gsd-remix 1.0.0

package/get-shit-done/references/revision-loop.md

@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
+# Revision Loop Pattern
+
+Standard pattern for iterative agent revision with feedback. Used when a checker/validator finds issues and the producing agent needs to revise its output.
+
+---
+
+## Pattern: Check-Revise-Escalate (max 3 iterations)
+
+This pattern applies whenever:
+1. An agent produces output (plans, imports, gap-closure plans)
+2. A checker/validator evaluates that output
+3. Issues are found that need revision
+
+### Flow
+
+```
+prev_issue_count = Infinity
+iteration = 0
+
+LOOP:
+  1. Run checker/validator on current output
+  2. Read checker results
+  3. If PASSED or only INFO-level issues:
+     -> Accept output, exit loop
+  4. If BLOCKER or WARNING issues found:
+     a. iteration += 1
+     b. If iteration > 3:
+        -> Escalate to user (see "After 3 Iterations" below)
+     c. Parse issue count from checker output
+     d. If issue_count >= prev_issue_count:
+        -> Escalate to user: "Revision loop stalled (issue count not decreasing)"
+     e. prev_issue_count = issue_count
+     f. Re-spawn the producing agent with checker feedback appended
+     g. After revision completes, go to LOOP
+```
+
+### Issue Count Tracking
+
+Track the number of BLOCKER + WARNING issues returned by the checker on each iteration. If the count does not decrease between consecutive iterations, the producing agent is stuck and further iterations will not help. Break early and escalate to the user.
+
+Display iteration progress before each revision spawn:
+`Revision iteration {N}/3 -- {blocker_count} blockers, {warning_count} warnings`
+
+### Re-spawn Prompt Structure
+
+When re-spawning the producing agent for revision, pass the checker's YAML-formatted issues. The checker's output contains a `## Issues` heading followed by a YAML block. Parse this block and pass it verbatim to the revision agent.
+
+```
+<checker_issues>
+The issues below are in YAML format. Each has: dimension, severity, finding,
+affected_field, suggested_fix. Address ALL BLOCKER issues. Address WARNING
+issues where feasible.
+
+{YAML issues block from checker output -- passed verbatim}
+</checker_issues>
+
+<revision_instructions>
+Address ALL BLOCKER and WARNING issues identified above.
+- For each BLOCKER: make the required change
+- For each WARNING: address or explain why it's acceptable
+- Do NOT introduce new issues while fixing existing ones
+- Preserve all content not flagged by the checker
+This is revision iteration {N} of max 3. Previous iteration had {prev_count}
+issues. You must reduce the count or the loop will terminate.
+</revision_instructions>
+```
+
+### After 3 Iterations
+
+If issues persist after 3 revision cycles:
+
+1. Present remaining issues to the user
+2. Use gate prompt (pattern: yes-no from `references/gate-prompts.md`):
+   question: "Issues remain after 3 revision attempts. Proceed with current output?"
+   header: "Proceed?"
+   options:
+     - label: "Proceed anyway"   description: "Accept output with remaining issues"
+     - label: "Adjust approach"  description: "Discuss a different approach"
+3. If "Proceed anyway": accept current output and continue
+4. If "Adjust approach" or "Other": discuss with user, then re-enter the producing step with updated context
+
+### Workflow-Specific Variations
+
+| Workflow | Producer Agent | Checker Agent | Notes |
+|----------|---------------|---------------|-------|
+| plan-phase | gsd-planner | gsd-plan-checker | Revision prompt via planner-revision.md |
+| execute-phase | gsd-executor | gsd-verifier | Post-execution verification |
+| discuss-phase | orchestrator | gsd-plan-checker | Inline revision by orchestrator |
+
+---
+
+## Important Notes
+
+- **INFO-level issues are always acceptable** -- they don't trigger revision
+- **Each iteration gets a fresh agent spawn** -- don't try to continue in the same context
+- **Checker feedback must be inlined** -- the revision agent needs to see exactly what failed
+- **Don't silently swallow issues** -- always present the final state to the user after exiting the loop

package/get-shit-done/references/sketch-interactivity.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+# Making Sketches Feel Alive
+
+Static mockups are barely better than screenshots. Every interactive element in a sketch must respond to interaction.
+
+## Required Interactivity
+
+| Element | Must Have |
+|---------|-----------|
+| Buttons | Click handler with visible feedback (state change, animation, toast) |
+| Forms | Input validation on blur, submit handler that shows success state |
+| Lists | Add/remove items, empty state, populated state |
+| Toggles/switches | Working toggle with visible state change |
+| Tabs/nav | Click to switch content |
+| Modals/drawers | Open/close with transition |
+| Hover states | Every clickable element needs a hover effect |
+| Dropdowns | Open/close, item selection |
+
+## Transitions
+
+Add `transition: all 0.15s ease` as a baseline to interactive elements. Subtle motion makes the sketch feel real and helps judge whether the interaction pattern works.
+
+## Fake the Backend
+
+If the sketch shows a "Save" button, clicking it should show a brief loading state then a success message. If it shows a search bar, typing should filter hardcoded results. The goal is to feel the full interaction loop, not just see the resting state.
+
+## State Cycling
+
+If the sketch has multiple states (empty, loading, populated, error), include buttons to cycle through them. Label each state clearly. This lets the user experience how the design handles different data conditions.
+
+## Implementation
+
+Use vanilla JS in inline `<script>` tags. No frameworks, no build step. Keep it simple:
+
+```html
+<script>
+  // Toggle a panel
+  document.querySelector('.panel-toggle').addEventListener('click', (e) => {
+    e.target.closest('.panel').classList.toggle('collapsed');
+  });
+</script>
+```

package/get-shit-done/references/sketch-theme-system.md

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+# Shared Theme System
+
+All sketches share a CSS variable theme so design decisions compound across sketches.
+
+## Setup
+
+On the first sketch, create `.planning/sketches/themes/` with a default theme:
+
+```
+.planning/sketches/
+  themes/
+    default.css         <- all sketches link to this
+  001-dashboard-layout/
+    index.html          <- links to ../themes/default.css
+```
+
+## Theme File Structure
+
+Each theme defines CSS custom properties only — no component styles, no layout rules. Just the visual vocabulary:
+
+```css
+:root {
+  /* Colors */
+  --color-bg: #fafafa;
+  --color-surface: #ffffff;
+  --color-border: #e5e5e5;
+  --color-text: #1a1a1a;
+  --color-text-muted: #6b6b6b;
+  --color-primary: #2563eb;
+  --color-primary-hover: #1d4ed8;
+  --color-accent: #f59e0b;
+  --color-danger: #ef4444;
+  --color-success: #22c55e;
+
+  /* Typography */
+  --font-sans: 'Inter', system-ui, sans-serif;
+  --font-mono: 'JetBrains Mono', monospace;
+  --text-xs: 0.75rem;
+  --text-sm: 0.875rem;
+  --text-base: 1rem;
+  --text-lg: 1.125rem;
+  --text-xl: 1.25rem;
+  --text-2xl: 1.5rem;
+  --text-3xl: 1.875rem;
+
+  /* Spacing */
+  --space-1: 4px;
+  --space-2: 8px;
+  --space-3: 12px;
+  --space-4: 16px;
+  --space-6: 24px;
+  --space-8: 32px;
+  --space-12: 48px;
+
+  /* Shapes */
+  --radius-sm: 4px;
+  --radius-md: 8px;
+  --radius-lg: 12px;
+  --radius-full: 9999px;
+
+  /* Shadows */
+  --shadow-sm: 0 1px 2px rgba(0,0,0,0.05);
+  --shadow-md: 0 4px 6px rgba(0,0,0,0.07);
+  --shadow-lg: 0 10px 15px rgba(0,0,0,0.1);
+}
+```
+
+Adapt the default theme to match the mood/direction established during intake. The values above are a starting point — change colors, fonts, spacing, and shapes to match the agreed aesthetic.
+
+## Linking
+
+Every sketch links to the theme:
+
+```html
+<link rel="stylesheet" href="../themes/default.css">
+```
+
+## Creating New Themes
+
+When a sketch reveals an aesthetic fork ("should this feel clinical or warm?"), create both as theme files rather than arguing about it. The user can switch and feel the difference.
+
+Name themes descriptively: `midnight.css`, `warm-minimal.css`, `brutalist.css`.
+
+## Theme Switcher
+
+Include in every sketch (part of the sketch toolbar):
+
+```html
+<select id="theme-switcher" onchange="document.querySelector('link[href*=themes]').href='../themes/'+this.value+'.css'">
+  <option value="default">Default</option>
+</select>
+```
+
+Dynamically populate options by listing available theme files, or hardcode the known themes.

package/get-shit-done/references/sketch-tooling.md

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+# Sketch Toolbar
+
+Include a small floating toolbar in every sketch. It provides utilities without competing with the actual design.
+
+## Implementation
+
+A small `<div>` fixed to the bottom-right, semi-transparent, expands on hover:
+
+```html
+<div id="sketch-tools" style="position:fixed;bottom:12px;right:12px;z-index:9999;font-family:system-ui;font-size:12px;background:rgba(0,0,0,0.7);color:white;padding:8px 12px;border-radius:8px;opacity:0.4;transition:opacity 0.2s;" onmouseenter="this.style.opacity='1'" onmouseleave="this.style.opacity='0.4'">
+  <!-- Theme switcher -->
+  <!-- Viewport buttons -->
+  <!-- Annotation toggle -->
+</div>
+```
+
+## Components
+
+### Theme Switcher
+
+A dropdown that swaps the theme CSS file at runtime:
+
+```html
+<select onchange="document.querySelector('link[href*=themes]').href='../themes/'+this.value+'.css'">
+  <option value="default">Default</option>
+</select>
+```
+
+### Viewport Preview
+
+Three buttons that constrain the sketch content area to standard widths:
+
+- Phone: 375px
+- Tablet: 768px
+- Desktop: 1280px (or full width)
+
+Implemented by wrapping sketch content in a container and adjusting its `max-width`.
+
+### Annotation Mode
+
+A toggle that overlays spacing values, color hex codes, and font sizes on hover. Implemented as a JS snippet that reads computed styles and shows them in a tooltip. Helps understand visual decisions without opening dev tools.
+
+## Styling
+
+The toolbar should be unobtrusive — small, dark, semi-transparent. It should never compete with the sketch visually. Style it independently of the theme (hardcoded dark background, white text).

package/get-shit-done/references/sketch-variant-patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+# Multi-Variant HTML Patterns
+
+Every sketch produces 2-3 variants in the same HTML file. The user switches between them to compare.
+
+## Tab-Based Variants
+
+The standard approach: a tab bar at the top of the page, each tab shows a different variant.
+
+```html
+<div id="variant-nav" style="position:fixed;top:0;left:0;right:0;z-index:9998;background:var(--color-surface, #fff);border-bottom:1px solid var(--color-border, #e5e5e5);padding:8px 16px;display:flex;gap:8px;font-family:system-ui;">
+  <button class="variant-tab active" onclick="showVariant('a')">A: Sidebar Layout</button>
+  <button class="variant-tab" onclick="showVariant('b')">B: Top Nav</button>
+  <button class="variant-tab" onclick="showVariant('c')">C: Floating Panels</button>
+</div>
+
+<div id="variant-a" class="variant active">
+  <!-- Variant A content -->
+</div>
+<div id="variant-b" class="variant" style="display:none">
+  <!-- Variant B content -->
+</div>
+<div id="variant-c" class="variant" style="display:none">
+  <!-- Variant C content -->
+</div>
+
+<script>
+function showVariant(id) {
+  document.querySelectorAll('.variant').forEach(v => v.style.display = 'none');
+  document.querySelectorAll('.variant-tab').forEach(t => t.classList.remove('active'));
+  document.getElementById('variant-' + id).style.display = 'block';
+  event.target.classList.add('active');
+}
+</script>
+```
+
+Add `padding-top` to the body to account for the fixed tab bar.
+
+## Marking the Winner
+
+After the user picks a direction, add a visual indicator to the winning tab:
+
+```html
+<button class="variant-tab active">A: Sidebar Layout ★ Selected</button>
+```
+
+Keep all variants visible and navigable — the winner is highlighted, not the only option.
+
+## Side-by-Side (for small variants)
+
+When comparing small elements (button styles, card layouts, icon treatments), render them next to each other with labels rather than using tabs:
+
+```html
+<div style="display:grid;grid-template-columns:repeat(3,1fr);gap:24px;padding:24px;">
+  <div>
+    <h3>A: Rounded</h3>
+    <!-- variant content -->
+  </div>
+  <div>
+    <h3>B: Sharp</h3>
+    <!-- variant content -->
+  </div>
+  <div>
+    <h3>C: Pill</h3>
+    <!-- variant content -->
+  </div>
+</div>
+```
+
+## Variant Count
+
+- **First round (dramatic):** 2-3 meaningfully different approaches
+- **Refinement rounds:** 2-3 subtle variations within the chosen direction
+- **Never more than 4** — more than that overwhelms. If there are 5+ options, narrow before showing.
+
+## Synthesis Variants
+
+When the user cherry-picks elements across variants, create a new variant tab labeled descriptively:
+
+```html
+<button class="variant-tab" onclick="showVariant('synth1')">Synthesis: A's layout + C's palette</button>
+```

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

@@ -0,0 +1,330 @@
+<overview>
+TDD is about design quality, not coverage metrics. The red-green-refactor cycle forces you to think about behavior before implementation, producing cleaner interfaces and more testable code.
+
+**Principle:** If you can describe the behavior as `expect(fn(input)).toBe(output)` before writing `fn`, TDD improves the result.
+
+**Key insight:** TDD work is fundamentally heavier than standard tasks—it requires 2-3 execution cycles (RED → GREEN → REFACTOR), each with file reads, test runs, and potential debugging. TDD features get dedicated plans to ensure full context is available throughout the cycle.
+</overview>
+
+<when_to_use_tdd>
+## When TDD Improves Quality
+
+**TDD candidates (create a TDD plan):**
+- Business logic with defined inputs/outputs
+- API endpoints with request/response contracts
+- Data transformations, parsing, formatting
+- Validation rules and constraints
+- Algorithms with testable behavior
+- State machines and workflows
+- Utility functions with clear specifications
+
+**Skip TDD (use standard plan with `type="auto"` tasks):**
+- UI layout, styling, visual components
+- Configuration changes
+- Glue code connecting existing components
+- One-off scripts and migrations
+- Simple CRUD with no business logic
+- Exploratory prototyping
+
+**Heuristic:** Can you write `expect(fn(input)).toBe(output)` before writing `fn`?
+→ Yes: Create a TDD plan
+→ No: Use standard plan, add tests after if needed
+</when_to_use_tdd>
+
+<tdd_plan_structure>
+## TDD Plan Structure
+
+Each TDD plan implements **one feature** through the full RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle.
+
+```markdown
+---
+phase: XX-name
+plan: NN
+type: tdd
+---
+
+<objective>
+[What feature and why]
+Purpose: [Design benefit of TDD for this feature]
+Output: [Working, tested feature]
+</objective>
+
+<context>
+@.planning/PROJECT.md
+@.planning/ROADMAP.md
+@relevant/source/files.ts
+</context>
+
+<feature>
+  <name>[Feature name]</name>
+  <files>[source file, test file]</files>
+  <behavior>
+    [Expected behavior in testable terms]
+    Cases: input → expected output
+  </behavior>
+  <implementation>[How to implement once tests pass]</implementation>
+</feature>
+
+<verification>
+[Test command that proves feature works]
+</verification>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- Failing test written and committed
+- Implementation passes test
+- Refactor complete (if needed)
+- All 2-3 commits present
+</success_criteria>
+
+<output>
+After completion, create SUMMARY.md with:
+- RED: What test was written, why it failed
+- GREEN: What implementation made it pass
+- REFACTOR: What cleanup was done (if any)
+- Commits: List of commits produced
+</output>
+```
+
+**One feature per TDD plan.** If features are trivial enough to batch, they're trivial enough to skip TDD—use a standard plan and add tests after.
+</tdd_plan_structure>
+
+<execution_flow>
+## Red-Green-Refactor Cycle
+
+**RED - Write failing test:**
+1. Create test file following project conventions
+2. Write test describing expected behavior (from `<behavior>` element)
+3. Run test - it MUST fail
+4. If test passes: feature exists or test is wrong. Investigate.
+5. Commit: `test({phase}-{plan}): add failing test for [feature]`
+
+**GREEN - Implement to pass:**
+1. Write minimal code to make test pass
+2. No cleverness, no optimization - just make it work
+3. Run test - it MUST pass
+4. Commit: `feat({phase}-{plan}): implement [feature]`
+
+**REFACTOR (if needed):**
+1. Clean up implementation if obvious improvements exist
+2. Run tests - MUST still pass
+3. Only commit if changes made: `refactor({phase}-{plan}): clean up [feature]`
+
+**Result:** Each TDD plan produces 2-3 atomic commits.
+</execution_flow>
+
+<test_quality>
+## Good Tests vs Bad Tests
+
+**Test behavior, not implementation:**
+- Good: "returns formatted date string"
+- Bad: "calls formatDate helper with correct params"
+- Tests should survive refactors
+
+**One concept per test:**
+- Good: Separate tests for valid input, empty input, malformed input
+- Bad: Single test checking all edge cases with multiple assertions
+
+**Descriptive names:**
+- Good: "should reject empty email", "returns null for invalid ID"
+- Bad: "test1", "handles error", "works correctly"
+
+**No implementation details:**
+- Good: Test public API, observable behavior
+- Bad: Mock internals, test private methods, assert on internal state
+</test_quality>
+
+<framework_setup>
+## Test Framework Setup (If None Exists)
+
+When executing a TDD plan but no test framework is configured, set it up as part of the RED phase:
+
+**1. Detect project type:**
+```bash
+# JavaScript/TypeScript
+if [ -f package.json ]; then echo "node"; fi
+
+# Python
+if [ -f requirements.txt ] || [ -f pyproject.toml ]; then echo "python"; fi
+
+# Go
+if [ -f go.mod ]; then echo "go"; fi
+
+# Rust
+if [ -f Cargo.toml ]; then echo "rust"; fi
+```
+
+**2. Install minimal framework:**
+| Project | Framework | Install |
+|---------|-----------|---------|
+| Node.js | Jest | `npm install -D jest @types/jest ts-jest` |
+| Node.js (Vite) | Vitest | `npm install -D vitest` |
+| Python | pytest | `pip install pytest` |
+| Go | testing | Built-in |
+| Rust | cargo test | Built-in |
+
+**3. Create config if needed:**
+- Jest: `jest.config.js` with ts-jest preset
+- Vitest: `vitest.config.ts` with test globals
+- pytest: `pytest.ini` or `pyproject.toml` section
+
+**4. Verify setup:**
+```bash
+# Run empty test suite - should pass with 0 tests
+npm test  # Node
+pytest    # Python
+go test ./...  # Go
+cargo test    # Rust
+```
+
+**5. Create first test file:**
+Follow project conventions for test location:
+- `*.test.ts` / `*.spec.ts` next to source
+- `__tests__/` directory
+- `tests/` directory at root
+
+Framework setup is a one-time cost included in the first TDD plan's RED phase.
+</framework_setup>
+
+<error_handling>
+## Error Handling
+
+**Test doesn't fail in RED phase:**
+- Feature may already exist - investigate
+- Test may be wrong (not testing what you think)
+- Fix before proceeding
+
+**Test doesn't pass in GREEN phase:**
+- Debug implementation
+- Don't skip to refactor
+- Keep iterating until green
+
+**Tests fail in REFACTOR phase:**
+- Undo refactor
+- Commit was premature
+- Refactor in smaller steps
+
+**Unrelated tests break:**
+- Stop and investigate
+- May indicate coupling issue
+- Fix before proceeding
+</error_handling>
+
+<commit_pattern>
+## Commit Pattern for TDD Plans
+
+TDD plans produce 2-3 atomic commits (one per phase):
+
+```
+test(08-02): add failing test for email validation
+
+- Tests valid email formats accepted
+- Tests invalid formats rejected
+- Tests empty input handling
+
+feat(08-02): implement email validation
+
+- Regex pattern matches RFC 5322
+- Returns boolean for validity
+- Handles edge cases (empty, null)
+
+refactor(08-02): extract regex to constant (optional)
+
+- Moved pattern to EMAIL_REGEX constant
+- No behavior changes
+- Tests still pass
+```
+
+**Comparison with standard plans:**
+- Standard plans: 1 commit per task, 2-4 commits per plan
+- TDD plans: 2-3 commits for single feature
+
+Both follow same format: `{type}({phase}-{plan}): {description}`
+
+**Benefits:**
+- Each commit independently revertable
+- Git bisect works at commit level
+- Clear history showing TDD discipline
+- Consistent with overall commit strategy
+</commit_pattern>
+
+<gate_enforcement>
+## Gate Enforcement Rules
+
+When `workflow.tdd_mode` is enabled in config, the RED/GREEN/REFACTOR gate sequence is enforced for all `type: tdd` plans.
+
+### Gate Definitions
+
+| Gate | Required | Commit Pattern | Validation |
+|------|----------|---------------|------------|
+| RED | Yes | `test({phase}-{plan}): ...` | Test exists AND fails before implementation |
+| GREEN | Yes | `feat({phase}-{plan}): ...` | Test passes after implementation |
+| REFACTOR | No | `refactor({phase}-{plan}): ...` | Tests still pass after cleanup |
+
+### Fail-Fast Rules
+
+1. **Unexpected GREEN in RED phase:** If the test passes before any implementation code is written, STOP. The feature may already exist or the test is wrong. Investigate before proceeding.
+2. **Missing RED commit:** If no `test(...)` commit precedes the `feat(...)` commit, the TDD discipline was violated. Flag in SUMMARY.md.
+3. **REFACTOR breaks tests:** Undo the refactor immediately. Commit was premature — refactor in smaller steps.
+
+### Executor Gate Validation
+
+After completing a `type: tdd` plan, the executor validates the git log:
+```bash
+# Check for RED gate commit
+git log --oneline --grep="^test(${PHASE}-${PLAN})" | head -1
+# Check for GREEN gate commit  
+git log --oneline --grep="^feat(${PHASE}-${PLAN})" | head -1
+# Check for optional REFACTOR gate commit
+git log --oneline --grep="^refactor(${PHASE}-${PLAN})" | head -1
+```
+
+If RED or GREEN gate commits are missing, add a `## TDD Gate Compliance` section to SUMMARY.md with the violation details.
+</gate_enforcement>
+
+<end_of_phase_review>
+## End-of-Phase TDD Review Checkpoint
+
+When `workflow.tdd_mode` is enabled, the execute-phase orchestrator inserts a collaborative review checkpoint after all waves complete but before phase verification.
+
+### Review Checkpoint Format
+
+```
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+ TDD REVIEW — Phase {X}
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+
+TDD Plans: {count} | Gate violations: {count}
+
+| Plan | RED | GREEN | REFACTOR | Status |
+|------|-----|-------|----------|--------|
+| {id} |  ✓  |   ✓   |    ✓     | Pass   |
+| {id} |  ✓  |   ✗   |    —     | FAIL   |
+
+{If violations exist:}
+⚠ Gate violations are advisory — review before advancing.
+```
+
+### What the Review Checks
+
+1. **Gate sequence:** Each TDD plan has RED → GREEN commits in order
+2. **Test quality:** RED phase tests fail for the right reason (not import errors or syntax)
+3. **Minimal GREEN:** Implementation is minimal — no premature optimization in GREEN phase
+4. **Refactor discipline:** If REFACTOR commit exists, tests still pass
+
+This checkpoint is advisory — it does not block phase completion but surfaces TDD discipline issues for human review.
+</end_of_phase_review>
+
+<context_budget>
+## Context Budget
+
+TDD plans target **~40% context usage** (lower than standard plans' ~50%).
+
+Why lower:
+- RED phase: write test, run test, potentially debug why it didn't fail
+- GREEN phase: implement, run test, potentially iterate on failures
+- REFACTOR phase: modify code, run tests, verify no regressions
+
+Each phase involves reading files, running commands, analyzing output. The back-and-forth is inherently heavier than linear task execution.
+
+Single feature focus ensures full quality throughout the cycle.
+</context_budget>