gsd-remix 1.0.0

package/get-shit-done/workflows/sketch.md

@@ -0,0 +1,286 @@
+<purpose>
+Explore design directions through throwaway HTML mockups before committing to implementation.
+Each sketch produces 2-3 variants for comparison. Saves artifacts to `.planning/sketches/`.
+Companion to `/gsd-sketch-wrap-up`.
+</purpose>
+
+<required_reading>
+Read all files referenced by the invoking prompt's execution_context before starting.
+
+@~/.claude/get-shit-done/references/sketch-theme-system.md
+@~/.claude/get-shit-done/references/sketch-variant-patterns.md
+@~/.claude/get-shit-done/references/sketch-interactivity.md
+@~/.claude/get-shit-done/references/sketch-tooling.md
+</required_reading>
+
+<process>
+
+<step name="banner">
+```
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+ GSD ► SKETCHING
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+```
+
+Parse `$ARGUMENTS` for:
+- `--quick` flag → set `QUICK_MODE=true`
+- `--text` flag → set `TEXT_MODE=true`
+- Remaining text → the design idea to sketch
+
+**Text mode (`workflow.text_mode: true` in config or `--text` flag):** Set `TEXT_MODE=true` if `--text` is present in `$ARGUMENTS` OR `text_mode` from init JSON is `true`. When TEXT_MODE is active, replace every `AskUserQuestion` call with a plain-text numbered list and ask the user to type their choice number. This is required for non-Claude runtimes (OpenAI Codex, Gemini CLI, etc.) where `AskUserQuestion` is not available.
+</step>
+
+<step name="setup_directory">
+Create `.planning/sketches/` and themes directory if they don't exist:
+
+```bash
+mkdir -p .planning/sketches/themes
+```
+
+Check for existing sketches to determine numbering:
+```bash
+ls -d .planning/sketches/[0-9][0-9][0-9]-* 2>/dev/null | sort | tail -1
+```
+
+Check `commit_docs` config:
+```bash
+COMMIT_DOCS=$(gsd-remix-sdk query config-get commit_docs 2>/dev/null || echo "true")
+```
+</step>
+
+<step name="mood_intake">
+**If `QUICK_MODE` is true:** Skip mood intake. Use whatever the user provided in `$ARGUMENTS` as the design direction. Jump to `decompose`.
+
+**Otherwise:**
+
+Before sketching anything, explore the design intent through conversation. Ask one question at a time using AskUserQuestion, with a paragraph of context and reasoning for each.
+
+**Questions to cover (adapt to what the user has already shared):**
+
+1. **Feel:** "What should this feel like? Give me adjectives, emotions, or a vibe." (e.g., "clean and clinical", "warm and playful", "dense and powerful")
+2. **References:** "What apps, sites, or products have a similar feel to what you're imagining?" (gives concrete visual anchors)
+3. **Core action:** "What's the single most important thing a user does here?" (focuses the sketch on what matters)
+
+You may need more or fewer questions depending on how much the user shares upfront. After each answer, briefly reflect what you heard and how it shapes your thinking.
+
+When you have enough signal, ask: **"I think I have a good sense of the direction. Ready for me to sketch, or want to keep discussing?"**
+
+Only proceed when the user says go.
+</step>
+
+<step name="decompose">
+Break the idea into 2-5 design questions. Present as a table:
+
+| Sketch | Design question | Approach | Risk |
+|--------|----------------|----------|------|
+| 001 | Does a two-panel layout feel right? | Sidebar + main, variants: fixed/collapsible/floating | **High** — sets page structure |
+| 002 | How should the form controls look? | Grouped cards, variants: stacked/inline/floating labels | Medium |
+
+Each sketch answers one specific visual question. Good sketches:
+- "Does this layout feel right?" — build with real-ish content
+- "How should these controls be grouped?" — build with actual labels and inputs
+- "What does this interaction feel like?" — build the hover/click/transition
+- "Does this color palette work?" — apply to actual UI, not a swatch grid
+
+Bad sketches:
+- "Design the whole app" — too broad
+- "Set up the component library" — that's implementation
+- "Pick a color palette" — apply it to UI instead
+
+Present the table and get alignment before building.
+</step>
+
+<step name="research_stack">
+## Research the Target Stack
+
+Before sketching, ground the design in what's actually buildable. Sketches are HTML, but they should reflect real constraints of the target implementation.
+
+**a. Identify the target stack.** Check for package.json, Cargo.toml, etc. If the user mentioned a framework (React, SwiftUI, Flutter, etc.), note it.
+
+**b. Check component/pattern availability.** Use context7 (resolve-library-id → query-docs) or web search to answer:
+- What layout primitives does the target framework provide? (grid systems, nav patterns, panel components)
+- Are there existing component libraries in use? (shadcn, Material UI, etc.) What components are available?
+- What interaction patterns are idiomatic? (e.g., sheet vs modal vs dialog in mobile)
+
+**c. Note constraints that affect design.** Some things that look great in HTML are painful or impossible in certain stacks:
+- Platform conventions (iOS nav patterns, desktop menu bars, terminal grid constraints)
+- Framework limitations (what's easy vs requires custom work)
+- Existing design tokens or theme systems already in the project
+
+**d. Let research inform variants.** Use findings to make variants that are actually buildable — at least one variant should follow the path of least resistance for the target stack.
+
+**Skip when unnecessary.** If it's a greenfield project with no stack chosen, or the user explicitly says "just explore visually, don't worry about implementation," skip this step entirely. The point is grounding, not gatekeeping.
+</step>
+
+<step name="create_manifest">
+Create or update `.planning/sketches/MANIFEST.md`:
+
+```markdown
+# Sketch Manifest
+
+## Design Direction
+[One paragraph capturing the mood/feel/direction from the intake conversation]
+
+## Reference Points
+[Apps/sites the user referenced]
+
+## Sketches
+
+| # | Name | Design Question | Winner | Tags |
+|---|------|----------------|--------|------|
+```
+
+If MANIFEST.md already exists, append new sketches to the existing table.
+</step>
+
+<step name="create_theme">
+If no theme exists yet at `.planning/sketches/themes/default.css`, create one based on the mood/direction from the intake step. See `sketch-theme-system.md` for the full template.
+
+Adapt colors, fonts, spacing, and shapes to match the agreed aesthetic — don't use the defaults verbatim unless they match the mood.
+</step>
+
+<step name="build_sketches">
+Build each sketch in order.
+
+### For Each Sketch:
+
+**a.** Find next available number by checking existing `.planning/sketches/NNN-*/` directories.
+Format: three-digit zero-padded + hyphenated descriptive name.
+
+**b.** Create the sketch directory: `.planning/sketches/NNN-descriptive-name/`
+
+**c.** Build `index.html` with 2-3 variants:
+
+**First round — dramatic differences:** Build 2-3 meaningfully different approaches to the design question. Different layouts, different visual structures, different interaction models.
+
+**Subsequent rounds — refinements:** Once the user has picked a direction or cherry-picked elements, build subtler variations within that direction.
+
+Each variant is a page/tab in the same HTML file. Include:
+- Tab navigation to switch between variants (see `sketch-variant-patterns.md`)
+- Clear labels: "Variant A: Sidebar Layout", "Variant B: Top Nav", etc.
+- The sketch toolbar (see `sketch-tooling.md`)
+- All interactive elements functional (see `sketch-interactivity.md`)
+- Real-ish content, not lorem ipsum
+- Link to `../themes/default.css` for shared theme variables
+
+**All sketches are plain HTML with inline CSS and JS.** No build step, no npm, no framework. Opens instantly in a browser.
+
+**d.** Write `README.md`:
+
+```markdown
+---
+sketch: NNN
+name: descriptive-name
+question: "What layout structure feels right for the dashboard?"
+winner: null
+tags: [layout, dashboard]
+---
+
+# Sketch NNN: Descriptive Name
+
+## Design Question
+[The specific visual question this sketch answers]
+
+## How to View
+open .planning/sketches/NNN-descriptive-name/index.html
+
+## Variants
+- **A: [name]** — [one-line description of this approach]
+- **B: [name]** — [one-line description]
+- **C: [name]** — [one-line description]
+
+## What to Look For
+[Specific things to pay attention to when comparing variants]
+```
+
+**e.** Present to the user with a checkpoint:
+
+╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
+║  CHECKPOINT: Verification Required                           ║
+╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝
+
+**Sketch {NNN}: {name}**
+
+Open: `open .planning/sketches/NNN-name/index.html`
+
+Compare: {what to look for between variants}
+
+──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+→ Which variant feels right? Or cherry-pick elements across variants.
+──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+
+**f.** Handle feedback:
+- **Pick a direction:** "I like variant B" → mark winner in README, move to next sketch
+- **Cherry-pick elements:** "Rounded edges from A, color treatment from C" → build a synthesis as a new variant, show again
+- **Want more exploration:** "None of these feel right, try X instead" → build new variants
+
+Iterate until the user is satisfied with a direction for this sketch.
+
+**g.** Finalize:
+1. Mark the winning variant in the README frontmatter (`winner: "B"`)
+2. Add ★ indicator to the winning tab in the HTML
+3. Update `.planning/sketches/MANIFEST.md` with the sketch row
+
+**h.** Commit (if `COMMIT_DOCS` is true):
+```bash
+gsd-remix-sdk query commit "docs(sketch-NNN): [winning direction] — [key visual insight]" .planning/sketches/NNN-descriptive-name/ .planning/sketches/MANIFEST.md
+```
+
+**i.** Report:
+```
+◆ Sketch NNN: {name}
+  Winner: Variant {X} — {description}
+  Insight: {key visual decision made}
+```
+</step>
+
+<step name="report">
+After all sketches complete, present the summary:
+
+```
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+ GSD ► SKETCH COMPLETE ✓
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+
+## Design Direction
+{what we landed on overall}
+
+## Key Decisions
+{layout, palette, typography, spacing, interaction patterns}
+
+## Open Questions
+{anything unresolved or worth revisiting}
+```
+
+───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+
+## ▶ Next Up
+
+**Package findings** — wrap design decisions into a reusable skill
+
+`/gsd-sketch-wrap-up`
+
+───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+
+**Also available:**
+- `/gsd-plan-phase` — start building the real UI
+- `/gsd-explore` — continue exploring the concept
+- `/gsd-spike` — spike technical feasibility of a design pattern
+
+───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+</step>
+
+</process>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- [ ] `.planning/sketches/` created (auto-creates if needed, no project init required)
+- [ ] Design direction explored conversationally before any code (unless --quick)
+- [ ] Target stack researched — component availability, constraints, and idioms noted (unless greenfield/skipped)
+- [ ] Each sketch has 2-3 variants for comparison (at least one follows path of least resistance for target stack)
+- [ ] User can open and interact with sketches in a browser
+- [ ] Winning variant selected and marked for each sketch
+- [ ] All variants preserved (winner marked, not others deleted)
+- [ ] MANIFEST.md is current
+- [ ] Commits use `docs(sketch-NNN): [winner]` format
+- [ ] Summary presented with next-step routing
+</success_criteria>

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

@@ -0,0 +1,262 @@
+<purpose>
+Clarify WHAT a phase delivers through a Socratic interview loop with quantitative ambiguity scoring.
+Produces a SPEC.md with falsifiable requirements that discuss-phase treats as locked decisions.
+
+This workflow handles "what" and "why" — discuss-phase handles "how".
+</purpose>
+
+<ambiguity_model>
+Score each dimension 0.0 (completely unclear) to 1.0 (crystal clear):
+
+| Dimension         | Weight | Minimum | What it measures                                  |
+|-------------------|--------|---------|---------------------------------------------------|
+| Goal Clarity      | 35%    | 0.75    | Is the outcome specific and measurable?           |
+| Boundary Clarity  | 25%    | 0.70    | What's in scope vs out of scope?                  |
+| Constraint Clarity| 20%    | 0.65    | Performance, compatibility, data requirements?    |
+| Acceptance Criteria| 20%   | 0.70    | How do we know it's done?                         |
+
+**Ambiguity score** = 1.0 − (0.35×goal + 0.25×boundary + 0.20×constraint + 0.20×acceptance)
+
+**Gate:** ambiguity ≤ 0.20 AND all dimensions ≥ their minimums → ready to write SPEC.md.
+
+A score of 0.20 means 80% weighted clarity — enough precision that the planner won't silently make wrong assumptions.
+</ambiguity_model>
+
+<interview_perspectives>
+Rotate through these perspectives — each naturally surfaces different blindspots:
+
+**Researcher (rounds 1–2):** Ground the discussion in current reality.
+- "What exists in the codebase today related to this phase?"
+- "What's the delta between today and the target state?"
+- "What triggers this work — what's broken or missing?"
+
+**Simplifier (round 2):** Surface minimum viable scope.
+- "What's the simplest version that solves the core problem?"
+- "If you had to cut 50%, what's the irreducible core?"
+- "What would make this phase a success even without the nice-to-haves?"
+
+**Boundary Keeper (round 3):** Lock the perimeter.
+- "What explicitly will NOT be done in this phase?"
+- "What adjacent problems is it tempting to solve but shouldn't?"
+- "What does 'done' look like — what's the final deliverable?"
+
+**Failure Analyst (round 4):** Find the edge cases that invalidate requirements.
+- "What's the worst thing that could go wrong if we get the requirements wrong?"
+- "What does a broken version of this look like?"
+- "What would cause a verifier to reject the output?"
+
+**Seed Closer (rounds 5–6):** Lock remaining undecided territory.
+- "We have [dimension] at [score] — what would make it completely clear?"
+- "The remaining ambiguity is in [area] — can we make a decision now?"
+- "Is there anything you'd regret not specifying before planning starts?"
+</interview_perspectives>
+
+<process>
+
+## Step 1: Initialize
+
+```bash
+INIT=$(node "$HOME/.claude/get-shit-done/bin/gsd-tools.cjs" init phase-op "${PHASE}")
+if [[ "$INIT" == @file:* ]]; then INIT=$(cat "${INIT#@file:}"); fi
+```
+
+Parse JSON for: `phase_found`, `phase_dir`, `phase_number`, `phase_name`, `phase_slug`, `padded_phase`, `state_path`, `requirements_path`, `roadmap_path`, `planning_path`, `response_language`, `commit_docs`.
+
+**If `response_language` is set:** All user-facing text in this workflow MUST be in `{response_language}`. Technical terms, code, and file paths stay in English.
+
+**If `phase_found` is false:**
+```
+Phase [X] not found in roadmap.
+Use /gsd-progress to see available phases.
+```
+Exit.
+
+**Check for existing SPEC.md:**
+```bash
+ls ${phase_dir}/*-SPEC.md 2>/dev/null | grep -v AI-SPEC | head -1 || true
+```
+
+If SPEC.md already exists:
+
+**If `--auto`:** Auto-select "Update it". Log: `[auto] SPEC.md exists — updating.`
+
+**Otherwise:** Use AskUserQuestion:
+- header: "Spec"
+- question: "Phase [X] already has a SPEC.md. What do you want to do?"
+- options:
+  - "Update it" — Revise and re-score
+  - "View it" — Show current spec
+  - "Skip" — Exit (use existing spec as-is)
+
+If "View": Display SPEC.md, then offer Update/Skip.
+If "Skip": Exit with message: "Existing SPEC.md unchanged. Run /gsd-discuss-phase [X] to continue."
+If "Update": Load existing SPEC.md, continue to Step 3.
+
+## Step 2: Scout Codebase
+
+**Read these files before any questions:**
+- `{requirements_path}` — Project requirements
+- `STATE_SNAPSHOT=$(gsd-remix-sdk query state-snapshot 2>/dev/null || echo "{}")` — Decisions already made, current phase, blockers without loading full STATE.md
+- ROADMAP.md phase entry — Phase description, goals, canonical refs
+
+**Grep the codebase** for code/files relevant to this phase goal. Look for:
+- Existing implementations of similar functionality
+- Integration points where new code will connect
+- Test coverage gaps relevant to the phase
+- Prior phase artifacts (SUMMARY.md, VERIFICATION.md) that inform current state
+
+**Synthesize current state** — the grounded baseline for the interview:
+- What exists today related to this phase
+- The gap between current state and the phase goal
+- The primary deliverable: what file/behavior/capability does NOT exist yet?
+
+Confirm your current state synthesis internally. Do not present it to the user yet — you'll use it to ask precise, grounded questions.
+
+## Step 3: First Ambiguity Assessment
+
+Before questioning begins, score the phase's current ambiguity based only on what ROADMAP.md and REQUIREMENTS.md say:
+
+```
+Goal Clarity:       [score 0.0–1.0]
+Boundary Clarity:   [score 0.0–1.0]
+Constraint Clarity: [score 0.0–1.0]
+Acceptance Criteria:[score 0.0–1.0]
+
+Ambiguity: [score] ([calculate])
+```
+
+**If `--auto` and initial ambiguity already ≤ 0.20 with all minimums met:** Skip interview — derive SPEC.md directly from roadmap + requirements. Log: `[auto] Phase requirements are already sufficiently clear — generating SPEC.md from existing context.` Jump to Step 6.
+
+**Otherwise:** Continue to Step 4.
+
+## Step 4: Socratic Interview Loop
+
+**Max 6 rounds.** Each round: 2–3 questions max. End round after user responds.
+
+**Round selection by perspective:**
+- Round 1: Researcher
+- Round 2: Researcher + Simplifier
+- Round 3: Boundary Keeper
+- Round 4: Failure Analyst
+- Rounds 5–6: Seed Closer (focus on lowest-scoring dimensions)
+
+**After each round:**
+1. Update all 4 dimension scores from the user's answers
+2. Calculate new ambiguity score
+3. Display the updated scoring:
+
+```
+After round [N]:
+  Goal Clarity:       [score] (min 0.75) [✓ or ↑ needed]
+  Boundary Clarity:   [score] (min 0.70) [✓ or ↑ needed]
+  Constraint Clarity: [score] (min 0.65) [✓ or ↑ needed]
+  Acceptance Criteria:[score] (min 0.70) [✓ or ↑ needed]
+  Ambiguity: [score] (gate: ≤ 0.20)
+```
+
+**Gate check after each round:**
+
+If gate passes (ambiguity ≤ 0.20 AND all minimums met):
+
+**If `--auto`:** Jump to Step 6.
+
+**Otherwise:** AskUserQuestion:
+- header: "Spec Gate Passed"
+- question: "Ambiguity is [score] — requirements are clear enough to write SPEC.md. Proceed?"
+- options:
+  - "Yes — write SPEC.md" → Jump to Step 6
+  - "One more round" → Continue interview
+  - "Done talking — write it" → Jump to Step 6
+
+**If max rounds reached (6) and gate not passed:**
+
+**If `--auto`:** Write SPEC.md anyway — flag unresolved dimensions. Log: `[auto] Max rounds reached. Writing SPEC.md with [N] dimensions below minimum. Planner will need to treat these as assumptions.`
+
+**Otherwise:** AskUserQuestion:
+- header: "Max Rounds"
+- question: "After 6 rounds, ambiguity is [score]. [List dimensions still below minimum.] What would you like to do?"
+- options:
+  - "Write SPEC.md anyway — flag gaps" → Write SPEC.md, mark unresolved dimensions in Ambiguity Report
+  - "Keep talking" → Continue (no round limit from here)
+  - "Abandon" → Exit without writing
+
+**If `--auto` mode throughout:** Replace all AskUserQuestion calls above with Claude's recommended choice. Log decisions inline. Apply the same logic as `--auto` in discuss-phase.
+
+**Text mode (`workflow.text_mode: true` or `--text` flag):** Use plain-text numbered lists instead of AskUserQuestion TUI menus.
+
+## Step 5: (covered inline — ambiguity scoring is per-round)
+
+## Step 6: Generate SPEC.md
+
+Use the SPEC.md template from @~/.claude/get-shit-done/templates/spec.md.
+
+**Requirements for every requirement entry:**
+- One specific, testable statement
+- Current state (what exists now)
+- Target state (what it should become)
+- Acceptance criterion (how to verify it was met)
+
+**Vague requirements are rejected:**
+- ✗ "The system should be fast"
+- ✗ "Improve user experience"
+- ✓ "API endpoint responds in < 200ms at p95 under 100 concurrent requests"
+- ✓ "CLI command exits with code 1 and prints to stderr on invalid input"
+
+**Count requirements.** The display in discuss-phase reads: "Found SPEC.md — {N} requirements locked."
+
+**Boundaries must be explicit lists:**
+- "In scope" — what this phase produces
+- "Out of scope" — what it explicitly does NOT do (with brief reasoning)
+
+**Acceptance criteria must be pass/fail checkboxes** — no "should feel good" or "looks reasonable."
+
+**If any dimensions are below minimum**, mark them in the Ambiguity Report with: `⚠ Below minimum — planner must treat as assumption`.
+
+Write to: `{phase_dir}/{padded_phase}-SPEC.md`
+
+## Step 7: Commit
+
+```bash
+git add "${phase_dir}/${padded_phase}-SPEC.md"
+git commit -m "spec(phase-${phase_number}): add SPEC.md for ${phase_name} — ${requirement_count} requirements (#2213)"
+```
+
+If `commit_docs` is false: Skip commit. Note that SPEC.md was written but not committed.
+
+## Step 8: Wrap Up
+
+Display:
+
+```
+SPEC.md written — {N} requirements locked.
+
+  Phase {X}: {name}
+  Ambiguity: {final_score} (gate: ≤ 0.20)
+
+Next: /gsd-discuss-phase {X}
+  discuss-phase will detect SPEC.md and focus on implementation decisions only.
+```
+
+</process>
+
+<critical_rules>
+- Every requirement MUST have current state, target state, and acceptance criterion
+- Boundaries section is MANDATORY — cannot be empty
+- "In scope" and "Out of scope" must be explicit lists, not narrative prose
+- Acceptance criteria must be pass/fail — no subjective criteria
+- SPEC.md is NEVER written if the user selects "Abandon"
+- Do NOT ask about HOW to implement — that is discuss-phase territory
+- Scout the codebase BEFORE the first question — grounded questions only
+- Max 2–3 questions per round — do not frontload all questions at once
+</critical_rules>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- Codebase scouted and current state understood before questioning
+- All 4 dimensions scored after every round
+- Gate passed OR user explicitly chose to write despite gaps
+- SPEC.md contains only falsifiable requirements
+- Boundaries are explicit (in scope / out of scope with reasoning)
+- Acceptance criteria are pass/fail checkboxes
+- SPEC.md committed atomically (when commit_docs is true)
+- User directed to /gsd-discuss-phase as next step
+</success_criteria>