack-config set proactive false`.
|
||||
If they opt back in, run `gstack-config set proactive true`.
|
||||
|
||||
# gstack browse: QA Testing & Dogfooding
|
||||
|
||||
Persistent headless Chromium. First call auto-starts (~3s), then ~100-200ms per command.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
What alternatives were dismissed too quickly? What competitive or market risks are
|
||||
unaddressed? What scope decisions will look foolish in 6 months? Be adversarial.
|
||||
No compliments. Just the strategic blind spots.
|
||||
File: <plan_path>" -C "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)" -s read-only --enable web_search_cached`
|
||||
File: <plan_path>" -s read-only --enable web_search_cached`
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude CEO subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
@@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
accessibility requirements (keyboard nav, contrast, touch targets) specified or
|
||||
aspirational? Does the plan describe specific UI decisions or generic patterns?
|
||||
What design decisions will haunt the implementer if left ambiguous?
|
||||
Be opinionated. No hedging." -C "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)" -s read-only --enable web_search_cached`
|
||||
Be opinionated. No hedging." -s read-only --enable web_search_cached`
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude design subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
@@ -380,7 +380,7 @@ Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
|
||||
CEO: <insert CEO consensus table summary — key concerns, DISAGREEs>
|
||||
Design: <insert Design consensus table summary, or 'skipped, no UI scope'>
|
||||
|
||||
File: <plan_path>" -C "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)" -s read-only --enable web_search_cached`
|
||||
File: <plan_path>" -s read-only --enable web_search_cached`
|
||||
Timeout: 10 minutes
|
||||
|
||||
**Claude eng subagent** (via Agent tool):
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -3,7 +3,6 @@ name: benchmark
|
||||
preamble-tier: 1
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
MANUAL TRIGGER ONLY: invoke only when user types /benchmark.
|
||||
Performance regression detection using the browse daemon. Establishes
|
||||
baselines for page load times, Core Web Vitals, and resource sizes.
|
||||
Compares before/after on every PR. Tracks performance trends over time.
|
||||
@@ -100,23 +99,112 @@ touch ~/.gstack/.telemetry-prompted
|
||||
|
||||
This only happens once. If `TEL_PROMPTED` is `yes`, skip this entirely.
|
||||
|
||||
## AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
|
||||
**ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:**
|
||||
1. **Re-ground:** State the project, the current branch (use the `_BRANCH` value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
5. **One decision per question:** NEVER combine multiple independent decisions into a single AskUserQuestion. Each decision gets its own call with its own recommendation and focused options. Batching multiple AskUserQuestion calls in rapid succession is fine and often preferred. Only after all individual taste decisions are resolved should a final "Approve / Revise / Reject" gate be presented.
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- 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.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -32,21 +32,30 @@ OUTCOME="unknown"
|
||||
USED_BROWSE="false"
|
||||
SESSION_ID=""
|
||||
ERROR_CLASS=""
|
||||
ERROR_MESSAGE=""
|
||||
FAILED_STEP=""
|
||||
EVENT_TYPE="skill_run"
|
||||
SOURCE=""
|
||||
|
||||
while [ $# -gt 0 ]; do
|
||||
case "$1" in
|
||||
--skill) SKILL="$2"; shift 2 ;;
|
||||
--duration) DURATION="$2"; shift 2 ;;
|
||||
--outcome) OUTCOME="$2"; shift 2 ;;
|
||||
--used-browse) USED_BROWSE="$2"; shift 2 ;;
|
||||
--session-id) SESSION_ID="$2"; shift 2 ;;
|
||||
--error-class) ERROR_CLASS="$2"; shift 2 ;;
|
||||
--event-type) EVENT_TYPE="$2"; shift 2 ;;
|
||||
--skill) SKILL="$2"; shift 2 ;;
|
||||
--duration) DURATION="$2"; shift 2 ;;
|
||||
--outcome) OUTCOME="$2"; shift 2 ;;
|
||||
--used-browse) USED_BROWSE="$2"; shift 2 ;;
|
||||
--session-id) SESSION_ID="$2"; shift 2 ;;
|
||||
--error-class) ERROR_CLASS="$2"; shift 2 ;;
|
||||
--error-message) ERROR_MESSAGE="$2"; shift 2 ;;
|
||||
--failed-step) FAILED_STEP="$2"; shift 2 ;;
|
||||
--event-type) EVENT_TYPE="$2"; shift 2 ;;
|
||||
--source) SOURCE="$2"; shift 2 ;;
|
||||
*) shift ;;
|
||||
esac
|
||||
done
|
||||
|
||||
# Source: flag > env > default 'live'
|
||||
SOURCE="${SOURCE:-${GSTACK_TELEMETRY_SOURCE:-live}}"
|
||||
|
||||
# ─── Read telemetry tier ─────────────────────────────────────
|
||||
TIER="$("$CONFIG_CMD" get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)"
|
||||
TIER="${TIER:-off}"
|
||||
@@ -146,6 +155,20 @@ mkdir -p "$ANALYTICS_DIR"
|
||||
ERR_FIELD="null"
|
||||
[ -n "$ERROR_CLASS" ] && ERR_FIELD="\"$ERROR_CLASS\""
|
||||
|
||||
ERR_MSG_FIELD="null"
|
||||
[ -n "$ERROR_MESSAGE" ] && ERR_MSG_FIELD="\"$(echo "$ERROR_MESSAGE" | head -c 200 | sed 's/"/\\"/g')\""
|
||||
|
||||
STEP_FIELD="null"
|
||||
[ -n "$FAILED_STEP" ] && STEP_FIELD="\"$(echo "$FAILED_STEP" | head -c 30)\""
|
||||
|
||||
# Cap unreasonable durations
|
||||
if [ -n "$DURATION" ] && [ "$DURATION" -gt 86400 ] 2>/dev/null; then
|
||||
DURATION="" # null if > 24h
|
||||
fi
|
||||
if [ -n "$DURATION" ] && [ "$DURATION" -lt 0 ] 2>/dev/null; then
|
||||
DURATION="" # null if negative
|
||||
fi
|
||||
|
||||
DUR_FIELD="null"
|
||||
[ -n "$DURATION" ] && DUR_FIELD="$DURATION"
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -155,10 +178,11 @@ INSTALL_FIELD="null"
|
||||
BROWSE_BOOL="false"
|
||||
[ "$USED_BROWSE" = "true" ] && BROWSE_BOOL="true"
|
||||
|
||||
printf '{"v":1,"ts":"%s","event_type":"%s","skill":"%s","session_id":"%s","gstack_version":"%s","os":"%s","arch":"%s","duration_s":%s,"outcome":"%s","error_class":%s,"used_browse":%s,"sessions":%s,"installation_id":%s,"_repo_slug":"%s","_branch":"%s"}\n' \
|
||||
printf '{"v":1,"ts":"%s","event_type":"%s","skill":"%s","session_id":"%s","gstack_version":"%s","os":"%s","arch":"%s","duration_s":%s,"outcome":"%s","error_class":%s,"error_message":%s,"failed_step":%s,"used_browse":%s,"sessions":%s,"installation_id":%s,"source":"%s","_repo_slug":"%s","_branch":"%s"}\n' \
|
||||
"$TS" "$EVENT_TYPE" "$SKILL" "$SESSION_ID" "$GSTACK_VERSION" "$OS" "$ARCH" \
|
||||
"$DUR_FIELD" "$OUTCOME" "$ERR_FIELD" "$BROWSE_BOOL" "${SESSIONS:-1}" \
|
||||
"$INSTALL_FIELD" "$REPO_SLUG" "$BRANCH" >> "$JSONL_FILE" 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
"$DUR_FIELD" "$OUTCOME" "$ERR_FIELD" "$ERR_MSG_FIELD" "$STEP_FIELD" \
|
||||
"$BROWSE_BOOL" "${SESSIONS:-1}" \
|
||||
"$INSTALL_FIELD" "$SOURCE" "$REPO_SLUG" "$BRANCH" >> "$JSONL_FILE" 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
|
||||
# ─── Trigger sync if tier is not off ─────────────────────────
|
||||
SYNC_CMD="$GSTACK_DIR/bin/gstack-telemetry-sync"
|
||||
|
||||
108
browse/SKILL.md
108
browse/SKILL.md
@@ -3,7 +3,6 @@ name: browse
|
||||
preamble-tier: 1
|
||||
version: 1.1.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
MANUAL TRIGGER ONLY: invoke only when user types /browse.
|
||||
Fast headless browser for QA testing and site dogfooding. Navigate any URL, interact with
|
||||
elements, verify page state, diff before/after actions, take annotated screenshots, check
|
||||
responsive layouts, test forms and uploads, handle dialogs, and assert element states.
|
||||
@@ -100,23 +99,112 @@ touch ~/.gstack/.telemetry-prompted
|
||||
|
||||
This only happens once. If `TEL_PROMPTED` is `yes`, skip this entirely.
|
||||
|
||||
## AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
|
||||
**ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:**
|
||||
1. **Re-ground:** State the project, the current branch (use the `_BRANCH` value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
5. **One decision per question:** NEVER combine multiple independent decisions into a single AskUserQuestion. Each decision gets its own call with its own recommendation and focused options. Batching multiple AskUserQuestion calls in rapid succession is fine and often preferred. Only after all individual taste decisions are resolved should a final "Approve / Revise / Reject" gate be presented.
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- 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.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -3,7 +3,6 @@ name: canary
|
||||
preamble-tier: 2
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
MANUAL TRIGGER ONLY: invoke only when user types /canary.
|
||||
Post-deploy canary monitoring. Watches the live app for console errors,
|
||||
performance regressions, and page failures using the browse daemon. Takes
|
||||
periodic screenshots, compares against pre-deploy baselines, and alerts
|
||||
@@ -107,6 +106,7 @@ This only happens once. If `TEL_PROMPTED` is `yes`, skip this entirely.
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
5. **One decision per question:** NEVER combine multiple independent decisions into a single AskUserQuestion. Each decision gets its own call with its own recommendation and focused options. Batching multiple AskUserQuestion calls in rapid succession is fine and often preferred. Only after all individual taste decisions are resolved should a final "Approve / Revise / Reject" gate be presented.
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -114,36 +114,97 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- 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.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -2,7 +2,6 @@
|
||||
name: careful
|
||||
version: 0.1.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
MANUAL TRIGGER ONLY: invoke only when user types /careful.
|
||||
Safety guardrails for destructive commands. Warns before rm -rf, DROP TABLE,
|
||||
force-push, git reset --hard, kubectl delete, and similar destructive operations.
|
||||
User can override each warning. Use when touching prod, debugging live systems,
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ With focus (e.g., "security"):
|
||||
|
||||
2. Run codex exec with **JSONL output** to capture reasoning traces and tool calls (5-minute timeout):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
codex exec "<prompt>" -C "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="xhigh"' --enable web_search_cached --json 2>/dev/null | python3 -c "
|
||||
codex exec "<prompt>" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="xhigh"' --enable web_search_cached --json 2>/dev/null | python3 -c "
|
||||
import sys, json
|
||||
for line in sys.stdin:
|
||||
line = line.strip()
|
||||
@@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ THE PLAN:
|
||||
|
||||
For a **new session:**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
codex exec "<prompt>" -C "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="xhigh"' --enable web_search_cached --json 2>"$TMPERR" | python3 -c "
|
||||
codex exec "<prompt>" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="xhigh"' --enable web_search_cached --json 2>"$TMPERR" | python3 -c "
|
||||
import sys, json
|
||||
for line in sys.stdin:
|
||||
line = line.strip()
|
||||
@@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ for line in sys.stdin:
|
||||
|
||||
For a **resumed session** (user chose "Continue"):
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
codex exec resume <session-id> "<prompt>" -C "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="xhigh"' --enable web_search_cached --json 2>"$TMPERR" | python3 -c "
|
||||
codex exec resume <session-id> "<prompt>" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="xhigh"' --enable web_search_cached --json 2>"$TMPERR" | python3 -c "
|
||||
<same python streaming parser as above>
|
||||
"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
95
cso/SKILL.md
95
cso/SKILL.md
@@ -3,7 +3,6 @@ name: cso
|
||||
preamble-tier: 2
|
||||
version: 2.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
MANUAL TRIGGER ONLY: invoke only when user types /cso.
|
||||
Chief Security Officer mode. Infrastructure-first security audit: secrets archaeology,
|
||||
dependency supply chain, CI/CD pipeline security, LLM/AI security, skill supply chain
|
||||
scanning, plus OWASP Top 10, STRIDE threat modeling, and active verification.
|
||||
@@ -111,6 +110,7 @@ This only happens once. If `TEL_PROMPTED` is `yes`, skip this entirely.
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
5. **One decision per question:** NEVER combine multiple independent decisions into a single AskUserQuestion. Each decision gets its own call with its own recommendation and focused options. Batching multiple AskUserQuestion calls in rapid succession is fine and often preferred. Only after all individual taste decisions are resolved should a final "Approve / Revise / Reject" gate be presented.
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -118,36 +118,97 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- 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.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -3,7 +3,6 @@ name: document-release
|
||||
preamble-tier: 2
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
MANUAL TRIGGER ONLY: invoke only when user types /document-release.
|
||||
Post-ship documentation update. Reads all project docs, cross-references the
|
||||
diff, updates README/ARCHITECTURE/CONTRIBUTING/CLAUDE.md to match what shipped,
|
||||
polishes CHANGELOG voice, cleans up TODOS, and optionally bumps VERSION. Use when
|
||||
@@ -109,6 +108,7 @@ This only happens once. If `TEL_PROMPTED` is `yes`, skip this entirely.
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
5. **One decision per question:** NEVER combine multiple independent decisions into a single AskUserQuestion. Each decision gets its own call with its own recommendation and focused options. Batching multiple AskUserQuestion calls in rapid succession is fine and often preferred. Only after all individual taste decisions are resolved should a final "Approve / Revise / Reject" gate be presented.
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -116,36 +116,97 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- 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.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -2,7 +2,6 @@
|
||||
name: freeze
|
||||
version: 0.1.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
MANUAL TRIGGER ONLY: invoke only when user types /freeze.
|
||||
Restrict file edits to a specific directory for the session. Blocks Edit and
|
||||
Write outside the allowed path. Use when debugging to prevent accidentally
|
||||
"fixing" unrelated code, or when you want to scope changes to one module.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -2,7 +2,6 @@
|
||||
name: gstack-upgrade
|
||||
version: 1.1.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
MANUAL TRIGGER ONLY: invoke only when user types /gstack-upgrade.
|
||||
Upgrade gstack to the latest version. Detects global vs vendored install,
|
||||
runs the upgrade, and shows what's new. Use when asked to "upgrade gstack",
|
||||
"update gstack", or "get latest version".
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -2,7 +2,6 @@
|
||||
name: guard
|
||||
version: 0.1.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
MANUAL TRIGGER ONLY: invoke only when user types /guard.
|
||||
Full safety mode: destructive command warnings + directory-scoped edits.
|
||||
Combines /careful (warns before rm -rf, DROP TABLE, force-push, etc.) with
|
||||
/freeze (blocks edits outside a specified directory). Use for maximum safety
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -3,7 +3,6 @@ name: investigate
|
||||
preamble-tier: 2
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
MANUAL TRIGGER ONLY: invoke only when user types /investigate.
|
||||
Systematic debugging with root cause investigation. Four phases: investigate,
|
||||
analyze, hypothesize, implement. Iron Law: no fixes without root cause.
|
||||
Use when asked to "debug this", "fix this bug", "why is this broken",
|
||||
@@ -123,6 +122,7 @@ This only happens once. If `TEL_PROMPTED` is `yes`, skip this entirely.
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
5. **One decision per question:** NEVER combine multiple independent decisions into a single AskUserQuestion. Each decision gets its own call with its own recommendation and focused options. Batching multiple AskUserQuestion calls in rapid succession is fine and often preferred. Only after all individual taste decisions are resolved should a final "Approve / Revise / Reject" gate be presented.
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -130,36 +130,97 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- 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.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -3,7 +3,6 @@ name: land-and-deploy
|
||||
preamble-tier: 4
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
MANUAL TRIGGER ONLY: invoke only when user types /land-and-deploy.
|
||||
Land and deploy workflow. Merges the PR, waits for CI and deploy,
|
||||
verifies production health via canary checks. Takes over after /ship
|
||||
creates the PR. Use when: "merge", "land", "deploy", "merge and verify",
|
||||
@@ -106,6 +105,7 @@ This only happens once. If `TEL_PROMPTED` is `yes`, skip this entirely.
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
5. **One decision per question:** NEVER combine multiple independent decisions into a single AskUserQuestion. Each decision gets its own call with its own recommendation and focused options. Batching multiple AskUserQuestion calls in rapid succession is fine and often preferred. Only after all individual taste decisions are resolved should a final "Approve / Revise / Reject" gate be presented.
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -113,54 +113,97 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- 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.")
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:
|
||||
- **`solo`** — You own everything. Investigate and offer to fix proactively.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** / **`unknown`** — Flag via AskUserQuestion, don't fix (may be someone else's).
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
Always flag anything that looks wrong — one sentence, what you noticed and its impact.
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building anything unfamiliar, **search first.** See `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md`.
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true) — don't reinvent. **Layer 2** (new and popular) — scrutinize. **Layer 3** (first principles) — prize above all.
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka:** When first-principles reasoning contradicts conventional wisdom, name it and log:
|
||||
**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:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -3,7 +3,6 @@ name: qa-only
|
||||
preamble-tier: 4
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
MANUAL TRIGGER ONLY: invoke only when user types /qa-only.
|
||||
Report-only QA testing. Systematically tests a web application and produces a
|
||||
structured report with health score, screenshots, and repro steps — but never
|
||||
fixes anything. Use when asked to "just report bugs", "qa report only", or
|
||||
@@ -107,6 +106,7 @@ This only happens once. If `TEL_PROMPTED` is `yes`, skip this entirely.
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
5. **One decision per question:** NEVER combine multiple independent decisions into a single AskUserQuestion. Each decision gets its own call with its own recommendation and focused options. Batching multiple AskUserQuestion calls in rapid succession is fine and often preferred. Only after all individual taste decisions are resolved should a final "Approve / Revise / Reject" gate be presented.
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -114,54 +114,97 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- 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.")
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:
|
||||
- **`solo`** — You own everything. Investigate and offer to fix proactively.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** / **`unknown`** — Flag via AskUserQuestion, don't fix (may be someone else's).
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
Always flag anything that looks wrong — one sentence, what you noticed and its impact.
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building anything unfamiliar, **search first.** See `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md`.
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true) — don't reinvent. **Layer 2** (new and popular) — scrutinize. **Layer 3** (first principles) — prize above all.
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka:** When first-principles reasoning contradicts conventional wisdom, name it and log:
|
||||
**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**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
93
qa/SKILL.md
93
qa/SKILL.md
@@ -3,7 +3,6 @@ name: qa
|
||||
preamble-tier: 4
|
||||
version: 2.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
MANUAL TRIGGER ONLY: invoke only when user types /qa.
|
||||
Systematically QA test a web application and fix bugs found. Runs QA testing,
|
||||
then iteratively fixes bugs in source code, committing each fix atomically and
|
||||
re-verifying. Use when asked to "qa", "QA", "test this site", "find bugs",
|
||||
@@ -113,6 +112,7 @@ This only happens once. If `TEL_PROMPTED` is `yes`, skip this entirely.
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
5. **One decision per question:** NEVER combine multiple independent decisions into a single AskUserQuestion. Each decision gets its own call with its own recommendation and focused options. Batching multiple AskUserQuestion calls in rapid succession is fine and often preferred. Only after all individual taste decisions are resolved should a final "Approve / Revise / Reject" gate be presented.
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -120,54 +120,97 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- 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.")
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` controls how to handle issues outside your branch:
|
||||
- **`solo`** — You own everything. Investigate and offer to fix proactively.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** / **`unknown`** — Flag via AskUserQuestion, don't fix (may be someone else's).
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
Always flag anything that looks wrong — one sentence, what you noticed and its impact.
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building anything unfamiliar, **search first.** See `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md`.
|
||||
- **Layer 1** (tried and true) — don't reinvent. **Layer 2** (new and popular) — scrutinize. **Layer 3** (first principles) — prize above all.
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
**Eureka:** When first-principles reasoning contradicts conventional wisdom, name it and log:
|
||||
**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:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
117
retro/SKILL.md
117
retro/SKILL.md
@@ -3,7 +3,6 @@ name: retro
|
||||
preamble-tier: 2
|
||||
version: 2.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
MANUAL TRIGGER ONLY: invoke only when user types /retro.
|
||||
Weekly engineering retrospective. Analyzes commit history, work patterns,
|
||||
and code quality metrics with persistent history and trend tracking.
|
||||
Team-aware: breaks down per-person contributions with praise and growth areas.
|
||||
@@ -107,6 +106,7 @@ This only happens once. If `TEL_PROMPTED` is `yes`, skip this entirely.
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
5. **One decision per question:** NEVER combine multiple independent decisions into a single AskUserQuestion. Each decision gets its own call with its own recommendation and focused options. Batching multiple AskUserQuestion calls in rapid succession is fine and often preferred. Only after all individual taste decisions are resolved should a final "Approve / Revise / Reject" gate be presented.
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -114,36 +114,97 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- 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.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -676,6 +737,28 @@ Narrative covering:
|
||||
- If prior retro exists and has `test_health`: show delta "Test count: {last} → {now} (+{delta})"
|
||||
- If test ratio < 20%: flag as growth area — "100% test coverage is the goal. Tests make vibe coding safe."
|
||||
|
||||
### Plan Completion
|
||||
Check review JSONL logs for plan completion data from /ship runs this period:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)"
|
||||
cat ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-reviews.jsonl 2>/dev/null | grep '"skill":"ship"' | grep '"plan_items_total"' || echo "NO_PLAN_DATA"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If plan completion data exists within the retro time window:
|
||||
- Count branches shipped with plans (entries that have `plan_items_total` > 0)
|
||||
- Compute average completion: sum of `plan_items_done` / sum of `plan_items_total`
|
||||
- Identify most-skipped item category if data supports it
|
||||
|
||||
Output:
|
||||
```
|
||||
Plan Completion This Period:
|
||||
{N} branches shipped with plans
|
||||
Average completion: {X}% ({done}/{total} items)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If no plan data exists, skip this section silently.
|
||||
|
||||
### Focus & Highlights
|
||||
(from Step 8)
|
||||
- Focus score with interpretation
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -460,6 +460,28 @@ Narrative covering:
|
||||
- If prior retro exists and has `test_health`: show delta "Test count: {last} → {now} (+{delta})"
|
||||
- If test ratio < 20%: flag as growth area — "100% test coverage is the goal. Tests make vibe coding safe."
|
||||
|
||||
### Plan Completion
|
||||
Check review JSONL logs for plan completion data from /ship runs this period:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)"
|
||||
cat ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-reviews.jsonl 2>/dev/null | grep '"skill":"ship"' | grep '"plan_items_total"' || echo "NO_PLAN_DATA"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If plan completion data exists within the retro time window:
|
||||
- Count branches shipped with plans (entries that have `plan_items_total` > 0)
|
||||
- Compute average completion: sum of `plan_items_done` / sum of `plan_items_total`
|
||||
- Identify most-skipped item category if data supports it
|
||||
|
||||
Output:
|
||||
```
|
||||
Plan Completion This Period:
|
||||
{N} branches shipped with plans
|
||||
Average completion: {X}% ({done}/{total} items)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If no plan data exists, skip this section silently.
|
||||
|
||||
### Focus & Highlights
|
||||
(from Step 8)
|
||||
- Focus score with interpretation
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -46,7 +46,10 @@ Before reviewing code quality, check: **did they build what was requested — no
|
||||
**If no PR exists:** rely on commit messages and TODOS.md for stated intent — this is the common case since /review runs before /ship creates the PR.
|
||||
2. Identify the **stated intent** — what was this branch supposed to accomplish?
|
||||
3. Run `git diff origin/<base>...HEAD --stat` and compare the files changed against the stated intent.
|
||||
4. Evaluate with skepticism:
|
||||
|
||||
{{PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT_REVIEW}}
|
||||
|
||||
4. Evaluate with skepticism (incorporating plan completion results if available):
|
||||
|
||||
**SCOPE CREEP detection:**
|
||||
- Files changed that are unrelated to the stated intent
|
||||
|
||||
File diff suppressed because it is too large
Load Diff
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ If Codex is available, run a lightweight design check on the diff:
|
||||
|
||||
\`\`\`bash
|
||||
TMPERR_DRL=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-drl-XXXXXXXX)
|
||||
codex exec "Review the git diff on this branch. Run 7 litmus checks (YES/NO each): ${litmusList} Flag any hard rejections: ${rejectionList} 5 most important design findings only. Reference file:line." -C "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_DRL"
|
||||
codex exec "Review the git diff on this branch. Run 7 litmus checks (YES/NO each): ${litmusList} Flag any hard rejections: ${rejectionList} 5 most important design findings only. Reference file:line." -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_DRL"
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
Use a 5-minute timeout (\`timeout: 300000\`). After the command completes, read stderr:
|
||||
@@ -467,7 +467,7 @@ If user chooses A, launch both voices simultaneously:
|
||||
1. **Codex** (via Bash, \`model_reasoning_effort="medium"\`):
|
||||
\`\`\`bash
|
||||
TMPERR_SKETCH=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-sketch-XXXXXXXX)
|
||||
codex exec "For this product approach, provide: a visual thesis (one sentence — mood, material, energy), a content plan (hero → support → detail → CTA), and 2 interaction ideas that change page feel. Apply beautiful defaults: composition-first, brand-first, cardless, poster not document. Be opinionated." -C "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="medium"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_SKETCH"
|
||||
codex exec "For this product approach, provide: a visual thesis (one sentence — mood, material, energy), a content plan (hero → support → detail → CTA), and 2 interaction ideas that change page feel. Apply beautiful defaults: composition-first, brand-first, cardless, poster not document. Be opinionated." -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="medium"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_SKETCH"
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
Use a 5-minute timeout (\`timeout: 300000\`). After completion: \`cat "$TMPERR_SKETCH" && rm -f "$TMPERR_SKETCH"\`
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -636,7 +636,7 @@ which codex 2>/dev/null && echo "CODEX_AVAILABLE" || echo "CODEX_NOT_AVAILABLE"
|
||||
1. **Codex design voice** (via Bash):
|
||||
\`\`\`bash
|
||||
TMPERR_DESIGN=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-design-XXXXXXXX)
|
||||
codex exec "${escapedCodexPrompt}" -C "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="${reasoningEffort}"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_DESIGN"
|
||||
codex exec "${escapedCodexPrompt}" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="${reasoningEffort}"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_DESIGN"
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
Use a 5-minute timeout (\`timeout: 300000\`). After the command completes, read stderr:
|
||||
\`\`\`bash
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ import { generateTestFailureTriage } from './preamble';
|
||||
import { generateCommandReference, generateSnapshotFlags, generateBrowseSetup } from './browse';
|
||||
import { generateDesignMethodology, generateDesignHardRules, generateDesignOutsideVoices, generateDesignReviewLite, generateDesignSketch } from './design';
|
||||
import { generateTestBootstrap, generateTestCoverageAuditPlan, generateTestCoverageAuditShip, generateTestCoverageAuditReview } from './testing';
|
||||
import { generateReviewDashboard, generatePlanFileReviewReport, generateSpecReviewLoop, generateBenefitsFrom, generateCodexSecondOpinion, generateAdversarialStep, generateCodexPlanReview } from './review';
|
||||
import { generateReviewDashboard, generatePlanFileReviewReport, generateSpecReviewLoop, generateBenefitsFrom, generateCodexSecondOpinion, generateAdversarialStep, generateCodexPlanReview, generatePlanCompletionAuditShip, generatePlanCompletionAuditReview, generatePlanVerificationExec } from './review';
|
||||
import { generateSlugEval, generateSlugSetup, generateBaseBranchDetect, generateDeployBootstrap, generateQAMethodology } from './utility';
|
||||
|
||||
export const RESOLVERS: Record<string, (ctx: TemplateContext) => string> = {
|
||||
@@ -41,4 +41,7 @@ export const RESOLVERS: Record<string, (ctx: TemplateContext) => string> = {
|
||||
ADVERSARIAL_STEP: generateAdversarialStep,
|
||||
DEPLOY_BOOTSTRAP: generateDeployBootstrap,
|
||||
CODEX_PLAN_REVIEW: generateCodexPlanReview,
|
||||
PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT_SHIP: generatePlanCompletionAuditShip,
|
||||
PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT_REVIEW: generatePlanCompletionAuditReview,
|
||||
PLAN_VERIFICATION_EXEC: generatePlanVerificationExec,
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -21,9 +21,11 @@ _SESSIONS=$(find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin -120 -type f 2>/dev/null | wc -l | tr
|
||||
find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin +120 -type f -delete 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
_CONTRIB=$(${ctx.paths.binDir}/gstack-config get gstack_contributor 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
_PROACTIVE=$(${ctx.paths.binDir}/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null || echo "true")
|
||||
_PROACTIVE_PROMPTED=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.proactive-prompted ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
|
||||
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
|
||||
echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
|
||||
echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
|
||||
echo "PROACTIVE_PROMPTED: $_PROACTIVE_PROMPTED"
|
||||
source <(${ctx.paths.binDir}/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
|
||||
REPO_MODE=\${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
|
||||
echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
|
||||
@@ -43,8 +45,11 @@ for _PF in $(find ~/.gstack/analytics -maxdepth 1 -name '.pending-*' 2>/dev/null
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
function generateUpgradeCheck(ctx: TemplateContext): string {
|
||||
return `If \`PROACTIVE\` is \`"false"\`, do not proactively suggest gstack skills — only invoke
|
||||
them when the user explicitly asks. The user opted out of proactive suggestions.
|
||||
return `If \`PROACTIVE\` is \`"false"\`, do not proactively suggest gstack skills AND do not
|
||||
auto-invoke skills based on conversation context. Only run skills the user explicitly
|
||||
types (e.g., /qa, /ship). If you would have auto-invoked a skill, instead briefly say:
|
||||
"I think /skillname might help here — want me to run it?" and wait for confirmation.
|
||||
The user opted out of proactive behavior.
|
||||
|
||||
If output shows \`UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>\`: read \`${ctx.paths.skillRoot}/gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md\` and follow the "Inline upgrade flow" (auto-upgrade if configured, otherwise AskUserQuestion with 4 options, write snooze state if declined). If \`JUST_UPGRADED <from> <to>\`: tell user "Running gstack v{to} (just updated!)" and continue.`;
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -98,6 +103,29 @@ touch ~/.gstack/.telemetry-prompted
|
||||
This only happens once. If \`TEL_PROMPTED\` is \`yes\`, skip this entirely.`;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
function generateProactivePrompt(ctx: TemplateContext): string {
|
||||
return `If \`PROACTIVE_PROMPTED\` is \`no\` AND \`TEL_PROMPTED\` is \`yes\`: After telemetry is handled,
|
||||
ask the user about proactive behavior. Use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
|
||||
> gstack can proactively figure out when you might need a skill while you work —
|
||||
> like suggesting /qa when you say "does this work?" or /investigate when you hit
|
||||
> a bug. We recommend keeping this on — it speeds up every part of your workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
Options:
|
||||
- A) Keep it on (recommended)
|
||||
- B) Turn it off — I'll type /commands myself
|
||||
|
||||
If A: run \`${ctx.paths.binDir}/gstack-config set proactive true\`
|
||||
If B: run \`${ctx.paths.binDir}/gstack-config set proactive false\`
|
||||
|
||||
Always run:
|
||||
\`\`\`bash
|
||||
touch ~/.gstack/.proactive-prompted
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
This only happens once. If \`PROACTIVE_PROMPTED\` is \`yes\`, skip this entirely.`;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
function generateAskUserFormat(_ctx: TemplateContext): string {
|
||||
return `## AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -382,6 +410,7 @@ export function generatePreamble(ctx: TemplateContext): string {
|
||||
generateUpgradeCheck(ctx),
|
||||
generateLakeIntro(),
|
||||
generateTelemetryPrompt(ctx),
|
||||
generateProactivePrompt(ctx),
|
||||
...(tier >= 2 ? [generateAskUserFormat(ctx), generateCompletenessSection()] : []),
|
||||
...(tier >= 3 ? [generateRepoModeSection(), generateSearchBeforeBuildingSection(ctx)] : []),
|
||||
generateContributorMode(),
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ Write the full prompt (context block + instructions) to this file. Use the mode-
|
||||
|
||||
\`\`\`bash
|
||||
TMPERR_OH=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-oh-err-XXXXXXXX)
|
||||
codex exec "$(cat "$CODEX_PROMPT_FILE")" -C "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="xhigh"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_OH"
|
||||
codex exec "$(cat "$CODEX_PROMPT_FILE")" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="xhigh"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_OH"
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
Use a 5-minute timeout (\`timeout: 300000\`). After the command completes, read stderr:
|
||||
@@ -370,7 +370,7 @@ Claude's structured review already ran. Now add a **cross-model adversarial chal
|
||||
|
||||
\`\`\`bash
|
||||
TMPERR_ADV=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-adv-XXXXXXXX)
|
||||
codex exec "Review the changes on this branch against the base branch. Run git diff origin/<base> to see the diff. Your job is to find ways this code will fail in production. Think like an attacker and a chaos engineer. Find edge cases, race conditions, security holes, resource leaks, failure modes, and silent data corruption paths. Be adversarial. Be thorough. No compliments — just the problems." -C "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="xhigh"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_ADV"
|
||||
codex exec "Review the changes on this branch against the base branch. Run git diff origin/<base> to see the diff. Your job is to find ways this code will fail in production. Think like an attacker and a chaos engineer. Find edge cases, race conditions, security holes, resource leaks, failure modes, and silent data corruption paths. Be adversarial. Be thorough. No compliments — just the problems." -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="xhigh"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_ADV"
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
Set the Bash tool's \`timeout\` parameter to \`300000\` (5 minutes). Do NOT use the \`timeout\` shell command — it doesn't exist on macOS. After the command completes, read stderr:
|
||||
@@ -525,7 +525,7 @@ THE PLAN:
|
||||
|
||||
\`\`\`bash
|
||||
TMPERR_PV=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-planreview-XXXXXXXX)
|
||||
codex exec "<prompt>" -C "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="xhigh"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_PV"
|
||||
codex exec "<prompt>" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="xhigh"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_PV"
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
Use a 5-minute timeout (\`timeout: 300000\`). After the command completes, read stderr:
|
||||
@@ -592,3 +592,236 @@ SOURCE = "codex" if Codex ran, "claude" if subagent ran.
|
||||
|
||||
---`;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// ─── Plan File Discovery (shared helper) ──────────────────────────────
|
||||
|
||||
function generatePlanFileDiscovery(): string {
|
||||
return `### Plan File Discovery
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Conversation context (primary):** Check if there is an active plan file in this conversation — Claude Code system messages include plan file paths when in plan mode. Look for references like \`~/.claude/plans/*.md\` in system messages. If found, use it directly — this is the most reliable signal.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Content-based search (fallback):** If no plan file is referenced in conversation context, search by content:
|
||||
|
||||
\`\`\`bash
|
||||
BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null | tr '/' '-')
|
||||
REPO=$(basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null)")
|
||||
# Try branch name match first (most specific)
|
||||
PLAN=$(ls -t ~/.claude/plans/*.md 2>/dev/null | xargs grep -l "$BRANCH" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
|
||||
# Fall back to repo name match
|
||||
[ -z "$PLAN" ] && PLAN=$(ls -t ~/.claude/plans/*.md 2>/dev/null | xargs grep -l "$REPO" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
|
||||
# Last resort: most recent plan modified in the last 24 hours
|
||||
[ -z "$PLAN" ] && PLAN=$(find ~/.claude/plans -name '*.md' -mmin -1440 -maxdepth 1 2>/dev/null | xargs ls -t 2>/dev/null | head -1)
|
||||
[ -n "$PLAN" ] && echo "PLAN_FILE: $PLAN" || echo "NO_PLAN_FILE"
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Validation:** If a plan file was found via content-based search (not conversation context), read the first 20 lines and verify it is relevant to the current branch's work. If it appears to be from a different project or feature, treat as "no plan file found."
|
||||
|
||||
**Error handling:**
|
||||
- No plan file found → skip with "No plan file detected — skipping."
|
||||
- Plan file found but unreadable (permissions, encoding) → skip with "Plan file found but unreadable — skipping."`;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// ─── Plan Completion Audit ────────────────────────────────────────────
|
||||
|
||||
type PlanCompletionMode = 'ship' | 'review';
|
||||
|
||||
function generatePlanCompletionAuditInner(mode: PlanCompletionMode): string {
|
||||
const sections: string[] = [];
|
||||
|
||||
// ── Plan file discovery (shared) ──
|
||||
sections.push(generatePlanFileDiscovery());
|
||||
|
||||
// ── Item extraction ──
|
||||
sections.push(`
|
||||
### Actionable Item Extraction
|
||||
|
||||
Read the plan file. Extract every actionable item — anything that describes work to be done. Look for:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Checkbox items:** \`- [ ] ...\` or \`- [x] ...\`
|
||||
- **Numbered steps** under implementation headings: "1. Create ...", "2. Add ...", "3. Modify ..."
|
||||
- **Imperative statements:** "Add X to Y", "Create a Z service", "Modify the W controller"
|
||||
- **File-level specifications:** "New file: path/to/file.ts", "Modify path/to/existing.rb"
|
||||
- **Test requirements:** "Test that X", "Add test for Y", "Verify Z"
|
||||
- **Data model changes:** "Add column X to table Y", "Create migration for Z"
|
||||
|
||||
**Ignore:**
|
||||
- Context/Background sections (\`## Context\`, \`## Background\`, \`## Problem\`)
|
||||
- Questions and open items (marked with ?, "TBD", "TODO: decide")
|
||||
- Review report sections (\`## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\`)
|
||||
- Explicitly deferred items ("Future:", "Out of scope:", "NOT in scope:", "P2:", "P3:", "P4:")
|
||||
- CEO Review Decisions sections (these record choices, not work items)
|
||||
|
||||
**Cap:** Extract at most 50 items. If the plan has more, note: "Showing top 50 of N plan items — full list in plan file."
|
||||
|
||||
**No items found:** If the plan contains no extractable actionable items, skip with: "Plan file contains no actionable items — skipping completion audit."
|
||||
|
||||
For each item, note:
|
||||
- The item text (verbatim or concise summary)
|
||||
- Its category: CODE | TEST | MIGRATION | CONFIG | DOCS`);
|
||||
|
||||
// ── Cross-reference against diff ──
|
||||
sections.push(`
|
||||
### Cross-Reference Against Diff
|
||||
|
||||
Run \`git diff origin/<base>...HEAD\` and \`git log origin/<base>..HEAD --oneline\` to understand what was implemented.
|
||||
|
||||
For each extracted plan item, check the diff and classify:
|
||||
|
||||
- **DONE** — Clear evidence in the diff that this item was implemented. Cite the specific file(s) changed.
|
||||
- **PARTIAL** — Some work toward this item exists in the diff but it's incomplete (e.g., model created but controller missing, function exists but edge cases not handled).
|
||||
- **NOT DONE** — No evidence in the diff that this item was addressed.
|
||||
- **CHANGED** — The item was implemented using a different approach than the plan described, but the same goal is achieved. Note the difference.
|
||||
|
||||
**Be conservative with DONE** — require clear evidence in the diff. A file being touched is not enough; the specific functionality described must be present.
|
||||
**Be generous with CHANGED** — if the goal is met by different means, that counts as addressed.`);
|
||||
|
||||
// ── Output format ──
|
||||
sections.push(`
|
||||
### Output Format
|
||||
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
PLAN COMPLETION AUDIT
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════
|
||||
Plan: {plan file path}
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Items
|
||||
[DONE] Create UserService — src/services/user_service.rb (+142 lines)
|
||||
[PARTIAL] Add validation — model validates but missing controller checks
|
||||
[NOT DONE] Add caching layer — no cache-related changes in diff
|
||||
[CHANGED] "Redis queue" → implemented with Sidekiq instead
|
||||
|
||||
## Test Items
|
||||
[DONE] Unit tests for UserService — test/services/user_service_test.rb
|
||||
[NOT DONE] E2E test for signup flow
|
||||
|
||||
## Migration Items
|
||||
[DONE] Create users table — db/migrate/20240315_create_users.rb
|
||||
|
||||
─────────────────────────────────
|
||||
COMPLETION: 4/7 DONE, 1 PARTIAL, 1 NOT DONE, 1 CHANGED
|
||||
─────────────────────────────────
|
||||
\`\`\``);
|
||||
|
||||
// ── Gate logic (mode-specific) ──
|
||||
if (mode === 'ship') {
|
||||
sections.push(`
|
||||
### Gate Logic
|
||||
|
||||
After producing the completion checklist:
|
||||
|
||||
- **All DONE or CHANGED:** Pass. "Plan completion: PASS — all items addressed." Continue.
|
||||
- **Only PARTIAL items (no NOT DONE):** Continue with a note in the PR body. Not blocking.
|
||||
- **Any NOT DONE items:** Use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
- Show the completion checklist above
|
||||
- "{N} items from the plan are NOT DONE. These were part of the original plan but are missing from the implementation."
|
||||
- RECOMMENDATION: depends on item count and severity. If 1-2 minor items (docs, config), recommend B. If core functionality is missing, recommend A.
|
||||
- Options:
|
||||
A) Stop — implement the missing items before shipping
|
||||
B) Ship anyway — defer these to a follow-up (will create P1 TODOs in Step 5.5)
|
||||
C) These items were intentionally dropped — remove from scope
|
||||
- If A: STOP. List the missing items for the user to implement.
|
||||
- If B: Continue. For each NOT DONE item, create a P1 TODO in Step 5.5 with "Deferred from plan: {plan file path}".
|
||||
- If C: Continue. Note in PR body: "Plan items intentionally dropped: {list}."
|
||||
|
||||
**No plan file found:** Skip entirely. "No plan file detected — skipping plan completion audit."
|
||||
|
||||
**Include in PR body (Step 8):** Add a \`## Plan Completion\` section with the checklist summary.`);
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
// review mode
|
||||
sections.push(`
|
||||
### Integration with Scope Drift Detection
|
||||
|
||||
The plan completion results augment the existing Scope Drift Detection. If a plan file is found:
|
||||
|
||||
- **NOT DONE items** become additional evidence for **MISSING REQUIREMENTS** in the scope drift report.
|
||||
- **Items in the diff that don't match any plan item** become evidence for **SCOPE CREEP** detection.
|
||||
|
||||
This is **INFORMATIONAL** — does not block the review (consistent with existing scope drift behavior).
|
||||
|
||||
Update the scope drift output to include plan file context:
|
||||
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
Scope Check: [CLEAN / DRIFT DETECTED / REQUIREMENTS MISSING]
|
||||
Intent: <from plan file — 1-line summary>
|
||||
Plan: <plan file path>
|
||||
Delivered: <1-line summary of what the diff actually does>
|
||||
Plan items: N DONE, M PARTIAL, K NOT DONE
|
||||
[If NOT DONE: list each missing item]
|
||||
[If scope creep: list each out-of-scope change not in the plan]
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
**No plan file found:** Fall back to existing scope drift behavior (check TODOS.md and PR description only).`);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return sections.join('\n');
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
export function generatePlanCompletionAuditShip(_ctx: TemplateContext): string {
|
||||
return generatePlanCompletionAuditInner('ship');
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
export function generatePlanCompletionAuditReview(_ctx: TemplateContext): string {
|
||||
return generatePlanCompletionAuditInner('review');
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// ─── Plan Verification Execution ──────────────────────────────────────
|
||||
|
||||
export function generatePlanVerificationExec(_ctx: TemplateContext): string {
|
||||
return `## Step 3.47: Plan Verification
|
||||
|
||||
Automatically verify the plan's testing/verification steps using the \`/qa-only\` skill.
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Check for verification section
|
||||
|
||||
Using the plan file already discovered in Step 3.45, look for a verification section. Match any of these headings: \`## Verification\`, \`## Test plan\`, \`## Testing\`, \`## How to test\`, \`## Manual testing\`, or any section with verification-flavored items (URLs to visit, things to check visually, interactions to test).
|
||||
|
||||
**If no verification section found:** Skip with "No verification steps found in plan — skipping auto-verification."
|
||||
**If no plan file was found in Step 3.45:** Skip (already handled).
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Check for running dev server
|
||||
|
||||
Before invoking browse-based verification, check if a dev server is reachable:
|
||||
|
||||
\`\`\`bash
|
||||
curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:3000 2>/dev/null || \\
|
||||
curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:8080 2>/dev/null || \\
|
||||
curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:5173 2>/dev/null || \\
|
||||
curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:4000 2>/dev/null || echo "NO_SERVER"
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
**If NO_SERVER:** Skip with "No dev server detected — skipping plan verification. Run /qa separately after deploying."
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Invoke /qa-only inline
|
||||
|
||||
Read the \`/qa-only\` skill from disk:
|
||||
|
||||
\`\`\`bash
|
||||
cat \${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../qa-only/SKILL.md
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
**If unreadable:** Skip with "Could not load /qa-only — skipping plan verification."
|
||||
|
||||
Follow the /qa-only workflow with these modifications:
|
||||
- **Skip the preamble** (already handled by /ship)
|
||||
- **Use the plan's verification section as the primary test input** — treat each verification item as a test case
|
||||
- **Use the detected dev server URL** as the base URL
|
||||
- **Skip the fix loop** — this is report-only verification during /ship
|
||||
- **Cap at the verification items from the plan** — do not expand into general site QA
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Gate logic
|
||||
|
||||
- **All verification items PASS:** Continue silently. "Plan verification: PASS."
|
||||
- **Any FAIL:** Use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
- Show the failures with screenshot evidence
|
||||
- RECOMMENDATION: Choose A if failures indicate broken functionality. Choose B if cosmetic only.
|
||||
- Options:
|
||||
A) Fix the failures before shipping (recommended for functional issues)
|
||||
B) Ship anyway — known issues (acceptable for cosmetic issues)
|
||||
- **No verification section / no server / unreadable skill:** Skip (non-blocking).
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Include in PR body
|
||||
|
||||
Add a \`## Verification Results\` section to the PR body (Step 8):
|
||||
- If verification ran: summary of results (N PASS, M FAIL, K SKIPPED)
|
||||
- If skipped: reason for skipping (no plan, no server, no verification section)`;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -454,7 +454,40 @@ find . -name '*.test.*' -o -name '*.spec.*' -o -name '*_test.*' -o -name '*_spec
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
For PR body: \`Tests: {before} → {after} (+{delta} new)\`
|
||||
Coverage line: \`Test Coverage Audit: N new code paths. M covered (X%). K tests generated, J committed.\``);
|
||||
Coverage line: \`Test Coverage Audit: N new code paths. M covered (X%). K tests generated, J committed.\`
|
||||
|
||||
**7. Coverage gate:**
|
||||
|
||||
Before proceeding, check CLAUDE.md for a \`## Test Coverage\` section with \`Minimum:\` and \`Target:\` fields. If found, use those percentages. Otherwise use defaults: Minimum = 60%, Target = 80%.
|
||||
|
||||
Using the coverage percentage from the diagram in substep 4 (the \`COVERAGE: X/Y (Z%)\` line):
|
||||
|
||||
- **>= target:** Pass. "Coverage gate: PASS ({X}%)." Continue.
|
||||
- **>= minimum, < target:** Use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
- "AI-assessed coverage is {X}%. {N} code paths are untested. Target is {target}%."
|
||||
- RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because untested code paths are where production bugs hide.
|
||||
- Options:
|
||||
A) Generate more tests for remaining gaps (recommended)
|
||||
B) Ship anyway — I accept the coverage risk
|
||||
C) These paths don't need tests — mark as intentionally uncovered
|
||||
- If A: Loop back to substep 5 (generate tests) targeting the remaining gaps. After second pass, if still below target, present AskUserQuestion again with updated numbers. Maximum 2 generation passes total.
|
||||
- If B: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: {X}% — user accepted risk."
|
||||
- If C: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: {X}% — {N} paths intentionally uncovered."
|
||||
|
||||
- **< minimum:** Use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
- "AI-assessed coverage is critically low ({X}%). {N} of {M} code paths have no tests. Minimum threshold is {minimum}%."
|
||||
- RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because less than {minimum}% means more code is untested than tested.
|
||||
- Options:
|
||||
A) Generate tests for remaining gaps (recommended)
|
||||
B) Override — ship with low coverage (I understand the risk)
|
||||
- If A: Loop back to substep 5. Maximum 2 passes. If still below minimum after 2 passes, present the override choice again.
|
||||
- If B: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: OVERRIDDEN at {X}%."
|
||||
|
||||
**Coverage percentage undetermined:** If the coverage diagram doesn't produce a clear numeric percentage (ambiguous output, parse error), **skip the gate** with: "Coverage gate: could not determine percentage — skipping." Do not default to 0% or block.
|
||||
|
||||
**Test-only diffs:** Skip the gate (same as the existing fast-path).
|
||||
|
||||
**100% coverage:** "Coverage gate: PASS (100%)." Continue.`);
|
||||
|
||||
// ── Test plan artifact (ship mode) ──
|
||||
sections.push(`
|
||||
@@ -504,7 +537,22 @@ If test framework is detected and gaps were identified:
|
||||
|
||||
If no test framework detected → include gaps as INFORMATIONAL findings only, no generation.
|
||||
|
||||
**Diff is test-only changes:** Skip Step 4.75 entirely: "No new application code paths to audit."`);
|
||||
**Diff is test-only changes:** Skip Step 4.75 entirely: "No new application code paths to audit."
|
||||
|
||||
### Coverage Warning
|
||||
|
||||
After producing the coverage diagram, check the coverage percentage. Read CLAUDE.md for a \`## Test Coverage\` section with a \`Minimum:\` field. If not found, use default: 60%.
|
||||
|
||||
If coverage is below the minimum threshold, output a prominent warning **before** the regular review findings:
|
||||
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
⚠️ COVERAGE WARNING: AI-assessed coverage is {X}%. {N} code paths untested.
|
||||
Consider writing tests before running /ship.
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
This is INFORMATIONAL — does not block /review. But it makes low coverage visible early so the developer can address it before reaching the /ship coverage gate.
|
||||
|
||||
If coverage percentage cannot be determined, skip the warning silently.`);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return sections.join('\n');
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -3,7 +3,6 @@ name: setup-browser-cookies
|
||||
preamble-tier: 1
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
MANUAL TRIGGER ONLY: invoke only when user types /setup-browser-cookies.
|
||||
Import cookies from your real Chromium browser into the headless browse session.
|
||||
Opens an interactive picker UI where you select which cookie domains to import.
|
||||
Use before QA testing authenticated pages. Use when asked to "import cookies",
|
||||
@@ -97,23 +96,112 @@ touch ~/.gstack/.telemetry-prompted
|
||||
|
||||
This only happens once. If `TEL_PROMPTED` is `yes`, skip this entirely.
|
||||
|
||||
## AskUserQuestion Format
|
||||
|
||||
**ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:**
|
||||
1. **Re-ground:** State the project, the current branch (use the `_BRANCH` value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
5. **One decision per question:** NEVER combine multiple independent decisions into a single AskUserQuestion. Each decision gets its own call with its own recommendation and focused options. Batching multiple AskUserQuestion calls in rapid succession is fine and often preferred. Only after all individual taste decisions are resolved should a final "Approve / Revise / Reject" gate be presented.
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- 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.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
|
||||
```
|
||||
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**WebSearch fallback:** If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Mode
|
||||
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -3,7 +3,6 @@ name: setup-deploy
|
||||
preamble-tier: 2
|
||||
version: 1.0.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
MANUAL TRIGGER ONLY: invoke only when user types /setup-deploy.
|
||||
Configure deployment settings for /land-and-deploy. Detects your deploy
|
||||
platform (Fly.io, Render, Vercel, Netlify, Heroku, GitHub Actions, custom),
|
||||
production URL, health check endpoints, and deploy status commands. Writes
|
||||
@@ -110,6 +109,7 @@ This only happens once. If `TEL_PROMPTED` is `yes`, skip this entirely.
|
||||
2. **Simplify:** Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
|
||||
3. **Recommend:** `RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]` — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
|
||||
4. **Options:** Lettered options: `A) ... B) ... C) ...` — when an option involves effort, show both scales: `(human: ~X / CC: ~Y)`
|
||||
5. **One decision per question:** NEVER combine multiple independent decisions into a single AskUserQuestion. Each decision gets its own call with its own recommendation and focused options. Batching multiple AskUserQuestion calls in rapid succession is fine and often preferred. Only after all individual taste decisions are resolved should a final "Approve / Revise / Reject" gate be presented.
|
||||
|
||||
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -117,36 +117,97 @@ Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseli
|
||||
|
||||
## Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
|
||||
|
||||
AI makes completeness near-free. Always recommend the complete option over shortcuts — the delta is minutes with CC+gstack. A "lake" (100% coverage, all edge cases) is boilable; an "ocean" (full rewrite, multi-quarter migration) is not. Boil lakes, flag oceans.
|
||||
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
|
||||
|
||||
**Effort reference** — always show both scales:
|
||||
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — **always recommend A**. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
|
||||
- **Lake vs. ocean:** A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
|
||||
- **When estimating effort**, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
|
||||
|
||||
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Boilerplate | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Tests | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
|
||||
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
|
||||
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
|
||||
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
|
||||
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
|
||||
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
|
||||
|
||||
Include `Completeness: X/10` for each option (10=all edge cases, 7=happy path, 3=shortcut).
|
||||
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:**
|
||||
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
|
||||
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
|
||||
- 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.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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**. At the end of each major workflow step, rate your gstack experience 0-10. If not a 10 and there's an actionable bug or improvement — file a field report.
|
||||
If `_CONTRIB` is `true`: you are in **contributor mode**. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
|
||||
|
||||
**File only:** gstack tooling bugs where the input was reasonable but gstack failed. **Skip:** user app bugs, network errors, auth failures on user's site.
|
||||
**At the end of each major workflow step** (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration — this is the bar:** For example, `$B js "await fetch(...)"` used to fail with `SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions` because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**NOT worth filing:** user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md` with **all sections below** (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
|
||||
|
||||
**To file:** write `~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md`:
|
||||
```
|
||||
# {Title}
|
||||
**What I tried:** {action} | **What happened:** {result} | **Rating:** {0-10}
|
||||
## Repro
|
||||
|
||||
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
|
||||
|
||||
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
|
||||
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
|
||||
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
|
||||
|
||||
## Steps to reproduce
|
||||
1. {step}
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence}
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw output
|
||||
```
|
||||
Slug: lowercase hyphens, max 60 chars. Skip if exists. Max 3/session. File inline, don't stop.
|
||||
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What would make this a 10
|
||||
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. `browse-js-no-await`). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion Status Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -32,6 +32,9 @@ You are running the `/ship` workflow. This is a **non-interactive, fully automat
|
||||
- Pre-landing review finds ASK items that need user judgment
|
||||
- MINOR or MAJOR version bump needed (ask — see Step 4)
|
||||
- Greptile review comments that need user decision (complex fixes, false positives)
|
||||
- AI-assessed coverage below minimum threshold (hard gate with user override — see Step 3.4)
|
||||
- Plan items NOT DONE with no user override (see Step 3.45)
|
||||
- Plan verification failures (see Step 3.47)
|
||||
- TODOS.md missing and user wants to create one (ask — see Step 5.5)
|
||||
- TODOS.md disorganized and user wants to reorganize (ask — see Step 5.5)
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -43,7 +46,7 @@ You are running the `/ship` workflow. This is a **non-interactive, fully automat
|
||||
- Multi-file changesets (auto-split into bisectable commits)
|
||||
- TODOS.md completed-item detection (auto-mark)
|
||||
- Auto-fixable review findings (dead code, N+1, stale comments — fixed automatically)
|
||||
- Test coverage gaps (auto-generate and commit, or flag in PR body)
|
||||
- Test coverage gaps within target threshold (auto-generate and commit, or flag in PR body)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -225,6 +228,16 @@ If multiple suites need to run, run them sequentially (each needs a test lane).
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 3.45: Plan Completion Audit
|
||||
|
||||
{{PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT_SHIP}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
{{PLAN_VERIFICATION_EXEC}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 3.5: Pre-Landing Review
|
||||
|
||||
Review the diff for structural issues that tests don't catch.
|
||||
@@ -500,6 +513,16 @@ gh pr create --base <base> --title "<type>: <summary>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
|
||||
<If no Greptile comments found: "No Greptile comments.">
|
||||
<If no PR existed during Step 3.75: omit this section entirely>
|
||||
|
||||
## Plan Completion
|
||||
<If plan file found: completion checklist summary from Step 3.45>
|
||||
<If no plan file: "No plan file detected.">
|
||||
<If plan items deferred: list deferred items>
|
||||
|
||||
## Verification Results
|
||||
<If verification ran: summary from Step 3.47 (N PASS, M FAIL, K SKIPPED)>
|
||||
<If skipped: reason (no plan, no server, no verification section)>
|
||||
<If not applicable: omit this section>
|
||||
|
||||
## TODOS
|
||||
<If items marked complete: bullet list of completed items with version>
|
||||
<If no items completed: "No TODO items completed in this PR.">
|
||||
@@ -540,6 +563,32 @@ doc updates — the user runs `/ship` and documentation stays current without a
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 8.75: Persist ship metrics
|
||||
|
||||
Log coverage and plan completion data so `/retro` can track trends:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)" && mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Append to `~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/$BRANCH-reviews.jsonl`:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
echo '{"skill":"ship","timestamp":"'"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"'","coverage_pct":COVERAGE_PCT,"plan_items_total":PLAN_TOTAL,"plan_items_done":PLAN_DONE,"verification_result":"VERIFY_RESULT","version":"VERSION","branch":"BRANCH"}' >> ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/$BRANCH-reviews.jsonl
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Substitute from earlier steps:
|
||||
- **COVERAGE_PCT**: coverage percentage from Step 3.4 diagram (integer, or -1 if undetermined)
|
||||
- **PLAN_TOTAL**: total plan items extracted in Step 3.45 (0 if no plan file)
|
||||
- **PLAN_DONE**: count of DONE + CHANGED items from Step 3.45 (0 if no plan file)
|
||||
- **VERIFY_RESULT**: "pass", "fail", or "skipped" from Step 3.47
|
||||
- **VERSION**: from the VERSION file
|
||||
- **BRANCH**: current branch name
|
||||
|
||||
This step is automatic — never skip it, never ask for confirmation.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Important Rules
|
||||
|
||||
- **Never skip tests.** If tests fail, stop.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -152,24 +152,6 @@ describe('gen-skill-docs', () => {
|
||||
}
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('every Codex SKILL.md description stays under 900-char warning threshold', () => {
|
||||
const WARN_THRESHOLD = 900;
|
||||
const agentsDir = path.join(ROOT, '.agents', 'skills');
|
||||
if (!fs.existsSync(agentsDir)) return;
|
||||
const violations: string[] = [];
|
||||
for (const entry of fs.readdirSync(agentsDir, { withFileTypes: true })) {
|
||||
if (!entry.isDirectory()) continue;
|
||||
const skillMd = path.join(agentsDir, entry.name, 'SKILL.md');
|
||||
if (!fs.existsSync(skillMd)) continue;
|
||||
const content = fs.readFileSync(skillMd, 'utf-8');
|
||||
const description = extractDescription(content);
|
||||
if (description.length > WARN_THRESHOLD) {
|
||||
violations.push(`${entry.name}: ${description.length} chars (limit ${MAX_SKILL_DESCRIPTION_LENGTH}, ${MAX_SKILL_DESCRIPTION_LENGTH - description.length} remaining)`);
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
expect(violations).toEqual([]);
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('package.json version matches VERSION file', () => {
|
||||
const pkg = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'package.json'), 'utf-8'));
|
||||
const version = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'VERSION'), 'utf-8').trim();
|
||||
@@ -695,6 +677,168 @@ describe('PLAN_FILE_REVIEW_REPORT resolver', () => {
|
||||
});
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
// --- {{PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT}} resolver tests ---
|
||||
|
||||
describe('PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT placeholders', () => {
|
||||
const shipSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
|
||||
const reviewSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'review', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
|
||||
|
||||
test('ship SKILL.md contains plan completion audit step', () => {
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Plan Completion Audit');
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Step 3.45');
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('review SKILL.md contains plan completion in scope drift', () => {
|
||||
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Plan File Discovery');
|
||||
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Actionable Item Extraction');
|
||||
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Integration with Scope Drift Detection');
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('both modes share plan file discovery methodology', () => {
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Plan File Discovery');
|
||||
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Plan File Discovery');
|
||||
// Both should have conversation context first
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Conversation context (primary)');
|
||||
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Conversation context (primary)');
|
||||
// Both should have grep fallback
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Content-based search (fallback)');
|
||||
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Content-based search (fallback)');
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('ship mode has gate logic for NOT DONE items', () => {
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('NOT DONE');
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Stop — implement the missing items');
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Ship anyway — defer');
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('intentionally dropped');
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('review mode is INFORMATIONAL only', () => {
|
||||
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('INFORMATIONAL');
|
||||
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('MISSING REQUIREMENTS');
|
||||
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('SCOPE CREEP');
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('item extraction has 50-item cap', () => {
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('at most 50 items');
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('uses file-level traceability (not commit-level)', () => {
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Cite the specific file');
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).not.toContain('commit-level traceability');
|
||||
});
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
// --- {{PLAN_VERIFICATION_EXEC}} resolver tests ---
|
||||
|
||||
describe('PLAN_VERIFICATION_EXEC placeholder', () => {
|
||||
const shipSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
|
||||
|
||||
test('ship SKILL.md contains plan verification step', () => {
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Step 3.47');
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Plan Verification');
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('references /qa-only invocation', () => {
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('qa-only/SKILL.md');
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('qa-only');
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('contains localhost reachability check', () => {
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('localhost:3000');
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('NO_SERVER');
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('skips gracefully when no verification section', () => {
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('No verification steps found in plan');
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('skips gracefully when no dev server', () => {
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('No dev server detected');
|
||||
});
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
// --- Coverage gate tests ---
|
||||
|
||||
describe('Coverage gate in ship', () => {
|
||||
const shipSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
|
||||
const reviewSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'review', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
|
||||
|
||||
test('ship SKILL.md contains coverage gate with thresholds', () => {
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Coverage gate');
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('>= target');
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('< minimum');
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('ship SKILL.md supports configurable thresholds via CLAUDE.md', () => {
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('## Test Coverage');
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Minimum:');
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Target:');
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('coverage gate skips on parse failure (not block)', () => {
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('could not determine percentage — skipping');
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('review SKILL.md contains coverage WARNING', () => {
|
||||
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('COVERAGE WARNING');
|
||||
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Consider writing tests before running /ship');
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('review coverage warning is INFORMATIONAL', () => {
|
||||
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('INFORMATIONAL');
|
||||
});
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
// --- Ship metrics logging ---
|
||||
|
||||
describe('Ship metrics logging', () => {
|
||||
const shipSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
|
||||
|
||||
test('ship SKILL.md contains metrics persistence step', () => {
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Step 8.75');
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('coverage_pct');
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('plan_items_total');
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('plan_items_done');
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('verification_result');
|
||||
});
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
// --- Plan file discovery shared helper ---
|
||||
|
||||
describe('Plan file discovery shared helper', () => {
|
||||
// The shared helper should appear in ship (via PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT_SHIP)
|
||||
// and in review (via PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT_REVIEW)
|
||||
const shipSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
|
||||
const reviewSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'review', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
|
||||
|
||||
test('plan file discovery appears in both ship and review', () => {
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Plan File Discovery');
|
||||
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Plan File Discovery');
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('both include conversation context first', () => {
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Conversation context (primary)');
|
||||
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Conversation context (primary)');
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('both include content-based fallback', () => {
|
||||
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Content-based search (fallback)');
|
||||
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Content-based search (fallback)');
|
||||
});
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
// --- Retro plan completion ---
|
||||
|
||||
describe('Retro plan completion section', () => {
|
||||
const retroSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'retro', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
|
||||
|
||||
test('retro SKILL.md contains plan completion section', () => {
|
||||
expect(retroSkill).toContain('### Plan Completion');
|
||||
expect(retroSkill).toContain('plan_items_total');
|
||||
expect(retroSkill).toContain('Plan Completion This Period');
|
||||
});
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
// --- Plan status footer in preamble ---
|
||||
|
||||
describe('Plan status footer in preamble', () => {
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ export async function finalizeEvalCollector(evalCollector: EvalCollector | null)
|
||||
if (evalsEnabled) {
|
||||
const gstackDir = path.join(os.homedir(), '.gstack');
|
||||
fs.mkdirSync(gstackDir, { recursive: true });
|
||||
for (const f of ['.completeness-intro-seen', '.telemetry-prompted']) {
|
||||
for (const f of ['.completeness-intro-seen', '.telemetry-prompted', '.proactive-prompted']) {
|
||||
const p = path.join(gstackDir, f);
|
||||
if (!fs.existsSync(p)) fs.writeFileSync(p, '');
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -107,12 +107,17 @@ export const E2E_TOUCHFILES: Record<string, string[]> = {
|
||||
'gemini-review-findings': ['review/**', '.agents/skills/gstack-review/**', 'test/helpers/gemini-session-runner.ts', 'lib/worktree.ts'],
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
// Coverage audit (shared fixture) + triage
|
||||
// Coverage audit (shared fixture) + triage + gates
|
||||
'ship-coverage-audit': ['ship/**', 'test/fixtures/coverage-audit-fixture.ts', 'bin/gstack-repo-mode'],
|
||||
'review-coverage-audit': ['review/**', 'test/fixtures/coverage-audit-fixture.ts'],
|
||||
'plan-eng-coverage-audit': ['plan-eng-review/**', 'test/fixtures/coverage-audit-fixture.ts'],
|
||||
'ship-triage': ['ship/**', 'bin/gstack-repo-mode'],
|
||||
|
||||
// Plan completion audit + verification
|
||||
'ship-plan-completion': ['ship/**', 'scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts'],
|
||||
'ship-plan-verification': ['ship/**', 'qa-only/**', 'scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts'],
|
||||
'review-plan-completion': ['review/**', 'scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts'],
|
||||
|
||||
// Design
|
||||
'design-consultation-core': ['design-consultation/**', 'scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts', 'test/helpers/llm-judge.ts'],
|
||||
'design-consultation-existing': ['design-consultation/**', 'scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts'],
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -2,7 +2,6 @@
|
||||
name: unfreeze
|
||||
version: 0.1.0
|
||||
description: |
|
||||
MANUAL TRIGGER ONLY: invoke only when user types /unfreeze.
|
||||
Clear the freeze boundary set by /freeze, allowing edits to all directories
|
||||
again. Use when you want to widen edit scope without ending the session.
|
||||
Use when asked to "unfreeze", "unlock edits", "remove freeze", or
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user