@howlil/ez-agents 2.0.0 → 2.0.1

package/get-shit-done/workflows/insert-phase.md

@@ -1,130 +1,130 @@
-<purpose>
-Insert a decimal phase for urgent work discovered mid-milestone between existing integer phases. Uses decimal numbering (72.1, 72.2, etc.) to preserve the logical sequence of planned phases while accommodating urgent insertions without renumbering the entire roadmap.
-</purpose>
-
-<required_reading>
-Read all files referenced by the invoking prompt's execution_context before starting.
-</required_reading>
-
-<process>
-
-<step name="parse_arguments">
-Parse the command arguments:
-- First argument: integer phase number to insert after
-- Remaining arguments: phase description
-
-Example: `/ez:insert-phase 72 Fix critical auth bug`
--> after = 72
--> description = "Fix critical auth bug"
-
-If arguments missing:
-
-```
-ERROR: Both phase number and description required
-Usage: /ez:insert-phase <after> <description>
-Example: /ez:insert-phase 72 Fix critical auth bug
-```
-
-Exit.
-
-Validate first argument is an integer.
-</step>
-
-<step name="init_context">
-Load phase operation context:
-
-```bash
-INIT=$(node "$HOME/.claude/ez-agents/bin/ez-tools.cjs" init phase-op "${after_phase}")
-if [[ "$INIT" == @file:* ]]; then INIT=$(cat "${INIT#@file:}"); fi
-```
-
-Check `roadmap_exists` from init JSON. If false:
-```
-ERROR: No roadmap found (.planning/ROADMAP.md)
-```
-Exit.
-</step>
-
-<step name="insert_phase">
-**Delegate the phase insertion to gsd-tools:**
-
-```bash
-RESULT=$(node "$HOME/.claude/ez-agents/bin/ez-tools.cjs" phase insert "${after_phase}" "${description}")
-```
-
-The CLI handles:
-- Verifying target phase exists in ROADMAP.md
-- Calculating next decimal phase number (checking existing decimals on disk)
-- Generating slug from description
-- Creating the phase directory (`.planning/phases/{N.M}-{slug}/`)
-- Inserting the phase entry into ROADMAP.md after the target phase with (INSERTED) marker
-
-Extract from result: `phase_number`, `after_phase`, `name`, `slug`, `directory`.
-</step>
-
-<step name="update_project_state">
-Update STATE.md to reflect the inserted phase:
-
-1. Read `.planning/STATE.md`
-2. Under "## Accumulated Context" → "### Roadmap Evolution" add entry:
-   ```
-   - Phase {decimal_phase} inserted after Phase {after_phase}: {description} (URGENT)
-   ```
-
-If "Roadmap Evolution" section doesn't exist, create it.
-</step>
-
-<step name="completion">
-Present completion summary:
-
-```
-Phase {decimal_phase} inserted after Phase {after_phase}:
-- Description: {description}
-- Directory: .planning/phases/{decimal-phase}-{slug}/
-- Status: Not planned yet
-- Marker: (INSERTED) - indicates urgent work
-
-Roadmap updated: .planning/ROADMAP.md
-Project state updated: .planning/STATE.md
-
----
-
-## Next Up
-
-**Phase {decimal_phase}: {description}** -- urgent insertion
-
-`/ez:plan-phase {decimal_phase}`
-
-<sub>`/clear` first -> fresh context window</sub>
-
----
-
-**Also available:**
-- Review insertion impact: Check if Phase {next_integer} dependencies still make sense
-- Review roadmap
-
----
-```
-</step>
-
-</process>
-
-<anti_patterns>
-
-- Don't use this for planned work at end of milestone (use /ez:add-phase)
-- Don't insert before Phase 1 (decimal 0.1 makes no sense)
-- Don't renumber existing phases
-- Don't modify the target phase content
-- Don't create plans yet (that's /ez:plan-phase)
-- Don't commit changes (user decides when to commit)
-</anti_patterns>
-
-<success_criteria>
-Phase insertion is complete when:
-
-- [ ] `gsd-tools phase insert` executed successfully
-- [ ] Phase directory created
-- [ ] Roadmap updated with new phase entry (includes "(INSERTED)" marker)
-- [ ] STATE.md updated with roadmap evolution note
-- [ ] User informed of next steps and dependency implications
-</success_criteria>
+<purpose>
+Insert a decimal phase for urgent work discovered mid-milestone between existing integer phases. Uses decimal numbering (72.1, 72.2, etc.) to preserve the logical sequence of planned phases while accommodating urgent insertions without renumbering the entire roadmap.
+</purpose>
+
+<required_reading>
+Read all files referenced by the invoking prompt's execution_context before starting.
+</required_reading>
+
+<process>
+
+<step name="parse_arguments">
+Parse the command arguments:
+- First argument: integer phase number to insert after
+- Remaining arguments: phase description
+
+Example: `/ez:insert-phase 72 Fix critical auth bug`
+-> after = 72
+-> description = "Fix critical auth bug"
+
+If arguments missing:
+
+```
+ERROR: Both phase number and description required
+Usage: /ez:insert-phase <after> <description>
+Example: /ez:insert-phase 72 Fix critical auth bug
+```
+
+Exit.
+
+Validate first argument is an integer.
+</step>
+
+<step name="init_context">
+Load phase operation context:
+
+```bash
+INIT=$(node "$HOME/.claude/ez-agents/bin/ez-tools.cjs" init phase-op "${after_phase}")
+if [[ "$INIT" == @file:* ]]; then INIT=$(cat "${INIT#@file:}"); fi
+```
+
+Check `roadmap_exists` from init JSON. If false:
+```
+ERROR: No roadmap found (.planning/ROADMAP.md)
+```
+Exit.
+</step>
+
+<step name="insert_phase">
+**Delegate the phase insertion to gsd-tools:**
+
+```bash
+RESULT=$(node "$HOME/.claude/ez-agents/bin/ez-tools.cjs" phase insert "${after_phase}" "${description}")
+```
+
+The CLI handles:
+- Verifying target phase exists in ROADMAP.md
+- Calculating next decimal phase number (checking existing decimals on disk)
+- Generating slug from description
+- Creating the phase directory (`.planning/phases/{N.M}-{slug}/`)
+- Inserting the phase entry into ROADMAP.md after the target phase with (INSERTED) marker
+
+Extract from result: `phase_number`, `after_phase`, `name`, `slug`, `directory`.
+</step>
+
+<step name="update_project_state">
+Update STATE.md to reflect the inserted phase:
+
+1. Read `.planning/STATE.md`
+2. Under "## Accumulated Context" → "### Roadmap Evolution" add entry:
+   ```
+   - Phase {decimal_phase} inserted after Phase {after_phase}: {description} (URGENT)
+   ```
+
+If "Roadmap Evolution" section doesn't exist, create it.
+</step>
+
+<step name="completion">
+Present completion summary:
+
+```
+Phase {decimal_phase} inserted after Phase {after_phase}:
+- Description: {description}
+- Directory: .planning/phases/{decimal-phase}-{slug}/
+- Status: Not planned yet
+- Marker: (INSERTED) - indicates urgent work
+
+Roadmap updated: .planning/ROADMAP.md
+Project state updated: .planning/STATE.md
+
+---
+
+## Next Up
+
+**Phase {decimal_phase}: {description}** -- urgent insertion
+
+`/ez:plan-phase {decimal_phase}`
+
+<sub>`/clear` first -> fresh context window</sub>
+
+---
+
+**Also available:**
+- Review insertion impact: Check if Phase {next_integer} dependencies still make sense
+- Review roadmap
+
+---
+```
+</step>
+
+</process>
+
+<anti_patterns>
+
+- Don't use this for planned work at end of milestone (use /ez:add-phase)
+- Don't insert before Phase 1 (decimal 0.1 makes no sense)
+- Don't renumber existing phases
+- Don't modify the target phase content
+- Don't create plans yet (that's /ez:plan-phase)
+- Don't commit changes (user decides when to commit)
+</anti_patterns>
+
+<success_criteria>
+Phase insertion is complete when:
+
+- [ ] `gsd-tools phase insert` executed successfully
+- [ ] Phase directory created
+- [ ] Roadmap updated with new phase entry (includes "(INSERTED)" marker)
+- [ ] STATE.md updated with roadmap evolution note
+- [ ] User informed of next steps and dependency implications
+</success_criteria>

package/get-shit-done/workflows/list-phase-assumptions.md

@@ -1,178 +1,178 @@
-<purpose>
-Surface Claude's assumptions about a phase before planning, enabling users to correct misconceptions early.
-
-Key difference from discuss-phase: This is ANALYSIS of what Claude thinks, not INTAKE of what user knows. No file output - purely conversational to prompt discussion.
-</purpose>
-
-<process>
-
-<step name="validate_phase" priority="first">
-Phase number: $ARGUMENTS (required)
-
-**If argument missing:**
-
-```
-Error: Phase number required.
-
-Usage: /ez:list-phase-assumptions [phase-number]
-Example: /ez:list-phase-assumptions 3
-```
-
-Exit workflow.
-
-**If argument provided:**
-Validate phase exists in roadmap:
-
-```bash
-cat .planning/ROADMAP.md | grep -i "Phase ${PHASE}"
-```
-
-**If phase not found:**
-
-```
-Error: Phase ${PHASE} not found in roadmap.
-
-Available phases:
-[list phases from roadmap]
-```
-
-Exit workflow.
-
-**If phase found:**
-Parse phase details from roadmap:
-
-- Phase number
-- Phase name
-- Phase description/goal
-- Any scope details mentioned
-
-Continue to analyze_phase.
-</step>
-
-<step name="analyze_phase">
-Based on roadmap description and project context, identify assumptions across five areas:
-
-**1. Technical Approach:**
-What libraries, frameworks, patterns, or tools would Claude use?
-- "I'd use X library because..."
-- "I'd follow Y pattern because..."
-- "I'd structure this as Z because..."
-
-**2. Implementation Order:**
-What would Claude build first, second, third?
-- "I'd start with X because it's foundational"
-- "Then Y because it depends on X"
-- "Finally Z because..."
-
-**3. Scope Boundaries:**
-What's included vs excluded in Claude's interpretation?
-- "This phase includes: A, B, C"
-- "This phase does NOT include: D, E, F"
-- "Boundary ambiguities: G could go either way"
-
-**4. Risk Areas:**
-Where does Claude expect complexity or challenges?
-- "The tricky part is X because..."
-- "Potential issues: Y, Z"
-- "I'd watch out for..."
-
-**5. Dependencies:**
-What does Claude assume exists or needs to be in place?
-- "This assumes X from previous phases"
-- "External dependencies: Y, Z"
-- "This will be consumed by..."
-
-Be honest about uncertainty. Mark assumptions with confidence levels:
-- "Fairly confident: ..." (clear from roadmap)
-- "Assuming: ..." (reasonable inference)
-- "Unclear: ..." (could go multiple ways)
-</step>
-
-<step name="present_assumptions">
-Present assumptions in a clear, scannable format:
-
-```
-## My Assumptions for Phase ${PHASE}: ${PHASE_NAME}
-
-### Technical Approach
-[List assumptions about how to implement]
-
-### Implementation Order
-[List assumptions about sequencing]
-
-### Scope Boundaries
-**In scope:** [what's included]
-**Out of scope:** [what's excluded]
-**Ambiguous:** [what could go either way]
-
-### Risk Areas
-[List anticipated challenges]
-
-### Dependencies
-**From prior phases:** [what's needed]
-**External:** [third-party needs]
-**Feeds into:** [what future phases need from this]
-
----
-
-**What do you think?**
-
-Are these assumptions accurate? Let me know:
-- What I got right
-- What I got wrong
-- What I'm missing
-```
-
-Wait for user response.
-</step>
-
-<step name="gather_feedback">
-**If user provides corrections:**
-
-Acknowledge the corrections:
-
-```
-Key corrections:
-- [correction 1]
-- [correction 2]
-
-This changes my understanding significantly. [Summarize new understanding]
-```
-
-**If user confirms assumptions:**
-
-```
-Assumptions validated.
-```
-
-Continue to offer_next.
-</step>
-
-<step name="offer_next">
-Present next steps:
-
-```
-What's next?
-1. Discuss context (/ez:discuss-phase ${PHASE}) - Let me ask you questions to build comprehensive context
-2. Plan this phase (/ez:plan-phase ${PHASE}) - Create detailed execution plans
-3. Re-examine assumptions - I'll analyze again with your corrections
-4. Done for now
-```
-
-Wait for user selection.
-
-If "Discuss context": Note that CONTEXT.md will incorporate any corrections discussed here
-If "Plan this phase": Proceed knowing assumptions are understood
-If "Re-examine": Return to analyze_phase with updated understanding
-</step>
-
-</process>
-
-<success_criteria>
-- Phase number validated against roadmap
-- Assumptions surfaced across five areas: technical approach, implementation order, scope, risks, dependencies
-- Confidence levels marked where appropriate
-- "What do you think?" prompt presented
-- User feedback acknowledged
-- Clear next steps offered
-</success_criteria>
+<purpose>
+Surface Claude's assumptions about a phase before planning, enabling users to correct misconceptions early.
+
+Key difference from discuss-phase: This is ANALYSIS of what Claude thinks, not INTAKE of what user knows. No file output - purely conversational to prompt discussion.
+</purpose>
+
+<process>
+
+<step name="validate_phase" priority="first">
+Phase number: $ARGUMENTS (required)
+
+**If argument missing:**
+
+```
+Error: Phase number required.
+
+Usage: /ez:list-phase-assumptions [phase-number]
+Example: /ez:list-phase-assumptions 3
+```
+
+Exit workflow.
+
+**If argument provided:**
+Validate phase exists in roadmap:
+
+```bash
+cat .planning/ROADMAP.md | grep -i "Phase ${PHASE}"
+```
+
+**If phase not found:**
+
+```
+Error: Phase ${PHASE} not found in roadmap.
+
+Available phases:
+[list phases from roadmap]
+```
+
+Exit workflow.
+
+**If phase found:**
+Parse phase details from roadmap:
+
+- Phase number
+- Phase name
+- Phase description/goal
+- Any scope details mentioned
+
+Continue to analyze_phase.
+</step>
+
+<step name="analyze_phase">
+Based on roadmap description and project context, identify assumptions across five areas:
+
+**1. Technical Approach:**
+What libraries, frameworks, patterns, or tools would Claude use?
+- "I'd use X library because..."
+- "I'd follow Y pattern because..."
+- "I'd structure this as Z because..."
+
+**2. Implementation Order:**
+What would Claude build first, second, third?
+- "I'd start with X because it's foundational"
+- "Then Y because it depends on X"
+- "Finally Z because..."
+
+**3. Scope Boundaries:**
+What's included vs excluded in Claude's interpretation?
+- "This phase includes: A, B, C"
+- "This phase does NOT include: D, E, F"
+- "Boundary ambiguities: G could go either way"
+
+**4. Risk Areas:**
+Where does Claude expect complexity or challenges?
+- "The tricky part is X because..."
+- "Potential issues: Y, Z"
+- "I'd watch out for..."
+
+**5. Dependencies:**
+What does Claude assume exists or needs to be in place?
+- "This assumes X from previous phases"
+- "External dependencies: Y, Z"
+- "This will be consumed by..."
+
+Be honest about uncertainty. Mark assumptions with confidence levels:
+- "Fairly confident: ..." (clear from roadmap)
+- "Assuming: ..." (reasonable inference)
+- "Unclear: ..." (could go multiple ways)
+</step>
+
+<step name="present_assumptions">
+Present assumptions in a clear, scannable format:
+
+```
+## My Assumptions for Phase ${PHASE}: ${PHASE_NAME}
+
+### Technical Approach
+[List assumptions about how to implement]
+
+### Implementation Order
+[List assumptions about sequencing]
+
+### Scope Boundaries
+**In scope:** [what's included]
+**Out of scope:** [what's excluded]
+**Ambiguous:** [what could go either way]
+
+### Risk Areas
+[List anticipated challenges]
+
+### Dependencies
+**From prior phases:** [what's needed]
+**External:** [third-party needs]
+**Feeds into:** [what future phases need from this]
+
+---
+
+**What do you think?**
+
+Are these assumptions accurate? Let me know:
+- What I got right
+- What I got wrong
+- What I'm missing
+```
+
+Wait for user response.
+</step>
+
+<step name="gather_feedback">
+**If user provides corrections:**
+
+Acknowledge the corrections:
+
+```
+Key corrections:
+- [correction 1]
+- [correction 2]
+
+This changes my understanding significantly. [Summarize new understanding]
+```
+
+**If user confirms assumptions:**
+
+```
+Assumptions validated.
+```
+
+Continue to offer_next.
+</step>
+
+<step name="offer_next">
+Present next steps:
+
+```
+What's next?
+1. Discuss context (/ez:discuss-phase ${PHASE}) - Let me ask you questions to build comprehensive context
+2. Plan this phase (/ez:plan-phase ${PHASE}) - Create detailed execution plans
+3. Re-examine assumptions - I'll analyze again with your corrections
+4. Done for now
+```
+
+Wait for user selection.
+
+If "Discuss context": Note that CONTEXT.md will incorporate any corrections discussed here
+If "Plan this phase": Proceed knowing assumptions are understood
+If "Re-examine": Return to analyze_phase with updated understanding
+</step>
+
+</process>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- Phase number validated against roadmap
+- Assumptions surfaced across five areas: technical approach, implementation order, scope, risks, dependencies
+- Confidence levels marked where appropriate
+- "What do you think?" prompt presented
+- User feedback acknowledged
+- Clear next steps offered
+</success_criteria>