gsd-pi 2.76.0 → 2.77.0-dev.1d17f366c

package/dist/resources/skills/verify-before-complete/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
+---
+name: verify-before-complete
+description: >-
+  Block completion claims until verification evidence has been produced in the current message. Use before marking a task/slice/milestone complete, before creating a commit or PR, before saying "it works" or "tests pass", and any time you are about to claim work is done. The rule is: evidence before claims, always — running the verification must happen now, not "earlier in the session". Fresh output or no claim.
+---
+
+<objective>
+Enforce the GSD "work is not done when code compiles; work is done when verification passes" contract. A completion claim without verification output generated in the current message is a broken claim. This skill is the gate.
+</objective>
+
+<context>
+GSD's system prompt sets the expectation; `guided-complete-slice.md` and `auto-verification.ts` enforce it at the slice boundary. But between slice boundaries — mid-task, mid-debug, mid-review — an agent can drift into "I think it works" mode and ship broken work. This skill is the ritual to break that pattern at any completion point.
+
+Invocation points:
+- About to toggle a checkbox from `[ ]` to `[x]` via a `gsd_*` tool
+- About to commit, push, or open a PR
+- About to summarize a task or slice as complete
+- About to say "tests pass", "build works", "lint clean", "fixed", "done"
+- Replying to a user question with "yes it works" or similar
+</context>
+
+<core_principle>
+**EVIDENCE BEFORE CLAIMS, ALWAYS.** "I ran it earlier" is not evidence. A log from three tool calls ago is not evidence if code has changed since. The verification must have happened *after* the last code change, in this message, with fresh output.
+
+**VIOLATING THE LETTER IS VIOLATING THE SPIRIT.** If the principle feels inconvenient, that is the signal it is load-bearing. Find the verification command. Run it. Read the output.
+</core_principle>
+
+<process>
+
+## Step 1: Identify the claim
+
+What are you about to claim? Name it precisely:
+
+- "Tests pass" → which tests?
+- "Build works" → for which target?
+- "Bug is fixed" → which reproduction?
+- "Task complete" → which acceptance criteria?
+
+## Step 2: Identify the verification command
+
+Match claim → command:
+
+| Claim | Verification |
+|---|---|
+| Tests pass | The specific test command the project uses (`npm test`, `cargo test`, `pytest`, etc.) — scoped to changed code if large suite. |
+| Build works | The project's build command, for real — not `tsc --noEmit` if the project needs a bundle. |
+| Lint clean | `lsp diagnostics` on edited files, plus the project's linter if CI runs one. |
+| Bug fixed | The reproduction steps from the bug report or test, freshly run. |
+| UI works | Browser verification via `browser_snapshot_refs` + `browser_assert` in a running app — not "it looks right in the diff". |
+| Slice complete | Every acceptance criterion in `S##-PLAN.md`, re-checked against live behavior. |
+
+If no verification command exists, the task has not produced a falsifiable claim — it is not complete. Write the verification first (see the `tdd` or `test` skill).
+
+## Step 3: Run it now
+
+Use `async_bash` for one-shot commands, `bg_shell` for long-running servers/watchers. Wait for it to exit. Read the output. Not skim — read.
+
+**If output indicates failure:** you do not have a completion claim. Loop back: inspect the error, fix, re-run until it passes or a real blocker requires user input. Do not partially claim ("tests mostly pass") — either pass or report failure honestly.
+
+**If output indicates success:** quote the relevant line in your reply. "42 tests passing" or "Exit code 0" or "LSP reports 0 errors on the 3 edited files."
+
+## Step 4: Check for staleness
+
+If you ran the verification early in this message, then made further code changes, the output is stale. Re-run. Cancel in-flight `async_bash` jobs that predated the edit (see system prompt: "stale job hygiene").
+
+## Step 5: Now claim
+
+Only now, after fresh output, can you:
+
+- Mark a task/slice/milestone complete via `gsd_*`
+- Commit / push / open PR
+- State "done", "fixed", "passes", "works"
+
+Include the evidence in the claim: "Slice complete — `npm test` passed (84/84), `npm run build` exit 0, acceptance criterion 3 verified against live UI at /dashboard."
+
+</process>
+
+<anti_patterns>
+
+- **"It should work"** — not verification. Run the command.
+- **"Tests passed earlier"** — stale. Run them now.
+- **"The code looks right"** — code review is not verification.
+- **`tsc --noEmit` as the build check** when the project bundles — test what the user experiences.
+- **Silent failures** — "the test was killed by a timeout so I assume it's fine." No.
+- **Partial passes** — 80/84 is not "tests pass." Report the 4 failures.
+- **Skipping because "I know why this works"** — your mental model is not evidence.
+
+</anti_patterns>
+
+<success_criteria>
+
+- [ ] The claim is precise — not "it works" but "`npm test` passed with 84/84 tests."
+- [ ] The verification command ran *after* the last code change, in this message.
+- [ ] Output was read, not skimmed.
+- [ ] Failures would have been caught — the verification actually tests what the claim asserts.
+- [ ] Relevant evidence is quoted in the claim reply.
+
+</success_criteria>

package/dist/resources/skills/write-docs/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+---
+name: write-docs
+description: >-
+  Collaborative document authoring workflow for proposals, technical specs, decision docs, README sections, ADRs, and long-form prose that must work for fresh readers. Use when asked to "write the docs", "draft a proposal", "write a spec", "write an RFC", "write the README", or when a document needs to be understandable by someone without this session's context. Three stages: gather context, iterate on structure, reader-test for a stranger.
+---
+
+<objective>
+Produce documentation that works for a reader landing cold. Not a summary of what was built, not a dump of the conversation, but a document that transfers intent to someone who wasn't here. Run it through three stages — Context → Refine → Reader-Test — and don't ship until a hypothetical reader could act on it.
+</objective>
+
+<context>
+GSD already produces durable artifacts (`M###-CONTEXT.md`, `S##-SUMMARY.md`, `DECISIONS.md`, `KNOWLEDGE.md`), but those are scaffolded by templates. This skill is for free-form documentation: README changes, public docs, architectural proposals, RFCs, PR descriptions, runbooks, and anything that lives under `docs/`, `mintlify-docs/`, or `gitbook/` in this repo.
+
+Invocation points:
+- User asks to write or rewrite a piece of documentation
+- Before shipping a feature that adds user-facing behavior — docs need updates
+- After `write-milestone-brief` when the brief needs a public-facing summary for non-GSD consumers
+- PR description for a meaningful change
+</context>
+
+<core_principle>
+**WRITE FOR THE FRESH READER.** The test is not "does the maintainer understand it" — you are the maintainer. The test is "can someone who has never seen this code act correctly after reading this?"
+
+**ITERATE STRUCTURE BEFORE PROSE.** An outline that's wrong will not be saved by good sentences. Agree on the sections, what each is for, and in what order before drafting the body.
+
+**NO FILE PATHS IN TRUNK DOCS.** Paths rot. Describe modules, behaviors, and invariants. A README that cites `src/foo.ts:42` is a future broken link.
+</core_principle>
+
+<process>
+
+## Stage 1: Context gathering
+
+1. **Who is the reader?** Internal engineer, open-source contributor, end user, future you at 3am. The answer changes everything.
+2. **What should they be able to do after reading?** Name the single post-read action. "Understand the auth flow" is not an action — "implement a new auth provider using the documented extension points" is.
+3. **What do they already know?** Assume they have docs for the language and framework, not for your codebase. Don't re-explain React; do explain your project's conventions.
+4. **What context from this conversation/codebase belongs in the doc?** Ask the user to dump any missing material. Do not invent examples.
+
+One round of clarifying questions. Then proceed.
+
+## Stage 2: Refine structure
+
+1. **Draft an outline, not prose.** Numbered sections, one-line purpose for each. Show it to the user.
+2. **Iterate the outline.** Remove sections the reader doesn't need. Reorder so the must-knows come first. Flag sections that can't be written without more input.
+3. **Only then, fill sections.** Write the body of each section in order. Keep sentences short. Prefer concrete examples over abstractions. Show small diffs or code snippets where they clarify; skip them where they'd rot.
+4. **Draft in place.** Write directly to the target file — `docs/<name>.md`, `README.md`, `mintlify-docs/…`. Do not keep a scratch draft in the conversation.
+
+## Stage 3: Reader-test
+
+1. **Cold-read it.** Read the doc top to bottom as if you hadn't written it. Stop at every moment you thought "they already know X" — that's a gap.
+2. **Can the named post-read action be taken?** Walk through it. If yes, the doc works. If no, identify the missing piece and add it.
+3. **Cut aggressively.** Anything that isn't serving the post-read action comes out. Documentation bloat kills docs.
+4. **Offer to the user:** "Here's the draft. Want me to run a fresh sub-agent (`Agent(subagent_type=Explore)`) as a cold reader to stress-test it?"
+
+## Stage 4: Wire it in
+
+1. Link to the new doc from relevant entry points (README.md index, docs/ sidebar, mintlify-docs config, etc.).
+2. If it documents a decision, also append a one-line entry to `.gsd/DECISIONS.md` pointing at the doc.
+3. If it's a public-facing change, flag for the next release notes / CHANGELOG update.
+
+</process>
+
+<anti_patterns>
+
+- **"Writing a summary of what we did"** — the reader doesn't care about the journey. Document the destination.
+- **Paths and line numbers in long-lived docs.** They rot. Use module names.
+- **Re-explaining general concepts.** If the reader needs to know what HTTP is, the doc is aimed at the wrong audience.
+- **Starting with prose.** Outline first, always.
+- **Not cold-reading.** Every doc gets one pass as if you've never seen it.
+- **Claiming "done" without the reader-test.** Docs that haven't been cold-read are notes, not docs.
+
+</anti_patterns>
+
+<success_criteria>
+
+- [ ] The reader and their post-read action are named explicitly.
+- [ ] The outline was agreed before prose was written.
+- [ ] A cold-read pass happened; gaps were closed.
+- [ ] No file paths or line numbers in the trunk doc (decision-scoped ADRs may include them).
+- [ ] Doc is linked from a relevant entry point — it is discoverable, not orphaned.
+- [ ] The named action is actually executable after reading.
+
+</success_criteria>

package/dist/resources/skills/write-milestone-brief/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+---
+name: write-milestone-brief
+description: Synthesize the current conversation into a milestone brief (PRD). Writes to `M###-CONTEXT.md` by default, or files a GitHub issue only with explicit user confirmation. Use when asked to "turn this into a PRD", "draft a milestone brief", "capture this context", "write it up", or when enough has been discussed to commit the plan to paper. Does not interview — it synthesizes what is already known.
+---
+
+<objective>
+Take everything established in the current conversation (plus repo reality) and produce a milestone brief that a future agent can execute from with zero additional context. The output is a populated `M###-CONTEXT.md`, matching the template at `src/resources/extensions/gsd/templates/context.md`. Optionally, with explicit confirmation, also a GitHub issue.
+</objective>
+
+<context>
+This skill runs at the end of a discussion phase, after enough grilling/design has happened that the plan has stabilized. It does NOT interview — use the `grill-me` skill for that. This skill collapses what is already on the page into a durable artifact.
+
+Typical invocation points:
+- User says "capture this" or "write it up" after a planning discussion
+- End of a `discuss` phase before moving to `plan`
+- User wants to hand the work off to another agent or a human teammate
+</context>
+
+<core_principle>
+**SYNTHESIZE, DO NOT RE-INTERVIEW.** Use what is already in this conversation. If a decision is genuinely missing, note it in `Open Questions` — do not relitigate.
+
+**REAL OUTCOMES, NOT TASKS.** `M###-CONTEXT.md` describes what the user can do when the milestone ships, what scenarios must pass for "done," and what architectural decisions were made. It does NOT list tasks or implementation steps — those belong in `M###-ROADMAP.md` and `S##-PLAN.md`.
+
+**NO FILE PATHS OR LINE NUMBERS IN THE BRIEF.** Those go stale. Describe modules, interfaces, and behaviors. The roadmap and plans can cite code locations; the brief should outlive refactors.
+</core_principle>
+
+<process>
+
+## Step 1: Locate the target
+
+Find the active milestone:
+
+1. Read `.gsd/STATE.md` — it names the active milestone.
+2. If no milestone is active, ask the user whether this is a new milestone (create directory + files) or appending to an existing one.
+3. For a new milestone, use `gsd_milestone_new` or the `/gsd new-milestone` flow — do not create directories by hand.
+
+## Step 2: Read the template
+
+Read `src/resources/extensions/gsd/templates/context.md` (the full path is shown in the `templatesDir` system-prompt field). Match its structure exactly — parsers and downstream prompts depend on the headings.
+
+## Step 3: Sketch the modules
+
+Before filling the template, sketch the major modules the milestone will build or modify. Actively look for opportunities to extract **deep modules** — ones that encapsulate a lot of functionality in a simple, testable interface that rarely changes. A deep module is more testable, more AI-navigable, and survives refactors.
+
+If the modules are non-obvious, offer the user a brief check-in: "The milestone touches modules A, B, and C. A can be extracted as a deep module that hides X. Does that match your thinking?" One round. Then proceed.
+
+## Step 4: Fill the template
+
+Populate `M###-CONTEXT.md` using the template. Key sections:
+
+- **Project Description** — one paragraph, plain English, what this milestone is.
+- **Why This Milestone** — the problem it solves and why now, from the user's perspective.
+- **User-Visible Outcome** — literal user actions in the real environment. "User can complete the import flow end-to-end" not "Adds import API."
+- **Completion Class** — contract / integration / operational. Be honest about what level of proof is required.
+- **Final Integrated Acceptance** — the real end-to-end scenarios that must pass. Name things that cannot be simulated.
+- **Architectural Decisions** — one `### Decision Title` block per decision, with rationale and alternatives considered. If there were no architectural decisions, write "None — straightforward execution" and skip the subsections.
+- **Error Handling Strategy** — approach for failures, edge cases, and error propagation. Include retry policies, fallback behaviors, and user-facing error messages where relevant.
+- **Risks and Unknowns** — only real ones. Do not invent risks.
+- **Existing Codebase / Prior Art** — module names, not line numbers. Brief description of how each relates.
+- **Relevant Requirements** — requirement IDs this milestone advances and how.
+- **Scope** — In Scope / Out of Scope / Non-Goals. Be specific about tempting adjacent work that is out.
+- **Technical Constraints** — binding constraints (runtime, platform, dependencies, performance budgets).
+- **Integration Points** — external systems/services this milestone touches and how.
+- **Testing Requirements** — test types (unit, integration, e2e), coverage expectations, and specific scenarios that must pass.
+- **Acceptance Criteria** — per-slice, testable criteria gathered during discussion.
+- **Open Questions** — anything material that is genuinely unresolved. Note current thinking so future agents have a starting point.
+
+> The template headings above are mandatory — do not omit, rename, or reorder them. The exact required order matches `src/resources/extensions/gsd/templates/context.md`: Project Description → Why This Milestone → User-Visible Outcome → Completion Class → Final Integrated Acceptance → Architectural Decisions → Error Handling Strategy → Risks and Unknowns → Existing Codebase / Prior Art → Relevant Requirements → Scope → Technical Constraints → Integration Points → Testing Requirements → Acceptance Criteria → Open Questions.
+
+## Step 5: Write it
+
+Use the `write` tool to create or overwrite `.gsd/milestones/<MID>/<MID>-CONTEXT.md`. Do not ask for approval of the file contents before writing — the user will see the rendered file and can edit directly.
+
+Then append a one-line summary to `.gsd/DECISIONS.md` for any genuinely hard-to-reverse architectural decision: `- YYYY-MM-DD [MID]: <decision> — <one-line rationale>`.
+
+## Step 6: Offer next steps
+
+After writing, offer the user (do not auto-execute):
+
+1. **Proceed to planning** — run `/gsd dispatch plan` to generate `M###-ROADMAP.md` from this brief.
+2. **File as GitHub issue** — use `mcp__github__issue_write` to create a tracking issue. Requires explicit "yes" per the outward-action rule. Use the PRD template below for the body.
+3. **Iterate on the brief** — if something feels wrong, run `grill-me` to stress-test before moving on.
+
+### GitHub issue body template (only if user chooses option 2)
+
+```markdown
+## Problem Statement
+<user-perspective problem — one paragraph>
+
+## Solution
+<user-perspective solution — one paragraph>
+
+## User Stories
+1. As a <actor>, I want <feature>, so that <benefit>.
+2. ...
+<cover all aspects; be exhaustive>
+
+## Architectural Decisions
+<list of decisions with rationale — copy from M###-CONTEXT.md>
+
+## Testing Strategy
+<what a good test looks like here: external behavior only, which modules get tested, prior art>
+
+## Out of Scope
+<things explicitly not covered>
+
+## Further Notes
+<any extra context>
+
+---
+See `.gsd/milestones/<MID>/<MID>-CONTEXT.md` for the full brief.
+```
+
+</process>
+
+<anti_patterns>
+
+- **Re-interviewing the user.** Use context, not fresh questions. If something is missing, put it in Open Questions.
+- **Listing implementation tasks.** The brief describes outcomes and decisions — the roadmap and plans describe tasks.
+- **Citing specific line numbers.** They rot. Cite modules or interfaces.
+- **Inventing risks or decisions.** If the discussion didn't surface a real architectural choice, the Architectural Decisions section is short — that's fine.
+- **Auto-filing the GitHub issue.** Any outward-facing action needs explicit confirmation.
+
+</anti_patterns>
+
+<success_criteria>
+
+- [ ] `M###-CONTEXT.md` exists and follows the template structure.
+- [ ] User-Visible Outcome section names literal user actions, not internal tasks.
+- [ ] Completion Class is honest — no "just unit tests" when the milestone demands live integration.
+- [ ] Every architectural decision has a rationale and named alternatives.
+- [ ] Open Questions captures genuinely unresolved items — not decisions the user already made.
+- [ ] `.gsd/DECISIONS.md` has a dated one-liner for any hard-to-reverse decision.
+
+</success_criteria>