get-shit-done-cc 1.3.20 → 1.3.22

package/get-shit-done/references/plan-format.md

@@ -243,42 +243,30 @@ Use for: Technology selection, architecture decisions, design choices, feature p
 See `./checkpoints.md` for comprehensive checkpoint guidance.
 </task_types>
 
-<tdd_annotation>
-Tasks can include `tdd="true"` attribute when TDD improves quality:
+<tdd_plans>
+**TDD work uses dedicated plans.**
 
-**Structure:**
-```xml
-<task type="auto" tdd="true">
-  <name>Task N: [Name]</name>
-  <files>[paths]</files>
-  <test-first>[What test to write first - the failing assertion]</test-first>
-  <action>[Implementation to make test pass]</action>
-  <verify>[Tests pass, behavior works]</verify>
-  <done>[Criteria]</done>
-</task>
-```
+TDD features require 2-3 execution cycles (RED → GREEN → REFACTOR), each with file reads, test runs, and potential debugging. This is fundamentally heavier than standard tasks and would consume 50-60% of context if embedded in a multi-task plan.
 
-**When to add tdd="true":**
+**When to create a TDD plan:**
 - Business logic with defined inputs/outputs
 - API endpoints with request/response contracts
 - Data transformations and parsing
 - Validation rules
 - Algorithms with testable behavior
 
-**When NOT to add tdd="true":**
+**When to use standard plans (skip TDD):**
 - UI layout and styling
 - Configuration changes
 - Glue code connecting existing components
 - One-off scripts
 
-**Execution flow (when tdd="true"):**
-1. Claude writes failing test from `<test-first>`
-2. Claude implements from `<action>` until test passes
-3. Claude refactors if needed (tests still pass)
-4. Claude commits atomic change
+**Heuristic:** Can you write `expect(fn(input)).toBe(output)` before writing `fn`?
+→ Yes: Create a TDD plan (one feature per plan)
+→ No: Use standard plan, add tests after if needed
 
-See `./tdd.md` for comprehensive TDD guidance.
-</tdd_annotation>
+See `./tdd.md` for TDD plan structure and execution guidance.
+</tdd_plans>
 
 <context_references>
 Use @file references to load context for the prompt:
@@ -384,25 +372,11 @@ Claude: "How? What type? What library? Where?"
 Claude can implement this immediately.
 </just_right>
 
-<tdd_example>
-TDD task example:
-
-```xml
-<task type="auto" tdd="true">
-  <name>Task 2: Create email validation utility</name>
-  <files>src/lib/validation.ts, src/lib/validation.test.ts</files>
-  <test-first>
-    Test: isValidEmail returns true for valid emails, false for invalid
-    Cases: "user@example.com" → true, "invalid" → false, "" → false, "user@" → false
-  </test-first>
-  <action>Implement isValidEmail using regex pattern. Handle edge cases: empty string, missing @, missing domain.</action>
-  <verify>npm test -- validation.test.ts passes all cases</verify>
-  <done>Email validation works for all edge cases, tests document behavior</done>
-</task>
-```
+<note_on_tdd>
+**TDD candidates get dedicated plans.**
 
-Claude executes this with RED → GREEN → REFACTOR cycle, producing atomic commits.
-</tdd_example>
+If email validation warrants TDD, create a TDD plan for it. See `./tdd.md` for TDD plan structure.
+</note_on_tdd>
 
 <too_detailed>
 Writing the actual code in the plan. Trust Claude to implement from clear instructions.

package/get-shit-done/references/principles.md

@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ Plans are guides, not straitjackets. During execution:
 
 Use TDD when the work WOULD benefit from it. Not dogma—pragmatism.
 
-**TDD candidates (write test first):**
+**TDD candidates (create dedicated TDD plan):**
 - Business logic with defined inputs/outputs
 - API endpoints and handlers
 - Data transformations and parsing
@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ Use TDD when the work WOULD benefit from it. Not dogma—pragmatism.
 - State machines and workflows
 - Anything where you can describe expected behavior before implementing
 
-**Skip TDD for:**
+**Skip TDD (use standard plan):**
 - UI layout and styling
 - Exploratory prototyping
 - One-off scripts and migrations
@@ -94,16 +94,20 @@ Use TDD when the work WOULD benefit from it. Not dogma—pragmatism.
 
 **Decision heuristic:**
 Can you write `expect(fn(input)).toBe(output)` before writing `fn`?
-→ Yes: TDD will help
-→ No: Write implementation first, add tests after if needed
+→ Yes: Create a TDD plan (one feature per plan)
+→ No: Standard plan, add tests after if needed
 
-**TDD task structure:**
-When TDD applies, structure tasks as test-first:
-1. Write failing test (red)
-2. Implement to pass (green)
-3. Refactor if needed
+**Why TDD gets its own plan:**
+TDD requires 2-3 execution cycles (RED → GREEN → REFACTOR), each with file reads, test runs, and potential debugging. This consumes 40-50% of context for a single feature. Dedicated TDD plans ensure full quality throughout the cycle.
+
+**TDD plan structure:**
+1. Write failing test (RED) → commit
+2. Implement to pass (GREEN) → commit
+3. Refactor if needed → commit
 
 This is about design quality, not test coverage metrics.
+
+See `~/.claude/get-shit-done/references/tdd.md` for TDD plan structure.
 </test_driven_when_beneficial>
 
 <ship_fast>

package/get-shit-done/references/scope-estimation.md

@@ -38,6 +38,27 @@ Why 50% not 80%?
 **When in doubt: Default to 2 tasks.** Better to have an extra plan than degraded quality.
 </task_rule>
 
+<tdd_plans>
+**TDD features get their own plans. Target ~40% context.**
+
+TDD requires 2-3 execution cycles (RED → GREEN → REFACTOR), each with file reads, test runs, and potential debugging. This is fundamentally heavier than linear task execution.
+
+| TDD Feature Complexity | Context Usage |
+|------------------------|---------------|
+| Simple utility function | ~25-30% |
+| Business logic with edge cases | ~35-40% |
+| Complex algorithm | ~40-50% |
+
+**One feature per TDD plan.** If features are trivial enough to batch, they're trivial enough to skip TDD.
+
+**Why TDD plans are separate:**
+- TDD consumes 40-50% context for a single feature
+- Dedicated plans ensure full quality throughout RED-GREEN-REFACTOR
+- Each TDD feature gets fresh context, peak quality
+
+See `~/.claude/get-shit-done/references/tdd.md` for TDD plan structure.
+</tdd_plans>
+
 <split_signals>
 
 <always_split>

package/get-shit-done/references/tdd.md

@@ -2,12 +2,14 @@
 TDD is about design quality, not coverage metrics. The red-green-refactor cycle forces you to think about behavior before implementation, producing cleaner interfaces and more testable code.
 
 **Principle:** If you can describe the behavior as `expect(fn(input)).toBe(output)` before writing `fn`, TDD improves the result.
+
+**Key insight:** TDD work is fundamentally heavier than standard tasks—it requires 2-3 execution cycles (RED → GREEN → REFACTOR), each with file reads, test runs, and potential debugging. TDD features get dedicated plans to ensure full context is available throughout the cycle.
 </overview>
 
-<detection>
+<when_to_use_tdd>
 ## When TDD Improves Quality
 
-**TDD candidates (add `tdd="true"`, include `<test-first>`):**
+**TDD candidates (create a TDD plan):**
 - Business logic with defined inputs/outputs
 - API endpoints with request/response contracts
 - Data transformations, parsing, formatting
@@ -16,7 +18,7 @@ TDD is about design quality, not coverage metrics. The red-green-refactor cycle
 - State machines and workflows
 - Utility functions with clear specifications
 
-**Skip TDD (standard `type="auto"`):**
+**Skip TDD (use standard plan with `type="auto"` tasks):**
 - UI layout, styling, visual components
 - Configuration changes
 - Glue code connecting existing components
@@ -25,32 +27,89 @@ TDD is about design quality, not coverage metrics. The red-green-refactor cycle
 - Exploratory prototyping
 
 **Heuristic:** Can you write `expect(fn(input)).toBe(output)` before writing `fn`?
-→ Yes: TDD will help
-→ No: Implement first, add tests after if needed
-</detection>
+→ Yes: Create a TDD plan
+→ No: Use standard plan, add tests after if needed
+</when_to_use_tdd>
+
+<tdd_plan_structure>
+## TDD Plan Structure
+
+Each TDD plan implements **one feature** through the full RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle.
+
+```markdown
+---
+phase: XX-name
+plan: NN
+type: tdd
+---
+
+<objective>
+[What feature and why]
+Purpose: [Design benefit of TDD for this feature]
+Output: [Working, tested feature]
+</objective>
+
+<context>
+@.planning/PROJECT.md
+@.planning/ROADMAP.md
+@relevant/source/files.ts
+</context>
+
+<feature>
+  <name>[Feature name]</name>
+  <files>[source file, test file]</files>
+  <behavior>
+    [Expected behavior in testable terms]
+    Cases: input → expected output
+  </behavior>
+  <implementation>[How to implement once tests pass]</implementation>
+</feature>
+
+<verification>
+[Test command that proves feature works]
+</verification>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- Failing test written and committed
+- Implementation passes test
+- Refactor complete (if needed)
+- All 2-3 commits present
+</success_criteria>
+
+<output>
+After completion, create SUMMARY.md with:
+- RED: What test was written, why it failed
+- GREEN: What implementation made it pass
+- REFACTOR: What cleanup was done (if any)
+- Commits: List of commits produced
+</output>
+```
+
+**One feature per TDD plan.** If features are trivial enough to batch, they're trivial enough to skip TDD—use a standard plan and add tests after.
+</tdd_plan_structure>
 
 <execution_flow>
 ## Red-Green-Refactor Cycle
 
 **RED - Write failing test:**
 1. Create test file following project conventions
-2. Write test describing expected behavior (from `<test-first>` element)
+2. Write test describing expected behavior (from `<behavior>` element)
 3. Run test - it MUST fail
 4. If test passes: feature exists or test is wrong. Investigate.
-5. Commit: `test: add failing test for [feature]`
+5. Commit: `test({phase}-{plan}): add failing test for [feature]`
 
 **GREEN - Implement to pass:**
 1. Write minimal code to make test pass
 2. No cleverness, no optimization - just make it work
 3. Run test - it MUST pass
-4. Commit: `feat: implement [feature]`
+4. Commit: `feat({phase}-{plan}): implement [feature]`
 
 **REFACTOR (if needed):**
 1. Clean up implementation if obvious improvements exist
 2. Run tests - MUST still pass
-3. Only commit if changes made: `refactor: clean up [feature]`
+3. Only commit if changes made: `refactor({phase}-{plan}): clean up [feature]`
 
-**Atomic commits:** Each TDD task produces 2-3 commits following this pattern.
+**Result:** Each TDD plan produces 2-3 atomic commits.
 </execution_flow>
 
 <test_quality>
@@ -77,7 +136,7 @@ TDD is about design quality, not coverage metrics. The red-green-refactor cycle
 <framework_setup>
 ## Test Framework Setup (If None Exists)
 
-When a TDD task exists but no test framework is configured:
+When executing a TDD plan but no test framework is configured, set it up as part of the RED phase:
 
 **1. Detect project type:**
 ```bash
@@ -122,6 +181,8 @@ Follow project conventions for test location:
 - `*.test.ts` / `*.spec.ts` next to source
 - `__tests__/` directory
 - `tests/` directory at root
+
+Framework setup is a one-time cost included in the first TDD plan's RED phase.
 </framework_setup>
 
 <error_handling>
@@ -134,7 +195,7 @@ Follow project conventions for test location:
 
 **Test doesn't pass in GREEN phase:**
 - Debug implementation
-- Don't skip to next task
+- Don't skip to refactor
 - Keep iterating until green
 
 **Tests fail in REFACTOR phase:**
@@ -149,39 +210,54 @@ Follow project conventions for test location:
 </error_handling>
 
 <commit_pattern>
-## Commit Pattern for TDD Tasks
+## Commit Pattern for TDD Plans
 
-TDD tasks produce 2-3 atomic commits (one per TDD phase):
+TDD plans produce 2-3 atomic commits (one per phase):
 
 ```
-test({phase}-{plan}): add failing test for email validation
+test(08-02): add failing test for email validation
 
 - Tests valid email formats accepted
 - Tests invalid formats rejected
 - Tests empty input handling
 
-feat({phase}-{plan}): implement email validation
+feat(08-02): implement email validation
 
 - Regex pattern matches RFC 5322
 - Returns boolean for validity
 - Handles edge cases (empty, null)
 
-refactor({phase}-{plan}): extract regex to constant (optional)
+refactor(08-02): extract regex to constant (optional)
 
 - Moved pattern to EMAIL_REGEX constant
 - No behavior changes
 - Tests still pass
 ```
 
-**This aligns with the standard task commit pattern:**
-- Non-TDD tasks: 1 commit per task (feat/fix)
-- TDD tasks: 2-3 commits per task (test/feat/refactor)
+**Comparison with standard plans:**
+- Standard plans: 1 commit per task, 2-4 commits per plan
+- TDD plans: 2-3 commits for single feature
 
 Both follow same format: `{type}({phase}-{plan}): {description}`
 
 **Benefits:**
 - Each commit independently revertable
-- Git bisect works at commit level (not just task level)
+- Git bisect works at commit level
 - Clear history showing TDD discipline
 - Consistent with overall commit strategy
 </commit_pattern>
+
+<context_budget>
+## Context Budget
+
+TDD plans target **~40% context usage** (lower than standard plans' ~50%).
+
+Why lower:
+- RED phase: write test, run test, potentially debug why it didn't fail
+- GREEN phase: implement, run test, potentially iterate on failures
+- REFACTOR phase: modify code, run tests, verify no regressions
+
+Each phase involves reading files, running commands, analyzing output. The back-and-forth is inherently heavier than linear task execution.
+
+Single feature focus ensures full quality throughout the cycle.
+</context_budget>

package/get-shit-done/templates/phase-prompt.md

@@ -169,7 +169,20 @@ From create-meta-prompts patterns:
 - Different subsystems (auth vs API vs UI)
 - Clear dependency boundaries (setup → implement → test)
 - Risk of context overflow (>50% estimated usage)
-  </scope_guidance>
+- **TDD candidates** - Features that warrant TDD become their own TDD plans
+</scope_guidance>
+
+<tdd_plan_note>
+**TDD features get dedicated plans.**
+
+TDD requires 2-3 execution cycles (RED → GREEN → REFACTOR) that consume 40-50% context for a single feature. Features warranting TDD (business logic, validation, algorithms, API contracts) each get their own TDD plan.
+
+**Heuristic:** Can you write `expect(fn(input)).toBe(output)` before writing `fn`?
+→ Yes: Create a TDD plan (one feature per plan)
+→ No: Standard task in standard plan
+
+See `~/.claude/get-shit-done/references/tdd.md` for TDD plan structure.
+</tdd_plan_note>
 
 <good_examples>
 

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

@@ -815,55 +815,62 @@ Logged to .planning/ISSUES.md for future consideration:
 
 </deviation_documentation>
 
-<tdd_execution>
-## TDD Task Execution
+<tdd_plan_execution>
+## TDD Plan Execution
 
-When executing a task with `tdd="true"` attribute:
+When executing a plan with `type: tdd` in frontmatter, follow the RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle for the single feature defined in the plan.
 
-**1. Check test infrastructure:**
+**1. Check test infrastructure (if first TDD plan):**
 If no test framework configured:
 - Detect project type from package.json/requirements.txt/etc.
 - Install minimal test framework (Jest, pytest, Go testing, etc.)
 - Create test config file
 - Verify: run empty test suite
+- This is part of the RED phase, not a separate task
 
 **2. RED - Write failing test:**
-- Read `<test-first>` element for test specification
+- Read `<behavior>` element for test specification
 - Create test file if doesn't exist (follow project conventions)
 - Write test(s) that describe expected behavior
 - Run tests - MUST fail (if passes, test is wrong or feature exists)
-- Commit: "test: add failing test for [feature]"
+- Commit: `test({phase}-{plan}): add failing test for [feature]`
 
 **3. GREEN - Implement to pass:**
-- Read `<action>` element for implementation guidance
+- Read `<implementation>` element for guidance
 - Write minimal code to make test pass
 - Run tests - MUST pass
-- Commit: "feat: implement [feature]"
+- Commit: `feat({phase}-{plan}): implement [feature]`
 
 **4. REFACTOR (if needed):**
 - Clean up code if obvious improvements
 - Run tests - MUST still pass
-- Commit only if changes made: "refactor: clean up [feature]"
+- Commit only if changes made: `refactor({phase}-{plan}): clean up [feature]`
 
-**Commit pattern for TDD tasks:**
-Each TDD task produces 2-3 atomic commits:
-1. `test: add failing test for X`
-2. `feat: implement X`
-3. `refactor: clean up X` (optional)
+**Commit pattern for TDD plans:**
+Each TDD plan produces 2-3 atomic commits:
+1. `test({phase}-{plan}): add failing test for X`
+2. `feat({phase}-{plan}): implement X`
+3. `refactor({phase}-{plan}): clean up X` (optional)
 
 **Error handling:**
 - If test doesn't fail in RED phase: Test is wrong or feature already exists. Investigate before proceeding.
-- If test doesn't pass in GREEN phase: Debug implementation, don't skip to next task.
+- If test doesn't pass in GREEN phase: Debug implementation, keep iterating until green.
 - If tests fail in REFACTOR phase: Undo refactor, commit was premature.
 
 **Verification:**
-After TDD task completion, ensure:
+After TDD plan completion, ensure:
 - All tests pass
 - Test coverage for the new behavior exists
 - No unrelated tests broken
 
-**Note:** TDD tasks produce 2-3 commits (test/feat/refactor). Non-TDD tasks produce 1 commit after task completion.
-</tdd_execution>
+**Why TDD uses dedicated plans:** TDD requires 2-3 execution cycles (RED → GREEN → REFACTOR), each with file reads, test runs, and potential debugging. This consumes 40-50% of context for a single feature. Dedicated plans ensure full quality throughout the cycle.
+
+**Comparison:**
+- Standard plans: Multiple tasks, 1 commit per task, 2-4 commits total
+- TDD plans: Single feature, 2-3 commits for RED/GREEN/REFACTOR cycle
+
+See `~/.claude/get-shit-done/references/tdd.md` for TDD plan structure.
+</tdd_plan_execution>
 
 <task_commit>
 ## Task Commit Protocol
@@ -917,7 +924,7 @@ git commit -m "{type}({phase}-{plan}): {concise task description}
 **Examples:**
 
 ```bash
-# Non-TDD task
+# Standard plan task
 git commit -m "feat(08-02): create user registration endpoint
 
 - POST /auth/register validates email and password
@@ -925,31 +932,16 @@ git commit -m "feat(08-02): create user registration endpoint
 - Returns JWT token on success
 "
 
-# TDD task - RED phase
-git commit -m "test(07-02): add failing test for JWT generation
-
-- Tests token contains user ID claim
-- Tests token expires in 1 hour
-- Tests signature verification
-"
-
-# TDD task - GREEN phase
-git commit -m "feat(07-02): implement JWT generation
+# Another standard task
+git commit -m "fix(08-02): correct email validation regex
 
-- Uses jose library for signing
-- Includes user ID and expiry claims
-- Signs with HS256 algorithm
-"
-
-# TDD task - REFACTOR phase
-git commit -m "refactor(07-02): extract JWT config to constants
-
-- Moved expiry time to constant
-- Centralized algorithm selection
-- No behavior changes
+- Fixed regex to accept plus-addressing
+- Added tests for edge cases
 "
 ```
 
+**Note:** TDD plans have their own commit pattern (test/feat/refactor for RED/GREEN/REFACTOR phases). See `<tdd_plan_execution>` section above.
+
 **5. Record commit hash:**
 
 After committing, capture hash for SUMMARY.md:

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

@@ -225,7 +225,9 @@ cat .planning/phases/XX-name/${PHASE}-CONTEXT.md 2>/dev/null
 </step>
 
 <step name="break_into_tasks">
-Decompose phase into tasks. Each task needs:
+Decompose phase into tasks and identify TDD candidates.
+
+**Standard tasks need:**
 - **Type**: auto, checkpoint:human-verify, checkpoint:decision (human-action rarely needed)
 - **Task name**: Clear, action-oriented
 - **Files**: Which files created/modified (for auto tasks)
@@ -233,9 +235,9 @@ Decompose phase into tasks. Each task needs:
 - **Verify**: How to prove it worked
 - **Done**: Acceptance criteria
 
-**TDD detection:** For each task, evaluate TDD fit:
+**TDD detection:** For each potential task, evaluate TDD fit:
 
-TDD candidates (add `tdd="true"` to task, include `<test-first>` element):
+TDD candidates (create dedicated TDD plans):
 - Business logic with defined inputs/outputs
 - API endpoints with request/response contracts
 - Data transformations, parsing, formatting
@@ -243,7 +245,7 @@ TDD candidates (add `tdd="true"` to task, include `<test-first>` element):
 - Algorithms with testable behavior
 - State machines and workflows
 
-Skip TDD (standard `type="auto"` task):
+Standard tasks (remain in standard plans):
 - UI layout, styling, visual components
 - Configuration changes
 - Glue code connecting existing components
@@ -251,15 +253,14 @@ Skip TDD (standard `type="auto"` task):
 - Simple CRUD with no business logic
 
 **Heuristic:** Can you write `expect(fn(input)).toBe(output)` before writing `fn`?
-→ Yes: Add `tdd="true"`, include `<test-first>` describing the failing test
-→ No: Standard task, no TDD annotation
+→ Yes: Create a dedicated TDD plan for this feature (one feature per TDD plan)
+→ No: Standard task in standard plan
+
+**Why TDD gets its own plan:** TDD requires 2-3 execution cycles (RED → GREEN → REFACTOR), each with file reads, test runs, and potential debugging. Embedded in a multi-task plan, TDD work consumes 50-60% of context alone, degrading quality for remaining tasks.
 
-**Test framework:** If project has no test setup and TDD tasks exist, add a setup task first:
-- Detect project type (package.json → Jest, requirements.txt → pytest, etc.)
-- Add minimal test configuration
-- Create example test file to verify setup
+**Test framework:** If project has no test setup and TDD plans are needed, the first TDD plan's RED phase handles framework setup as part of writing the first test.
 
-See `~/.claude/get-shit-done/references/tdd.md` for complete TDD guidance.
+See `~/.claude/get-shit-done/references/tdd.md` for TDD plan structure.
 
 **Checkpoints:** Visual/functional verification → checkpoint:human-verify. Implementation choices → checkpoint:decision. Manual action (email, 2FA) → checkpoint:human-action (rare).
 
@@ -427,20 +428,7 @@ Phase plan created: .planning/phases/XX-name/{phase}-01-PLAN.md
 
 If you can't specify Files + Action + Verify + Done, the task is too vague.
 
-**Good TDD task:**
-```xml
-<task type="auto" tdd="true">
-  <name>Create price calculator with discount rules</name>
-  <files>src/lib/pricing.ts, src/lib/pricing.test.ts</files>
-  <test-first>
-    Test: calculatePrice applies discounts correctly
-    Cases: base 100 + 10% off → 90, base 100 + 20% off + $5 coupon → 75
-  </test-first>
-  <action>Implement calculatePrice(base, discountPercent, couponAmount). Apply percentage first, then flat amount.</action>
-  <verify>npm test -- pricing.test.ts passes</verify>
-  <done>Price calculation handles all discount combinations correctly</done>
-</task>
-```
+**TDD candidates get dedicated plans.** If "Create price calculator with discount rules" warrants TDD, create a TDD plan for it. See `~/.claude/get-shit-done/references/tdd.md` for TDD plan structure.
 </task_quality>
 
 <anti_patterns>

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "get-shit-done-cc",
-  "version": "1.3.20",
+  "version": "1.3.22",
   "description": "A meta-prompting, context engineering and spec-driven development system for Claude Code by TÂCHES.",
   "bin": {
     "get-shit-done-cc": "bin/install.js"

package/commands/gsd/auto.md

@@ -1,150 +0,0 @@
----
-description: Autonomous mode - reads state, executes next step, spawns next Claude.
-allowed-tools:
-  - Read
-  - Bash
-  - Grep
-  - Glob
-  - SlashCommand
----
-
-<objective>
-Autonomous execution with self-spawning. Run once:
-```bash
-claude --dangerously-skip-permissions '/gsd:auto'
-```
-
-Reads STATE.md, determines next action, executes it, then spawns a fresh Claude to continue.
-Chains until milestone complete. All gates auto-approved.
-</objective>
-
-<process>
-
-<step name="verify_yolo">
-**Check yolo mode is enabled:**
-
-```bash
-cat .planning/config.json 2>/dev/null
-```
-
-Parse the JSON. If `mode` is not `"yolo"`, refuse:
-
-```
-⚠ Auto mode requires yolo mode.
-
-Set in .planning/config.json:
-{"mode": "yolo"}
-
-Then run:
-while true; do claude -p --dangerously-skip-permissions '/gsd:auto'; done
-```
-
-Exit without executing anything.
-
-If no `.planning/` directory exists:
-
-```
-No planning structure found.
-Run /gsd:new-project first.
-```
-
-Exit.
-</step>
-
-<step name="load_state">
-**Load minimal state:**
-
-- Read `.planning/STATE.md` - current position
-- Read `.planning/ROADMAP.md` - phase structure
-
-Extract:
-- Current phase number
-- Current plan number (or "none")
-- Phase status (planning/executing/complete)
-- Total phases in milestone
-</step>
-
-<step name="determine_action">
-**Determine next action based on state:**
-
-Check what exists in `.planning/phases/`:
-
-1. **No PLAN.md for current phase** → need to plan
-2. **PLAN.md exists, no SUMMARY.md** → need to execute
-3. **SUMMARY.md exists for all plans in phase** → phase complete, check next
-4. **All phases complete** → milestone complete
-
-Logic:
-```
-if current_phase has no PLAN.md:
-  action = plan-phase
-elif current_phase has unexecuted PLAN.md:
-  action = execute-plan
-elif current_phase complete AND more phases exist:
-  action = plan-phase (next phase)
-elif all phases complete:
-  action = complete-milestone
-```
-</step>
-
-<step name="execute">
-**Execute the determined action immediately:**
-
-No status report. No "Next Up" display. Just execute.
-
-**If action = plan-phase:**
-```
-▶ AUTO: /gsd:plan-phase [N]
-```
-Invoke: `SlashCommand("/gsd:plan-phase [N]")`
-
-**If action = execute-plan:**
-```
-▶ AUTO: /gsd:execute-plan [path]
-```
-Invoke: `SlashCommand("/gsd:execute-plan [full-path-to-PLAN.md]")`
-
-**If action = complete-milestone:**
-```
-▶ AUTO: /gsd:complete-milestone
-```
-Invoke: `SlashCommand("/gsd:complete-milestone")`
-
-**If milestone already complete:**
-```
-✅ Milestone complete. Nothing to do.
-```
-Exit cleanly (loop will restart, hit this again, user can Ctrl+C).
-</step>
-
-</process>
-
-<auto_approve_context>
-**CRITICAL: ALL HUMAN CHECKPOINTS ARE AUTO-APPROVED IN /gsd:auto**
-
-When executing via /gsd:auto, treat ALL checkpoint types as auto-approved:
-
-- `checkpoint:human-verify` → AUTO-APPROVED, log "Auto-verified in yolo mode"
-- `checkpoint:decision` → AUTO-APPROVED, pick the most sensible default
-- `checkpoint:human-action` → SKIP if possible, or simulate completion
-- Any "Type approved to continue" → AUTO-APPROVED
-- Any "Does this look right?" → YES
-- Any confirmation prompt → CONFIRMED
-
-**DO NOT STOP AND WAIT FOR INPUT. EVER.**
-
-If a checkpoint would normally block, instead:
-1. Log: "⚡ Auto-approved: [checkpoint description]"
-2. Continue execution immediately
-
-The invoked commands should detect yolo mode from config.json and apply this behavior.
-</auto_approve_context>
-
-<success_criteria>
-- [ ] Refuses to run if mode != yolo
-- [ ] Reads state, determines action
-- [ ] Executes exactly one action via SlashCommand
-- [ ] No prompts, no waiting, no "Next Up" display
-- [ ] Exits cleanly after action completes
-- [ ] Works with: while true; do claude -p --dangerously-skip-permissions '/gsd:auto'; done
-</success_criteria>