gsd-pi 2.76.0 → 2.77.0-dev.1d17f366c

package/dist/resources/skills/api-design/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,190 @@
+---
+name: api-design
+description: Design or review an HTTP/REST/GraphQL API for versioning, pagination, error shapes, idempotency, auth, and evolvability. Use when asked to "design an API", "shape the endpoints", "design the schema", "add a new endpoint", "review this API", or when building/modifying a public or internal HTTP surface. Complements `design-an-interface` (which is interface-agnostic) by covering HTTP-specific concerns like status codes, cache headers, and breaking-change management.
+---
+
+<objective>
+Shape an HTTP or GraphQL API so callers get predictable, evolvable, and honest semantics. The deliverable is a concrete endpoint/schema sketch with: URL or operation names, method/verb, request shape, response shape, error shape, auth model, pagination strategy, and versioning stance. Optimize for "clients that exist in 2 years" over "client that's easy to write today".
+</objective>
+
+<context>
+GSD-2 has `design-an-interface` for general module-interface design; this skill is the HTTP/GraphQL specialization. REST and GraphQL carry baggage — status codes, verbs, nullability, pagination — that a generic interface-design discussion glosses over.
+
+Invocation points:
+- Adding a new public API endpoint
+- Redesigning an internal API boundary between services
+- Code review of a PR that introduces HTTP handlers
+- A slice whose acceptance criteria include "the API works"
+- A GraphQL schema change
+</context>
+
+<core_principle>
+**CALLERS OUTLIVE YOUR ASSUMPTIONS.** An API you ship today has to keep working when your internals change, when the mobile app version two is still in use, and when a third party integrates against it. Design for extension, not just for the current caller.
+
+**HONEST STATUS CODES.** 200 OK with `{"error": "not found"}` is a lie. 404 says not found. Use the HTTP semantics the protocol offers — HTTP clients, caches, and intermediaries rely on them.
+
+**PAGINATION IS NON-OPTIONAL.** Any list endpoint that doesn't paginate will eventually get a request for "all records" that kills your database.
+</core_principle>
+
+<process>
+
+## Step 1: Gather the contract
+
+Answer, or ask (one round, 1–3 questions):
+
+1. **Who are the callers?** Internal service / mobile app / public third-party / same-repo frontend.
+2. **What's the versioning stance?** None / URL-path (`/v1/`) / header-based / GraphQL schema evolution.
+3. **Auth model?** Public / API key / OAuth / session cookie / mTLS / none-but-internal-only.
+4. **Idempotency expectation?** Is a retry safe? Required?
+5. **Consistency model?** Read-your-writes, eventual, serializable?
+
+## Step 2: Resource and operation naming
+
+### REST
+
+- Nouns not verbs in URLs: `POST /users`, not `POST /createUser`.
+- Plural resources: `/users/42`, not `/user/42`.
+- Nested only when the relationship is hierarchical and the child has no independent identity: `/users/42/sessions/3`. Otherwise flat: `/sessions/3?userId=42`.
+- Use subresources for actions that don't fit CRUD: `POST /users/42:deactivate` (colon syntax) or `POST /users/42/actions/deactivate`.
+
+### GraphQL
+
+- Queries are nouns; mutations are verbs: `user(id)`, `createUser(input)`, `deactivateUser(id)`.
+- Group related mutations under an input type: `createUser(input: CreateUserInput!)`.
+- Return the affected object plus any derived/computed fields from mutations — lets clients avoid a refetch.
+
+## Step 3: Methods and status codes
+
+### REST
+
+| Method | Intent | Idempotent? | Default success |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| GET | Read | Yes | 200, or 304 if conditional |
+| POST | Create or non-idempotent action | No | 201 with `Location` on create, 200 on action |
+| PUT | Replace (full-object) | Yes | 200 with body, or 204 |
+| PATCH | Partial update | No (usually) | 200 with body |
+| DELETE | Remove | Yes | 204 |
+
+Errors:
+- 400: caller screwed up the request shape
+- 401: no/invalid auth
+- 403: authed but not allowed
+- 404: resource doesn't exist
+- 409: conflict (version mismatch, unique constraint)
+- 410: gone (vs 404 when the resource previously existed and you want to signal that)
+- 422: validation failed
+- 429: rate-limited — include `Retry-After`
+- 500: genuinely unexpected server error
+- 503: service down or overloaded — include `Retry-After`
+
+Never 200-with-error-body. Never 500 for a 4xx cause.
+
+### GraphQL
+
+- Top-level errors (`errors[]`) for transport-level failures. Domain errors (validation, not-found, forbidden) go in the typed return — use a union or result type.
+- Partial results are expected; design the schema so `null` on a field is meaningful, not a signal of generic failure.
+
+## Step 4: Pagination
+
+- **Cursor-based by default.** Opaque cursor string, `limit`, return `nextCursor` when more exists. Scales, stable under writes.
+- **Offset-based only when:** dataset is small, user needs jump-to-page semantics (admin tables), and you're willing to accept stability drift.
+- **Never "return everything"** as default. Put a hard upper bound on `limit` (e.g., 200).
+- GraphQL: use Relay-style connections (`edges`, `pageInfo`) if the ecosystem expects it; otherwise a simpler `{items, nextCursor}` is fine.
+
+## Step 5: Error shape
+
+Standardize one shape and use it everywhere. Example REST:
+
+```json
+{
+  "error": {
+    "code": "user_not_found",
+    "message": "No user with id 42",
+    "details": { "userId": 42 },
+    "requestId": "req_abc123"
+  }
+}
+```
+
+- `code` is machine-readable; stable; documented.
+- `message` is human-readable; can change.
+- `details` carries structured context.
+- `requestId` lets callers report bugs.
+
+Errors don't leak stack traces, file paths, or internal queries.
+
+## Step 6: Idempotency, caching, concurrency
+
+- **Idempotency keys** for POST operations that mustn't double-execute on retry. Caller passes `Idempotency-Key: <uuid>`; server dedupes for a window.
+- **ETags** for GET + conditional updates (`If-Match` on PUT/PATCH).
+- **Cache-Control** on GETs that are safely cacheable.
+- **Optimistic concurrency:** when multiple writers collide, 409 with the current state. Don't silently clobber.
+
+## Step 7: Versioning and evolution
+
+- **Additive changes are free:** new optional fields, new endpoints, new optional query params.
+- **Breaking changes need a plan:** path-versioned (`/v2/`), sunset headers on `/v1/`, deprecation window communicated. Or, for GraphQL, `@deprecated` on fields with a migration note.
+- **Document the contract:** OpenAPI/GraphQL SDL. Keep it in the repo. Make it part of the PR that introduces the change.
+
+## Step 8: Review or write it up
+
+If this is a review, produce findings in the same shape as `security-review` / `review` — file:line, category, recommendation.
+
+If this is a new design, produce:
+
+```markdown
+## <API name>
+
+### Scope
+<what the API is for, who calls it>
+
+### Endpoints / Operations
+- `POST /users` — create user. Request: `{email, name}`. Response 201: `{id, email, name, createdAt}` + `Location: /users/<id>`. Errors: 409 email taken, 422 invalid.
+- ...
+
+### Auth
+<model + where to put the credential>
+
+### Pagination
+<cursor shape, max limit>
+
+### Error shape
+<one canonical shape>
+
+### Idempotency / concurrency
+<rules>
+
+### Versioning
+<stance + how breaking changes will be handled>
+
+### OpenAPI / SDL
+<link or inline>
+```
+
+Append architectural decisions to `.gsd/DECISIONS.md`.
+
+</process>
+
+<anti_patterns>
+
+- **200 OK with `{"error": "..."}`.** Lies to caches, proxies, retry libraries.
+- **Unbounded list endpoints.** `GET /users` without a `limit` cap will bite you.
+- **Offset pagination at scale.** Drifts under writes; slow at high offsets.
+- **Free-form error messages with no code.** Machine callers can't branch on prose.
+- **Breaking changes in-place.** Callers break; versioning exists for a reason.
+- **Ignoring idempotency on retriable POSTs.** Double-charges, duplicate records.
+- **Auth checks at the handler only, not the service layer.** Defense in depth.
+
+</anti_patterns>
+
+<success_criteria>
+
+- [ ] Every endpoint/operation has named request, response, and error shapes.
+- [ ] Status codes match HTTP semantics — no 200-with-error.
+- [ ] List endpoints paginate; max limit is documented.
+- [ ] A single error shape is used everywhere, with a machine-readable code.
+- [ ] Versioning stance is stated — even if the answer is "additive only for now."
+- [ ] OpenAPI/SDL reflects the design and lives in the repo.
+- [ ] Decisions appear in `.gsd/DECISIONS.md`.
+
+</success_criteria>

package/dist/resources/skills/create-mcp-server/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
+---
+name: create-mcp-server
+description: Build, iterate, and evaluate Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers that expose external services as tools an LLM can call. Use when asked to "build an MCP server", "create an MCP tool", "wrap this API as MCP", "expose X to Claude", or when extending GSD with custom tool integrations. Covers research, schema/tool design, error handling, pagination, testing via MCP Inspector, and producing a 10-question eval set that proves the server actually enables real work.
+---
+
+<objective>
+Produce a high-quality MCP server that an LLM can actually use — not one that merely parses spec-compliant. Quality is measured by how well the server enables real-world task completion, which means the tool descriptions, error messages, and pagination behave under model reasoning, not just at the wire level.
+</objective>
+
+<context>
+GSD-2 consumes MCP heavily — see `src/resources/extensions/mcp-client/`, `src/resources/extensions/gsd/mcp-project-config.ts`, `src/resources/extensions/gsd/workflow-mcp.ts`, and `/gsd mcp` commands. Users frequently want to extend GSD with project-specific MCP servers (internal APIs, data sources, domain tools). This skill fills the authoring gap between "MCP exists" and "I have a working server."
+
+Invocation points:
+- User describes a service or API they want an LLM to reach
+- `/gsd mcp init` scaffolds config but there's a tool integration to build
+- Replacing a hand-rolled extension with a standard MCP server
+</context>
+
+<core_principle>
+**THE QUALITY METRIC IS TASK COMPLETION, NOT SCHEMA VALIDITY.** A server that lists 30 tools with cryptic names and empty descriptions passes the protocol but fails the point. The tool description is the only thing an LLM has to decide whether to call it — write it like documentation for a stranger under time pressure.
+
+**DESIGN FOR THE MODEL, NOT THE API.** A raw REST endpoint is rarely the right tool. Group, filter, and pre-shape responses so the model gets what it needs to reason, not a 40KB JSON blob it has to summarize. Fewer, deeper tools beat many, shallow ones.
+</core_principle>
+
+<process>
+
+## Step 1: Research and scope
+
+1. **Study modern MCP design.** Read the latest MCP protocol docs (not training data — fetch them). Read 2–3 reference implementations to see current patterns.
+2. **Pick a framework.** TypeScript is the default — the reference SDK is the most mature. Python is fine for data-heavy or ML adjacencies.
+3. **Analyze the target API.** Map the external service's endpoints, auth, rate limits, pagination, error shapes. Identify what a human workflow on top of it actually looks like — that's the cut line for tool design.
+4. **Produce a brief.** One page: what the server does, who calls it, the 5–10 tools you plan to expose, and the top 3 design trade-offs. Confirm with the user.
+
+## Step 2: Set up the project
+
+Skeleton:
+
+```text
+server/
+  src/
+    index.ts         # MCP entry point — stdio or sse transport
+    client.ts        # API client with auth, retries, typed errors
+    tools/           # one file per tool, or grouped by domain
+    pagination.ts    # shared cursor handling
+    errors.ts        # MCP-friendly error formatting
+  package.json       # @modelcontextprotocol/sdk as dep
+  tsconfig.json
+  README.md          # how to run, env vars, rate-limit notes
+  evals.xml          # 10 eval questions (Phase 4)
+```
+
+Core infrastructure goes first: API client with typed errors, pagination helpers, consistent retry/timeout behavior. Do not inline these per tool.
+
+## Step 3: Implement tools
+
+For each tool:
+
+1. **Name:** verb-noun, lowercase, snake_case. `search_issues`, `get_customer`, `create_deployment`. Not `do_thing` or `api_v2_post`.
+2. **Description (frontmatter):** 2–4 sentences. State what the tool does, when to use it, when NOT to use it, and any required fields or quirks. This is the model's entire interface to the tool — write it carefully.
+3. **Input schema (JSON Schema):** required fields marked, every field has a description, enums enumerated, examples included for free-form strings.
+4. **Output shape:** typed, minimal, decision-ready. If the raw API returns 40 fields and only 6 matter for follow-up calls, return 6.
+5. **Error handling:** never return raw HTTP errors. Translate to human-readable messages: "Rate limit exceeded (retry in 30s)", "Authorization expired", "No record found for ID X". Include the action the caller should take next.
+6. **Pagination:** expose cursors explicitly. Do not leak "page N of M" into the model — leak "more results available, pass `cursor: abc123` to continue."
+
+## Step 4: Build and test with MCP Inspector
+
+1. Run the server under MCP Inspector. Verify it registers, every tool lists with its description, inputs schema-validate, outputs shape correctly.
+2. Call every tool at least once manually through the Inspector UI. Check error paths.
+3. Fix any "looks fine in isolation, breaks under the Inspector's framing" issues.
+
+## Step 5: Produce the eval set
+
+Write 10 evaluation questions in `evals.xml` that exercise the server end-to-end. Each question should require 2+ tool calls and at least one decision the model has to make based on earlier output. Cover:
+
+- Happy path (2–3 questions)
+- Error recovery (2 questions — "the first call failed, what next?")
+- Pagination (1 question)
+- Decision under partial information (2–3 questions)
+- Cross-tool composition (1–2 questions)
+
+Format:
+
+```xml
+<evals>
+  <eval id="1">
+    <question>...user request...</question>
+    <expected>...concrete observable answer or tool-call sequence...</expected>
+  </eval>
+</evals>
+```
+
+Run the evals. If the model can't complete them, the server — not the model — needs work. Iterate on descriptions, error messages, and tool granularity.
+
+## Step 6: Wire into GSD
+
+Write the project's `.mcp.json` entry using `/gsd mcp init` as a starting point. Document env vars and startup in README.md. If the server is globally useful, suggest the user file it as a durable skill via `spike-wrap-up` or publish it.
+
+</process>
+
+<anti_patterns>
+
+- **One-to-one REST mapping.** If the API has 30 endpoints, you likely want 6 tools.
+- **Empty or auto-generated descriptions.** "Calls the /users endpoint" tells the model nothing it can reason with.
+- **Raw error passthrough.** `{"error": "500"}` is useless. Translate.
+- **Page-based pagination leaked as "page 1 of 5".** Use opaque cursors.
+- **Skipping the Inspector.** If you didn't run it under the Inspector, you didn't test it.
+- **No evals.** Without evals you have no signal on whether real task completion works.
+
+</anti_patterns>
+
+<success_criteria>
+
+- [ ] Every tool has a description that could guide a cold-start model correctly.
+- [ ] Errors are translated to actionable, human-readable messages.
+- [ ] Pagination uses opaque cursors; no leaked page numbers.
+- [ ] `evals.xml` has 10 questions; the model completes ≥8 without handholding.
+- [ ] MCP Inspector test passes cleanly.
+- [ ] README documents env, startup, and rate-limit behavior.
+- [ ] Server is reachable from GSD via `.mcp.json` entry.
+
+</success_criteria>

package/dist/resources/skills/create-skill/SKILL.md

@@ -88,8 +88,8 @@ Then proceed directly to the workflow.
 ## Skill Structure Quick Reference
 
 **Skill directories:**
-- Global: `~/.gsd/agent/skills/{skill-name}/`
-- Project-local: `.pi/agent/skills/{skill-name}/`
+- Global: `~/.agents/skills/{skill-name}/`
+- Project-local: `.agents/skills/{skill-name}/`
 
 **Simple skill (single file):**
 ```yaml

package/dist/resources/skills/create-skill/references/gsd-skill-ecosystem.md

@@ -5,13 +5,13 @@ GSD-specific skill ecosystem details: directory conventions, discovery mechanics
 <skill_directories>
 GSD supports two skill directories, checked in order:
 
-**User-scope (global):** `~/.gsd/agent/skills/`
+**User-scope (global):** `~/.agents/skills/`
 - Available in every GSD session regardless of working directory
-- Installed by default or by the user
+- Installed via [skills.sh](https://skills.sh) or manually
 
-**Project-scope (local):** `.pi/agent/skills/`
+**Project-scope (local):** `.agents/skills/`
 - Available only when GSD runs inside the project directory
-- The project-local directory uses `.pi` (inherited from the pi base), **not** `.gsd`
+- Committable to version control so team members share the same skill set
 - Ideal for project-specific workflows, deploy scripts, or conventions
 
 Skills in both directories follow the same SKILL.md format and router pattern conventions.

package/dist/resources/skills/create-skill/workflows/audit-skill.md

@@ -16,22 +16,22 @@
 Enumerate skills from both directories:
 ```bash
 echo "=== Global skills ==="
-ls ~/.gsd/agent/skills/ 2>/dev/null || echo "(none)"
+ls ~/.agents/skills/ 2>/dev/null || echo "(none)"
 
 echo "=== Project-local skills ==="
-ls .pi/agent/skills/ 2>/dev/null || echo "(none)"
+ls .agents/skills/ 2>/dev/null || echo "(none)"
 ```
 
 Present as:
 ```
 Available skills:
 
-Global (~/.gsd/agent/skills/):
+Global (~/.agents/skills/):
 1. create-skill
 2. manage-stripe
 ...
 
-Project-local (.pi/agent/skills/):
+Project-local (.agents/skills/):
 3. project-deploy
 ...
 ```

package/dist/resources/skills/create-skill/workflows/create-new-skill.md

@@ -15,8 +15,8 @@
 **Ask the user:**
 "Should this skill be global or project-local?"
 
-1. **Global** (`~/.gsd/agent/skills/`) — Available in all GSD sessions
-2. **Project-local** (`.pi/agent/skills/`) — Available only in this project
+1. **Global** (`~/.agents/skills/`) — Available in all GSD sessions
+2. **Project-local** (`.agents/skills/`) — Available only in this project
 
 ## Step 2: Adaptive Requirements Gathering
 
@@ -99,11 +99,11 @@ See references/recommended-structure.md for templates.
 ## Step 5: Create Directory
 
 Use the scope selected in Step 1 to determine the base path:
-- **Global:** `~/.gsd/agent/skills/{skill-name}`
-- **Project-local:** `.pi/agent/skills/{skill-name}`
+- **Global:** `~/.agents/skills/{skill-name}`
+- **Project-local:** `.agents/skills/{skill-name}`
 
 ```bash
-BASE_PATH="{selected-base}/agent/skills/{skill-name}"
+BASE_PATH="{selected-base}/skills/{skill-name}"
 mkdir -p $BASE_PATH
 # If complex:
 mkdir -p $BASE_PATH/workflows

package/dist/resources/skills/decompose-into-slices/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
+---
+name: decompose-into-slices
+description: Break a plan or milestone brief into independently-grabbable vertical slices (tracer bullets). Produces slices in `M###-ROADMAP.md` by default, or GitHub issues only with explicit user confirmation. Use when asked to "break this into slices", "decompose the plan", "vertical slices", "break into issues", or when a plan is ready but needs task-level decomposition. Prefers many thin slices over few thick ones; marks dependency order explicitly.
+---
+
+<objective>
+Decompose an approved plan into the smallest useful vertical slices that each cut end-to-end through every relevant layer. Primary output is the `Slices` section of `M###-ROADMAP.md` (matching the template at `src/resources/extensions/gsd/templates/roadmap.md`). Secondary output, only with explicit confirmation, is a set of GitHub issues with blocked-by relationships wired up.
+</objective>
+
+<context>
+This skill runs after the brief is stable — `M###-CONTEXT.md` exists and the user has signed off on scope. It's the bridge from "we know what we're building" to "we know in what order and chunks." The vertical-slice discipline (tracer bullets) is non-negotiable here — it's the core of what makes GSD slices demoable and parallel-safe.
+
+Typical invocation points:
+- After `write-milestone-brief` (or after a `discuss` phase that produced a brief)
+- When a roadmap exists but slices are too thick, too few, or poorly ordered
+- When exporting the plan for external collaborators (GitHub issues)
+</context>
+
+<core_principle>
+**VERTICAL, NOT HORIZONTAL.** A slice that adds "schema + API + UI + tests for feature X on one narrow path" is vertical. A slice that adds "all schemas for all features" is horizontal and is wrong. Horizontal slices destroy the demoability property that makes slice completion meaningful.
+
+**MANY THIN, NOT FEW THICK.** If a slice could be split into two demoable pieces, split it. Thin slices retire risk earlier, parallelize better, and give the user faster feedback on whether the direction is right.
+
+**DEPENDENCY GRAPH, NOT LINEAR LIST.** Slices that don't depend on each other should be marked that way — `depends:[]` means the slice can start immediately. The GSD engine uses this to parallelize.
+</core_principle>
+
+<process>
+
+## Step 1: Load context
+
+1. Read `M###-CONTEXT.md` for the active milestone — the brief is the source of truth for scope.
+2. Read `M###-ROADMAP.md` if one exists — you may be refining rather than creating from scratch.
+3. Read `src/resources/extensions/gsd/templates/roadmap.md` for the exact slice format. The parser depends on it.
+4. If the plan came from a GitHub issue (user passed a URL or number), fetch it with `mcp__github__issue_read`.
+
+## Step 2: Explore the codebase briefly
+
+If you haven't yet, spawn `Agent(subagent_type=Explore)` to map the modules the milestone touches. This is fast and prevents proposing slices that don't align with the codebase's seams.
+
+## Step 3: Draft vertical slices
+
+Produce a draft list of slices. For each slice, capture:
+
+- **ID:** `S01`, `S02`, ... — assigned in dependency order (earliest first).
+- **Title:** short, descriptive, says what the slice delivers.
+- **Risk:** `high` / `medium` / `low` — slices that retire the most uncertainty go first.
+- **Depends:** `[]` or `[S01]` or `[S01,S02]` — which slices must finish first.
+- **Demo line:** "After this: <what is observable when the slice is done>" — one sentence, concrete.
+- **HITL vs AFK** (optional): does this slice require human interaction (architectural decision, design review), or can an agent ship it alone? Default to AFK when unsure.
+
+### Vertical-slice rules
+
+- Each slice cuts through every relevant layer (schema, API, UI, tests, whatever applies).
+- A completed slice is demoable or verifiable on its own.
+- Early slices should prove the hardest thing works — build through the uncertain path.
+- If a slice doesn't produce something testable end-to-end, it's probably a layer — restructure.
+- If the milestone crosses runtime boundaries (daemon + API + UI; bot + subprocess + service; extension + RPC), include an explicit final integration slice that exercises the assembled system.
+
+## Step 4: Quiz the user
+
+Present the draft as a numbered list with ID, title, risk, depends, demo line. Then ask (one round, not many):
+
+1. Does the granularity feel right — too coarse or too fine?
+2. Are the dependency relationships correct?
+3. Should any slice be merged or split?
+4. Any slices misclassified as AFK when they need human input?
+
+Iterate on feedback until the user approves the breakdown. Do not proceed to Step 5 without explicit approval.
+
+## Step 5: Write the roadmap
+
+Once approved, write or update `M###-ROADMAP.md` matching the template exactly. Critical format (parsers depend on it):
+
+```markdown
+- [ ] **S01: Title** `risk:high` `depends:[]`
+  > After this: one sentence showing what's demoable
+- [ ] **S02: Title** `risk:medium` `depends:[S01]`
+  > After this: one sentence showing what's demoable
+```
+
+Fill the rest of the template: Vision, Success Criteria, Key Risks, Proof Strategy, Verification Classes, Definition of Done, Requirement Coverage, Horizontal Checklist (omit entirely for trivial milestones), and the Boundary Map (`S01 → S02` produces/consumes blocks — be specific, name real APIs/types/invariants).
+
+Use `write` to the path `.gsd/milestones/<MID>/<MID>-ROADMAP.md`. Do not edit checkboxes by hand during normal execution — the `gsd_*` tools own state.
+
+## Step 6: Optionally file as GitHub issues
+
+If the user explicitly asks (and only if — outward actions need confirmation), create one GitHub issue per slice with `mcp__github__issue_write`. Create in dependency order so "Blocked by" references can cite real issue numbers.
+
+### Issue body template
+
+```markdown
+## Parent
+
+#<parent-milestone-issue-number> (if applicable; otherwise omit)
+
+## What to build
+
+<concise description of this vertical slice — end-to-end behavior, not layer-by-layer>
+
+## Acceptance criteria
+
+- [ ] <criterion 1>
+- [ ] <criterion 2>
+
+## Blocked by
+
+- Blocked by #<issue-number>
+<or "None - can start immediately">
+
+---
+From milestone brief at `.gsd/milestones/<MID>/<MID>-CONTEXT.md`.
+```
+
+Do NOT close or modify any parent issue.
+
+</process>
+
+<anti_patterns>
+
+- **Horizontal slices.** "S01: All schemas" / "S02: All APIs" / "S03: All UI" — destroys demoability.
+- **Research-only slices.** A slice whose deliverable is a document, not working code, is a spike. Use `/gsd start spike`.
+- **Foundation slices with no demo.** "Set up the base class for X" is a layer, not a slice.
+- **Auto-filing GitHub issues.** Requires explicit user confirmation every time.
+- **Editing roadmap checkboxes by hand later.** `gsd_*` tools own that state during execution.
+- **Vague demo lines.** "Feature X is implemented" is not a demo. "User can submit the form and see the result" is.
+
+</anti_patterns>
+
+<success_criteria>
+
+- [ ] Every slice is vertical — cuts end-to-end through the relevant layers.
+- [ ] Every slice has a concrete, observable demo line.
+- [ ] Dependency graph is explicit and correct — `depends:[]` on slices that can start immediately.
+- [ ] Risk ordering puts the hardest uncertainty-retiring slices first.
+- [ ] `M###-ROADMAP.md` matches the template format exactly (parsers depend on it).
+- [ ] If the milestone crosses runtime boundaries, a final integration slice exists.
+- [ ] GitHub issues, if filed, cite real issue numbers for blocked-by and reference the brief.
+
+</success_criteria>