gsd-pi 2.75.0 → 2.76.0-dev.b072ebb73

package/dist/resources/skills/grill-me/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+---
+name: grill-me
+description: Relentless sequential interview that stress-tests a plan or design until every decision branch is resolved. Use when the user wants to "grill me", "stress-test the plan", "interrogate my design", "resolve the decision tree", or whenever a plan feels hand-wavy, under-specified, or carries hidden coupling that planning phases must surface before execution. Pairs with the discuss phase and blocks execution until alignment is reached.
+---
+
+<objective>
+Interview the user one question at a time until every material branch of the decision tree is resolved and you both share one mental model of the plan. Output is not a document — it is alignment. Surface hidden assumptions, kill fuzzy language, and walk the dependencies between decisions instead of asking everything in parallel.
+</objective>
+
+<context>
+Planning conversations in GSD ship to `M###-CONTEXT.md`, `S##-CONTEXT.md`, or `.gsd/DECISIONS.md`. Those artifacts are only as good as the interview that produced them. This skill is the interview. It runs during the `discuss` phase, after `research`, or any time a plan has open branches the user has not actually thought through.
+
+Use this skill when:
+- The user asks to be grilled, stress-tested, or interrogated
+- A plan reads like a list of happy paths with no failure modes
+- Two or more sections of a plan implicitly depend on one undecided choice
+- The user says "I think" or "probably" about something that will bind the design
+</context>
+
+<core_principle>
+**ONE QUESTION AT A TIME.** Parallel questions destroy dependency order — the answer to Q2 is often contingent on the answer to Q1, and asking both at once forces the user to reason about a combinatoric space instead of a single fork. Ask, wait, absorb, ask the next.
+
+**RECOMMEND AN ANSWER.** Every question ships with your recommendation and a one-line reason. The user's job is to confirm, override, or redirect — not to generate answers from scratch.
+
+**CODEBASE BEFORE QUESTION.** If the answer exists in the repo — a convention, an existing pattern, a prior decision — find it and cite it rather than asking.
+</core_principle>
+
+<process>
+
+## Step 1: Map the decision tree silently
+
+Before asking anything, read what the user has already said in this conversation plus any existing `M###-CONTEXT.md`, `S##-CONTEXT.md`, and `.gsd/DECISIONS.md`. Build a private list of every decision the plan depends on, in dependency order. Do not show this list — it is scaffolding.
+
+If the plan touches unfamiliar code, spawn `Agent(subagent_type=Explore)` in parallel to map the relevant modules while you prepare Question 1. Do not wait for it to finish before starting the interview.
+
+## Step 2: Ask Question 1
+
+Pick the root decision — the one that the most other decisions depend on. Format:
+
+```text
+**Q1:** <precise question>.
+
+**Recommendation:** <your pick>, because <one sentence>.
+
+Alternatives worth considering: <A | B | C>.
+```
+
+Stop. Wait for the answer.
+
+## Step 3: Absorb and branch
+
+Take the answer. If it kills branches of the tree, cross them off your private map. If it opens new branches, add them. Do not move on to Q2 until the current answer has been integrated. If the answer is ambiguous, ask one clarifying follow-up — not three.
+
+## Step 4: Continue until the tree is closed
+
+Repeat Q2, Q3, … in dependency order. Each question follows the same format (question, recommendation, alternatives). Cap at the natural end of the decision tree, not a round number.
+
+Stop the interview when:
+- Every remaining open decision is either deferred by explicit user choice ("decide at execution time") or out of scope
+- The user says to stop
+- You have nothing left where the answer would materially change the plan
+
+## Step 5: Offer to write it up
+
+At the end, offer the user one of:
+
+1. Append resolved decisions to `.gsd/DECISIONS.md` (one line each, dated).
+2. Write or update `M###-CONTEXT.md` or `S##-CONTEXT.md` for the active milestone/slice.
+3. Draft a GitHub issue via `mcp__github__issue_write` (only with explicit confirmation per the outward-action rule).
+4. Leave it as conversation context if the work is ephemeral.
+
+Default: ask which they want. Do not auto-write.
+
+</process>
+
+<anti_patterns>
+
+- **Parallel questions:** "What's the schema? And the API? And the auth model?" — ask one.
+- **Yes/no railroading:** "Should we use X?" instead of "Between X and Y, which fits — given Z constraint?"
+- **Recommendation-free questions:** forces the user to generate from scratch; you have more context than you think.
+- **Asking what the code already answers:** check the repo first.
+- **Grilling past the useful horizon:** if the next question is about an implementation detail that will be decided during execution, stop.
+
+</anti_patterns>
+
+<success_criteria>
+
+- [ ] Every decision with cross-cutting impact has an answer.
+- [ ] No "probably", "I think", or "we'll figure it out" remains on load-bearing decisions.
+- [ ] The user has confirmed the shape of the plan, not just each individual answer.
+- [ ] Resolved decisions are captured in an enduring artifact or explicitly left ephemeral.
+
+</success_criteria>

package/dist/resources/skills/handoff/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
+---
+name: handoff
+description: Prepare a clean cross-session handoff so the next agent (or you tomorrow) can pick up exactly where you left off. Writes a focused `continue.md` in the active slice directory and ensures `STATE.md` + summary artifacts are current. Use when asked to "hand off", "prepare handoff", "pause work", "bookmark this", "I'll come back to this later", before running out of context budget, or at the end of a long session with unfinished work. Closes the v1 `/gsd-pause-work` parity gap.
+---
+
+<objective>
+Leave the project in a state where a fresh agent with no memory of this session can read two or three files and be productive within one minute. The deliverable is `continue.md` in the active slice directory plus up-to-date summary artifacts — not a chat recap.
+</objective>
+
+<context>
+GSD already writes `STATE.md` (rebuilt after each unit) and summary files (`M###-SUMMARY.md`, `S##-SUMMARY.md`, `T##-SUMMARY.md`). The gap is the *mid-task* handoff: you're partway through a task, context is getting long, and the next session shouldn't start by re-deriving your mental state.
+
+`continue.md` exists for exactly this — see `auto-prompts.ts`, `guided-flow.ts`, `phase-anchor.ts`, `state.ts`. This skill is the deliberate authoring ritual.
+
+Invocation points:
+- User says "pause", "hand off", "I'll come back later", "this is a good stopping point"
+- Context usage nearing budget — better to hand off cleanly than truncate mid-thought
+- Before a risky operation (dependency upgrade, major refactor) where you want a known-good checkpoint
+- End of a long session, multi-day work
+</context>
+
+<core_principle>
+**WRITE FOR A STRANGER.** The next reader is not you. They do not have this conversation. They have `STATE.md`, `continue.md`, the last summary, and the code. That has to be enough.
+
+**CURRENT STATE ONLY.** `continue.md` is ephemeral — it says "pick up HERE." It is not a log of what you did; that goes in summaries. It is not a plan for future work; that lives in the plan files.
+
+**NO SECRETS, NO STALE PATHS.** Do not inline env values, tokens, or paths that only exist in your working directory. Cite artifacts by relative path from the project root.
+</core_principle>
+
+<process>
+
+## Step 1: Identify what's in flight
+
+Answer briefly:
+1. What task (`T##`) am I on? What's its current plan file?
+2. What have I completed since the last summary?
+3. What's the next concrete action? (Not a goal — an action: "Run X. If Y, do Z.")
+4. What, if anything, is blocking or uncertain?
+
+## Step 2: Update the summaries, not the handoff
+
+Before writing `continue.md`:
+
+- **Any task that's actually done?** Use `gsd_task_complete` (or the equivalent tool) to toggle state. Do NOT edit checkboxes by hand. This triggers `STATE.md` rebuild and `T##-SUMMARY.md` generation.
+- **Any slice-level decisions worth preserving?** Append to `S##-CONTEXT.md` if the slice has one, or `.gsd/DECISIONS.md` if the decision was project-wide.
+- **Any patterns or traps future agents should know about?** Append a single line to `.gsd/KNOWLEDGE.md`.
+
+This shrinks what `continue.md` has to carry.
+
+## Step 3: Write continue.md
+
+Create `.gsd/milestones/<MID>/slices/<SID>/continue.md` with the following shape. Keep it tight — one screenful max.
+
+```markdown
+# Continue — S02 / T03
+
+## Last action
+
+<one sentence — what you just did, with evidence>
+Example: "Ran `npm test` after editing `src/auth/session.ts`; 2 failures in `session.test.ts` — both complain about a missing `expiresAt` field in the mock fixture."
+
+## Next action
+
+<one concrete action the next agent should take>
+Example: "Update `fixtures/sessions.ts` to include `expiresAt: Date.now() + 3600_000` on every fixture, then re-run `npm test`."
+
+## Why
+
+<one or two sentences — why this next step, not something else>
+Example: "The session refactor moved `expiresAt` from optional to required in `Session`; fixtures were never updated."
+
+## Open threads
+
+<list of things you noticed but deliberately didn't act on>
+- Validator in `src/auth/validator.ts` still accepts unbounded session lengths — file as a separate issue after T03 lands.
+
+## Do not
+
+<traps and false paths the next agent might stumble into>
+- Do NOT revert the `Session` interface change — it's required for T04.
+- Do NOT run `npm run db:reset` in this branch; dev data is still needed for manual UAT.
+```
+
+## Step 4: Sanity check
+
+Read `STATE.md` + `continue.md` + the most recent summary as if you were a fresh agent. Ask:
+1. Do I know what to do next?
+2. Do I know why?
+3. Do I know what not to do?
+
+If any answer is no, the handoff is incomplete. Fix it before stopping.
+
+## Step 5: Stop cleanly
+
+- Do not leave in-flight `async_bash` or `bg_shell` jobs. Cancel or wait for them.
+- Do not leave uncommitted changes without flagging them in `continue.md` — note which files are modified and why.
+- Do not push mid-task commits to remote unless that was the plan — they create noise for reviewers.
+
+</process>
+
+<anti_patterns>
+
+- **Chat-log handoffs.** "First I did X, then Y, then Z…" The next agent doesn't need the journey.
+- **`continue.md` that summarizes the whole slice.** That's what `S##-SUMMARY.md` is for, at slice completion.
+- **No "Next action".** A handoff without a concrete next action is a journal entry.
+- **Implicit assumptions.** "Obviously the next thing is…" — write it down.
+- **Leaving background processes running.** They'll be orphaned when the session ends.
+- **Handoff without updating summaries.** `continue.md` should be thin because the summaries carry the weight.
+
+</anti_patterns>
+
+<success_criteria>
+
+- [ ] `continue.md` exists in the active slice directory.
+- [ ] The "Next action" is concrete and executable without this session's context.
+- [ ] Completed tasks were marked done via `gsd_*` tools, not by hand-edited checkboxes.
+- [ ] `KNOWLEDGE.md` and `DECISIONS.md` have been updated if anything notable was learned.
+- [ ] Background processes are not orphaned.
+- [ ] A cold-read of `STATE.md` + `continue.md` + latest summary would produce the right next action.
+
+</success_criteria>

package/dist/resources/skills/observability/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,174 @@
+---
+name: observability
+description: Add agent-first observability to code — structured logs, health endpoints, failure-state persistence, and explicit failure modes — so the next agent hitting a problem at 3am has the signals it needs to diagnose. Use when asked to "add logging", "add observability", "add metrics", "debug later", "make this observable", or when building/refactoring a subsystem that will run unattended (auto-mode engine, background jobs, servers, watchers). Operationalizes VISION.md's "agent-first observability" principle.
+---
+
+<objective>
+Instrument code so that a cold-start agent can understand what happened by reading signals, not by rerunning with extra logging. The deliverable is a set of specific instrumentation additions: structured logs at decision points, health/status surfaces for long-running processes, persisted failure state, and explicit failure modes that don't get swallowed.
+</objective>
+
+<context>
+GSD-2's `VISION.md` lists "agent-first observability" as a principle, and the system prompt calls it out: "A future version of you will land in this codebase with no memory… you add observability because you're the one who'll need it at 3am." GSD-2 already exemplifies this — `activity/*.jsonl`, `journal/*.jsonl`, `metrics.json`, `doctor-history.jsonl` — but new code doesn't get that treatment automatically.
+
+This skill is the thinking process for adding it. Not "add logs everywhere" — add the *right* signals at the *right* decision points.
+
+Invocation points:
+- Building auto-mode-style code (loops, dispatch, guards, retries)
+- Adding a background job, watcher, or scheduled task
+- Writing a server or long-running process
+- Refactoring a subsystem that has been hard to debug
+- Addressing a production bug where "we had no visibility" surfaced
+</context>
+
+<core_principle>
+**LOG DECISIONS, NOT ACTIVITY.** "Entering function X" is noise. "Dispatched unit `slice/S02` after guard check passed because `status=pending`" is signal. Every log line should answer a question a future debugger will ask.
+
+**FAIL LOUDLY AND PERSIST THE REASON.** Silent `try/catch` that returns `undefined` is an anti-pattern. If something fails, the failure state needs to be somewhere a fresh agent can find it — a JSONL, a status file, a health endpoint.
+
+**OBSERVABILITY IS NOT FREE.** Every log allocation, every metric, every health check costs CPU and disk. Add only what you would actually read.
+</core_principle>
+
+<process>
+
+## Step 1: Map the failure modes
+
+Before instrumenting, list what can go wrong:
+
+1. **What inputs could be invalid?** External API responses, user-submitted data, filesystem state, env vars.
+2. **What external dependencies could fail?** Network, DB, child processes, filesystem permissions.
+3. **What internal invariants could break?** State transitions, lock acquisition, concurrency assumptions.
+4. **What silent corruption is possible?** Truncated writes, partial transactions, stale caches.
+
+This map tells you where to instrument. Don't instrument uniformly — instrument at the decision points where these failures would manifest.
+
+## Step 2: Structured logs at decision points
+
+For each decision the code makes that could plausibly go wrong later:
+
+- **What decision?** ("Dispatching unit X", "Retrying with backoff", "Skipping validation because flag set")
+- **Why?** ("status=pending", "previous attempt exit=1", "--dev flag set")
+- **What would a future debugger want to know?** (The values that drove the choice.)
+
+Format:
+
+```ts
+log.info({
+  event: "unit-dispatched",
+  unitType: "slice",
+  unitId: "S02",
+  reason: "pending",
+  attempt: 1,
+  flowId,
+});
+```
+
+Use the project's existing logger if one exists. In gsd-2, follow the patterns in `src/resources/extensions/gsd/activity-log.ts` and `src/resources/extensions/gsd/journal.ts` — structured JSONL, one event per line, with `ts`, `event`, and domain-specific fields.
+
+Avoid:
+- `console.log("here")` — what does "here" mean in six months?
+- Logging secrets, tokens, or PII — ever.
+- Formatting structured data into a prose string — it can't be grepped or filtered.
+
+## Step 3: Persist failure state
+
+When something fails in a way the caller can't immediately handle, write the failure state to disk:
+
+```ts
+await writeAtomically(
+  resolve(".gsd/runtime/last-error.json"),
+  JSON.stringify({
+    ts: new Date().toISOString(),
+    phase: "execute",
+    unitId,
+    error: { message, stack, code },
+    retryCount,
+  })
+);
+```
+
+A fresh agent reading `.gsd/runtime/` sees what happened last, what was retried, and where the process stopped. Pattern exists already in gsd-2 — reuse the `atomic-write.ts` helpers and the `.gsd/runtime/` and `.gsd/forensics/` directories.
+
+## Step 4: Health and status surfaces
+
+For long-running processes:
+
+- **Health endpoint** (HTTP server) or **status file** (CLI tool). Cheap to call, no side effects. Returns current state: `{status: "healthy" | "degraded" | "down", ...diagnostics}`.
+- **Digest view** — a small representation of recent work. In gsd-2, this is `STATE.md` and the health widget. In a server, it's `/internal/status` with last 10 request summaries.
+- **Minimal metrics** — counters for the 3–5 things that matter (requests, errors, active jobs). Not everything — just what drives alerts.
+
+Don't build a metrics empire. Build exactly what you'd check at 3am.
+
+## Step 5: Explicit failure modes
+
+Replace silent handling with explicit:
+
+```ts
+// Bad
+try {
+  return await db.getUser(id);
+} catch {
+  return null;
+}
+
+// Good
+try {
+  return await db.getUser(id);
+} catch (err) {
+  log.error({ event: "db-getuser-failed", userId: id, err: serializeError(err) });
+  throw new DatabaseError("Failed to load user", { cause: err, userId: id });
+}
+```
+
+The caller now knows the failure happened, gets an error type it can branch on, and a log line exists for forensics.
+
+## Step 6: Remove the scaffolding
+
+Before shipping, cull the ad-hoc instrumentation you used while debugging. Keep only:
+- Decision-point logs that a future agent would use
+- Persistent failure state
+- Health/status surfaces
+- Explicit failure modes
+
+Drop:
+- Temporary `console.log` debug lines
+- Spammy per-iteration logs that no one will read
+- Metrics that were "might be useful someday"
+
+The system prompt says it plainly: "Remove noisy one-off instrumentation before finishing unless it provides durable diagnostic value."
+
+## Step 7: Verify the signals work
+
+Pick one plausible failure mode from Step 1 and simulate it (inject an error, point at a missing file, break a dependency). Confirm:
+
+1. The failure produced a log line a cold-start agent could understand.
+2. The failure state persisted somewhere durable.
+3. The health surface reflects the degraded state.
+4. Nothing was swallowed silently.
+
+If any signal is missing, add it — that's the gap this skill exists to catch.
+
+</process>
+
+<anti_patterns>
+
+- **Uniform logging.** Logging every function entry/exit buries signal in noise.
+- **Prose logs.** `"Processing user 42 now"` vs `{event: "user-process-start", userId: 42}` — the latter is queryable, the former is not.
+- **Silent swallowing.** `catch {}` or `catch (err) { /* ignore */ }` without a log is a deferred production incident.
+- **Metrics empire.** 200 Prometheus metrics nobody reads. Ship 5 that drive alerts.
+- **Logging secrets.** API keys, tokens, passwords, full request bodies with PII — never.
+- **"I'll add logging when it breaks."** By then you don't have the signal. Instrument now.
+- **Over-instrumenting hot paths.** Logging inside a tight loop kills performance. Sample or aggregate.
+
+</anti_patterns>
+
+<success_criteria>
+
+- [ ] Failure modes were listed before instrumenting.
+- [ ] Logs are at decision points, structured, and contain the driving values.
+- [ ] Failure state is persisted to a known location (`.gsd/runtime/`, `/var/log/`, a status file).
+- [ ] Long-running processes expose a health or status surface.
+- [ ] No silent `try/catch` swallowing errors.
+- [ ] Ad-hoc debug instrumentation was removed.
+- [ ] One plausible failure was simulated and the signals were confirmed to reach a fresh reader.
+
+</success_criteria>

package/dist/resources/skills/security-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,181 @@
+---
+name: security-review
+description: Threat-model-driven security review of a change, feature, or subsystem. Runs a STRIDE-style pass (Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Info disclosure, Denial of service, Elevation of privilege), examines the actual code, and produces a filing-ready report with severity, exploit scenario, and concrete remediation. Use when asked to "security review", "threat model", "check for vulnerabilities", "audit this for security", "secure this", or before shipping any change that touches auth, input handling, data access, or external surfaces.
+---
+
+<objective>
+Produce a security review that names specific exploit paths through the actual code — not a generic checklist. The deliverable is a prioritized list of findings, each with: where the issue lives, the threat category, a concrete exploit scenario, severity, and a remediation the caller can implement. Read-only: does not modify code.
+</objective>
+
+<context>
+GSD-2's general `review` skill covers security as one of several categories. This skill is the deeper pass — triggered deliberately when security is the primary concern. It complements v1's `/gsd-secure-phase` concept, adapted to the gsd-2 artifact model.
+
+Invocation points:
+- Any change touching authentication, authorization, session handling
+- Any change touching user input → database, filesystem, or shell
+- Any change exposing a new external surface (HTTP endpoint, webhook, IPC boundary)
+- Secrets handling, environment variable changes, crypto code
+- Pre-release audit of a feature or milestone
+- Response to a suspected vulnerability
+
+Do NOT use for:
+- General code review (use `review`)
+- Performance audits (use `code-optimizer`)
+</context>
+
+<core_principle>
+**CODE BEFORE CHECKLISTS.** A threat model that doesn't read the code is theater. Find the actual input source, the actual validation (or absence), the actual sink. Cite file:line for every finding.
+
+**THREAT, NOT HYPOTHETICAL.** "SQL injection is possible in theory" is useless. "If an attacker passes `' OR 1=1--` to `getUser(name)` at `src/db/users.ts:42`, the query becomes `SELECT … WHERE name='' OR 1=1--'`, returning every row" is actionable.
+
+**READ-ONLY.** Don't patch while reviewing — you conflate reviewer and author and lose the audit trail. Report, let the user act.
+</core_principle>
+
+<process>
+
+## Step 1: Scope the review
+
+Identify what to review:
+- Recent diff (staged / branch / specific commit)
+- A named subsystem (`src/auth/`, the webhook handler, etc.)
+- A user-provided concern ("I'm worried about our JWT handling")
+
+If the scope is vague, ask one round of clarifying questions (1–3 questions). Otherwise proceed.
+
+## Step 2: Map the attack surface
+
+Before STRIDE: identify every untrusted entry point in the scope:
+
+- HTTP routes / GraphQL resolvers / RPC endpoints
+- CLI flag parsing and argv consumption
+- Webhook handlers, event subscribers
+- Environment variables read at runtime
+- Files read from untrusted locations
+- Third-party library deserialization (YAML, XML, pickle, etc.)
+- IPC boundaries, child processes
+
+For each, note: who can reach this surface? (public internet, authenticated user, same-host process, admin-only).
+
+## Step 3: STRIDE pass
+
+For each attack surface, walk STRIDE:
+
+### Spoofing (identity)
+- Can an attacker pretend to be another user?
+- Are identity tokens verified before they're trusted?
+- Session cookies: HttpOnly, Secure, SameSite set?
+
+### Tampering (integrity)
+- Can an attacker modify data in transit or at rest?
+- Are webhooks signed and signatures verified?
+- Are incoming payloads rehydrated without integrity checks?
+
+### Repudiation (audit trail)
+- Is there a log of who did what?
+- Can an attacker erase their trail?
+- Are logs tamper-evident where it matters?
+
+### Information disclosure
+- Does an error message leak internal state, stack traces, file paths, DB queries?
+- Are secrets logged anywhere?
+- Are authorization checks upstream of data loading, or does the query run first?
+
+### Denial of service
+- Are there unbounded loops, unpaginated queries, or user-controlled recursion?
+- Rate limits on expensive endpoints?
+- Regex-on-user-input vulnerable to ReDoS?
+
+### Elevation of privilege
+- Are admin-only routes actually gated?
+- Can a low-privilege user trigger a high-privilege operation through an unauthenticated webhook?
+- Are role checks enforced at the handler, the service, and the data layer — or just one?
+
+Use `Agent(subagent_type=Explore)` in parallel if the scope is large — one sub-agent per STRIDE category over the same surface list.
+
+## Step 4: OWASP cross-check (web scope)
+
+If the scope includes web surfaces, confirm against the top OWASP patterns that STRIDE doesn't cleanly cover:
+
+- Injection (SQL, NoSQL, command, template, LDAP)
+- XSS (stored, reflected, DOM)
+- SSRF (server makes requests to attacker-controlled URLs)
+- Insecure deserialization
+- Path traversal
+- Open redirects
+- Broken access control at object level (IDOR)
+- CSRF where cookies are used for auth
+
+For each present, find the code path. Same standard: cite file:line.
+
+## Step 5: Triage
+
+For each finding, assign:
+
+- **Severity:** Critical / High / Medium / Low / Informational
+- **Exploitability:** Remote unauthenticated / authenticated user / adjacent user / admin-only / local-only
+- **Business impact:** Data breach / account takeover / service disruption / audit failure / minor
+
+Severity × Exploitability = priority. Sort findings by priority.
+
+## Step 6: Write the report
+
+```markdown
+## Security Review — <scope>
+
+### Summary
+
+<1–3 sentences — biggest finding and overall posture>
+
+### Findings
+
+#### CRITICAL-1: SQL injection in `getUser`
+
+**Location:** `src/db/users.ts:42`
+**Category:** Tampering / Info disclosure (STRIDE) + OWASP A03 Injection
+**Exploit:** Passing `' OR 1=1--` to the `name` parameter produces the query `SELECT * FROM users WHERE name='' OR 1=1--'`, returning every row. `name` arrives from `POST /api/search` without validation.
+**Reachability:** Remote unauthenticated (endpoint has no auth).
+**Remediation:** Use a parameterized query. The codebase's `db.prepare` helper at `src/db/util.ts:17` handles this — switch `getUser` to it.
+
+#### HIGH-2: ...
+
+### Non-findings considered
+
+<brief: what you checked and ruled out — prevents repeat reviews>
+
+### Out of scope
+
+<what wasn't reviewed>
+```
+
+Offer to file as a GitHub issue — requires explicit confirmation per the outward-action rule. Sensitive findings should stay in `.gsd/security-reviews/` and not be pushed to a public tracker; check the repository's security policy first.
+
+## Step 7: Follow-ups
+
+If the review found CRITICAL or HIGH issues:
+- Recommend filing a private security advisory (not a public issue) if the repo is public.
+- Flag the finding for `/gsd start hotfix` if it's in the scope of active work.
+- Append one line to `.gsd/DECISIONS.md` if the remediation involves an architectural change.
+
+</process>
+
+<anti_patterns>
+
+- **Generic checklists.** "Does it validate input?" yes/no without pointing at the code is not a review.
+- **Hypothetical exploits without code.** If you can't name the path, the finding isn't real yet.
+- **Modifying code during review.** Reviewer and author must stay separate.
+- **Treating every theoretical issue as CRITICAL.** Severity requires exploitability.
+- **Skipping reachability.** A "critical" behind admin-only auth is usually not critical.
+- **Filing sensitive findings publicly.** Check the repo's security policy first.
+
+</anti_patterns>
+
+<success_criteria>
+
+- [ ] Every finding cites a file:line.
+- [ ] Every finding has a concrete exploit scenario, not just a category.
+- [ ] Severity, exploitability, and business impact are stated.
+- [ ] At least one non-finding is listed (shows what was ruled out).
+- [ ] No code was modified during the review.
+- [ ] Critical findings are routed through an appropriate disclosure channel, not auto-filed publicly.
+
+</success_criteria>