gsdd-cli 0.18.5 → 0.19.1
This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
- package/LICENSE +21 -21
- package/README.md +610 -608
- package/agents/DISTILLATION.md +421 -421
- package/agents/README.md +62 -62
- package/agents/approach-explorer.md +370 -361
- package/agents/debugger.md +82 -82
- package/agents/executor.md +473 -394
- package/agents/integration-checker.md +318 -318
- package/agents/mapper.md +103 -103
- package/agents/planner.md +342 -313
- package/agents/researcher.md +84 -84
- package/agents/roadmapper.md +296 -296
- package/agents/synthesizer.md +236 -236
- package/agents/verifier.md +337 -337
- package/bin/adapters/agents.mjs +34 -34
- package/bin/adapters/claude.mjs +193 -191
- package/bin/adapters/codex.mjs +85 -85
- package/bin/adapters/index.mjs +20 -20
- package/bin/adapters/opencode.mjs +280 -278
- package/bin/gsdd.mjs +123 -116
- package/bin/lib/cli-utils.mjs +28 -28
- package/bin/lib/evidence-contract.mjs +325 -112
- package/bin/lib/file-ops.mjs +186 -144
- package/bin/lib/health-truth.mjs +196 -178
- package/bin/lib/health.mjs +246 -226
- package/bin/lib/init-flow.mjs +247 -231
- package/bin/lib/init-prompts.mjs +248 -247
- package/bin/lib/init-runtime.mjs +193 -190
- package/bin/lib/init.mjs +17 -17
- package/bin/lib/lifecycle-preflight.mjs +760 -326
- package/bin/lib/lifecycle-state.mjs +356 -267
- package/bin/lib/manifest.mjs +116 -114
- package/bin/lib/models.mjs +411 -411
- package/bin/lib/phase.mjs +365 -358
- package/bin/lib/plan-constants.mjs +35 -30
- package/bin/lib/provenance.mjs +109 -106
- package/bin/lib/rendering.mjs +119 -83
- package/bin/lib/runtime-freshness.mjs +214 -214
- package/bin/lib/session-fingerprint.mjs +91 -14
- package/bin/lib/templates.mjs +225 -224
- package/bin/lib/workspace-root.mjs +2 -1
- package/distilled/DESIGN.md +2461 -2323
- package/distilled/EVIDENCE-INDEX.md +418 -392
- package/distilled/README.md +196 -193
- package/distilled/SKILL.md +86 -85
- package/distilled/templates/agents.block.md +21 -21
- package/distilled/templates/agents.md +6 -6
- package/distilled/templates/approach.md +272 -232
- package/distilled/templates/auth-matrix.md +78 -78
- package/distilled/templates/brownfield-change/CHANGE.md +99 -0
- package/distilled/templates/brownfield-change/HANDOFF.md +38 -0
- package/distilled/templates/brownfield-change/VERIFICATION.md +56 -0
- package/distilled/templates/codebase/architecture.md +110 -110
- package/distilled/templates/codebase/concerns.md +95 -95
- package/distilled/templates/codebase/conventions.md +193 -193
- package/distilled/templates/codebase/stack.md +96 -96
- package/distilled/templates/delegates/approach-explorer.md +28 -25
- package/distilled/templates/delegates/mapper-arch.md +26 -26
- package/distilled/templates/delegates/mapper-concerns.md +27 -27
- package/distilled/templates/delegates/mapper-quality.md +28 -28
- package/distilled/templates/delegates/mapper-tech.md +25 -25
- package/distilled/templates/delegates/plan-checker.md +78 -68
- package/distilled/templates/delegates/researcher-architecture.md +30 -30
- package/distilled/templates/delegates/researcher-features.md +30 -30
- package/distilled/templates/delegates/researcher-pitfalls.md +30 -30
- package/distilled/templates/delegates/researcher-stack.md +30 -30
- package/distilled/templates/delegates/researcher-synthesizer.md +31 -31
- package/distilled/templates/research/architecture.md +57 -57
- package/distilled/templates/research/features.md +23 -23
- package/distilled/templates/research/pitfalls.md +46 -46
- package/distilled/templates/research/stack.md +45 -45
- package/distilled/templates/research/summary.md +67 -67
- package/distilled/templates/roadmap.md +74 -62
- package/distilled/templates/spec.md +110 -110
- package/distilled/workflows/audit-milestone.md +303 -271
- package/distilled/workflows/complete-milestone.md +349 -332
- package/distilled/workflows/execute.md +457 -450
- package/distilled/workflows/map-codebase.md +253 -253
- package/distilled/workflows/new-milestone.md +242 -238
- package/distilled/workflows/new-project.md +398 -398
- package/distilled/workflows/pause.md +160 -156
- package/distilled/workflows/plan-milestone-gaps.md +183 -183
- package/distilled/workflows/plan.md +454 -448
- package/distilled/workflows/progress.md +227 -223
- package/distilled/workflows/quick.md +351 -347
- package/distilled/workflows/resume.md +220 -212
- package/distilled/workflows/verify-work.md +260 -260
- package/distilled/workflows/verify.md +431 -429
- package/docs/BROWNFIELD-PROOF.md +95 -95
- package/docs/RUNTIME-SUPPORT.md +80 -69
- package/docs/USER-GUIDE.md +394 -386
- package/docs/VERIFICATION-DISCIPLINE.md +59 -59
- package/docs/claude/context-monitor.md +98 -98
- package/docs/proof/consumer-node-cli/README.md +37 -37
- package/docs/proof/consumer-node-cli/ROADMAP.md +14 -14
- package/docs/proof/consumer-node-cli/SPEC.md +17 -17
- package/docs/proof/consumer-node-cli/brief.md +9 -9
- package/docs/proof/consumer-node-cli/phases/01-foundation/01-01-PLAN.md +34 -34
- package/docs/proof/consumer-node-cli/phases/01-foundation/01-01-SUMMARY.md +10 -10
- package/docs/proof/consumer-node-cli/phases/01-foundation/01-VERIFICATION.md +30 -30
- package/package.json +62 -61
|
@@ -1,23 +1,23 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
# FEATURES.md — Feature Landscape
|
|
2
|
-
|
|
3
|
-
## Table Stakes
|
|
4
|
-
Features users expect. Without them, your product feels broken.
|
|
5
|
-
|
|
6
|
-
- [ ] [feature] — [why it's expected]
|
|
7
|
-
- [ ] [feature] — [why it's expected]
|
|
8
|
-
|
|
9
|
-
## Differentiators
|
|
10
|
-
Features that set you apart from competitors.
|
|
11
|
-
|
|
12
|
-
- [ ] [feature] — [what makes this unique]
|
|
13
|
-
- [ ] [feature] — [competitive advantage]
|
|
14
|
-
|
|
15
|
-
## Anti-Features
|
|
16
|
-
Things to deliberately NOT build. Complexity traps.
|
|
17
|
-
|
|
18
|
-
- [ ] [feature to avoid] — [why: complexity trap / scope creep / premature optimization]
|
|
19
|
-
- [ ] [feature to avoid] — [why]
|
|
20
|
-
|
|
21
|
-
## Sources
|
|
22
|
-
- [Competitor 1] — [what they do well / poorly]
|
|
23
|
-
- [Competitor 2] — [what they do well / poorly]
|
|
1
|
+
# FEATURES.md — Feature Landscape
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
## Table Stakes
|
|
4
|
+
Features users expect. Without them, your product feels broken.
|
|
5
|
+
|
|
6
|
+
- [ ] [feature] — [why it's expected]
|
|
7
|
+
- [ ] [feature] — [why it's expected]
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
## Differentiators
|
|
10
|
+
Features that set you apart from competitors.
|
|
11
|
+
|
|
12
|
+
- [ ] [feature] — [what makes this unique]
|
|
13
|
+
- [ ] [feature] — [competitive advantage]
|
|
14
|
+
|
|
15
|
+
## Anti-Features
|
|
16
|
+
Things to deliberately NOT build. Complexity traps.
|
|
17
|
+
|
|
18
|
+
- [ ] [feature to avoid] — [why: complexity trap / scope creep / premature optimization]
|
|
19
|
+
- [ ] [feature to avoid] — [why]
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
## Sources
|
|
22
|
+
- [Competitor 1] — [what they do well / poorly]
|
|
23
|
+
- [Competitor 2] — [what they do well / poorly]
|
|
@@ -1,46 +1,46 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
# Pitfalls Research Template
|
|
2
|
-
|
|
3
|
-
Use when researching common mistakes and gotchas for a domain or technology.
|
|
4
|
-
|
|
5
|
-
Write to: `.planning/research/PITFALLS.md`
|
|
6
|
-
|
|
7
|
-
---
|
|
8
|
-
|
|
9
|
-
```markdown
|
|
10
|
-
# Pitfalls
|
|
11
|
-
|
|
12
|
-
**Domain**: [what we're building]
|
|
13
|
-
**Researched**: [date]
|
|
14
|
-
|
|
15
|
-
## Pitfall 1: [Name]
|
|
16
|
-
|
|
17
|
-
**What goes wrong**: [description]
|
|
18
|
-
**Why it happens**: [root cause]
|
|
19
|
-
**How to avoid**: [prevention strategy]
|
|
20
|
-
**Warning signs**: [how to detect early]
|
|
21
|
-
|
|
22
|
-
## Pitfall 2: [Name]
|
|
23
|
-
|
|
24
|
-
**What goes wrong**: [description]
|
|
25
|
-
**Why it happens**: [root cause]
|
|
26
|
-
**How to avoid**: [prevention strategy]
|
|
27
|
-
**Warning signs**: [how to detect early]
|
|
28
|
-
|
|
29
|
-
## Pitfall 3: [Name]
|
|
30
|
-
|
|
31
|
-
**What goes wrong**: [description]
|
|
32
|
-
**Why it happens**: [root cause]
|
|
33
|
-
**How to avoid**: [prevention strategy]
|
|
34
|
-
**Warning signs**: [how to detect early]
|
|
35
|
-
|
|
36
|
-
---
|
|
37
|
-
*These pitfalls should inform verification criteria in the roadmap.*
|
|
38
|
-
```
|
|
39
|
-
|
|
40
|
-
## Guidelines
|
|
41
|
-
|
|
42
|
-
- **Be specific to the domain** — not generic advice like "write tests"
|
|
43
|
-
- **Warning signs** are crucial — they let you catch problems early
|
|
44
|
-
- **Prevention strategies** should be actionable, not vague
|
|
45
|
-
- 3-5 pitfalls is the sweet spot — more than 5 and none get remembered
|
|
46
|
-
- **Link to phases**: note which roadmap phase should address each pitfall
|
|
1
|
+
# Pitfalls Research Template
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
Use when researching common mistakes and gotchas for a domain or technology.
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
Write to: `.planning/research/PITFALLS.md`
|
|
6
|
+
|
|
7
|
+
---
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
```markdown
|
|
10
|
+
# Pitfalls
|
|
11
|
+
|
|
12
|
+
**Domain**: [what we're building]
|
|
13
|
+
**Researched**: [date]
|
|
14
|
+
|
|
15
|
+
## Pitfall 1: [Name]
|
|
16
|
+
|
|
17
|
+
**What goes wrong**: [description]
|
|
18
|
+
**Why it happens**: [root cause]
|
|
19
|
+
**How to avoid**: [prevention strategy]
|
|
20
|
+
**Warning signs**: [how to detect early]
|
|
21
|
+
|
|
22
|
+
## Pitfall 2: [Name]
|
|
23
|
+
|
|
24
|
+
**What goes wrong**: [description]
|
|
25
|
+
**Why it happens**: [root cause]
|
|
26
|
+
**How to avoid**: [prevention strategy]
|
|
27
|
+
**Warning signs**: [how to detect early]
|
|
28
|
+
|
|
29
|
+
## Pitfall 3: [Name]
|
|
30
|
+
|
|
31
|
+
**What goes wrong**: [description]
|
|
32
|
+
**Why it happens**: [root cause]
|
|
33
|
+
**How to avoid**: [prevention strategy]
|
|
34
|
+
**Warning signs**: [how to detect early]
|
|
35
|
+
|
|
36
|
+
---
|
|
37
|
+
*These pitfalls should inform verification criteria in the roadmap.*
|
|
38
|
+
```
|
|
39
|
+
|
|
40
|
+
## Guidelines
|
|
41
|
+
|
|
42
|
+
- **Be specific to the domain** — not generic advice like "write tests"
|
|
43
|
+
- **Warning signs** are crucial — they let you catch problems early
|
|
44
|
+
- **Prevention strategies** should be actionable, not vague
|
|
45
|
+
- 3-5 pitfalls is the sweet spot — more than 5 and none get remembered
|
|
46
|
+
- **Link to phases**: note which roadmap phase should address each pitfall
|
|
@@ -1,45 +1,45 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
# Stack Research Template
|
|
2
|
-
|
|
3
|
-
Use when researching the technology stack for a project or phase.
|
|
4
|
-
|
|
5
|
-
Write to: `.planning/research/STACK.md`
|
|
6
|
-
|
|
7
|
-
---
|
|
8
|
-
|
|
9
|
-
```markdown
|
|
10
|
-
# Stack Research
|
|
11
|
-
|
|
12
|
-
**Domain**: [what we're building]
|
|
13
|
-
**Researched**: [date]
|
|
14
|
-
|
|
15
|
-
## Recommended Stack
|
|
16
|
-
|
|
17
|
-
| Library/Tool | Version | Purpose | Why This One |
|
|
18
|
-
|-------------|---------|---------|--------------|
|
|
19
|
-
| [name] | [ver] | [what it does] | [why it's the right choice] |
|
|
20
|
-
| [name] | [ver] | [what it does] | [why it's the right choice] |
|
|
21
|
-
|
|
22
|
-
## Alternatives Considered
|
|
23
|
-
|
|
24
|
-
| Recommended | Alternative | Why Not |
|
|
25
|
-
|-------------|------------|---------|
|
|
26
|
-
| [choice] | [option] | [tradeoff] |
|
|
27
|
-
|
|
28
|
-
## Don't Hand-Roll
|
|
29
|
-
|
|
30
|
-
Problems that look simple but have battle-tested solutions:
|
|
31
|
-
|
|
32
|
-
| Problem | Don't Build | Use Instead | Why |
|
|
33
|
-
|---------|------------|-------------|-----|
|
|
34
|
-
| [problem] | [custom solution] | [library] | [edge cases you'd miss] |
|
|
35
|
-
|
|
36
|
-
---
|
|
37
|
-
*Confidence: [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]*
|
|
38
|
-
```
|
|
39
|
-
|
|
40
|
-
## Guidelines
|
|
41
|
-
|
|
42
|
-
- **Specific versions** — not "latest", give actual numbers
|
|
43
|
-
- **"Why This One"** matters more than "What It Does"
|
|
44
|
-
- **Don't Hand-Roll** is the highest-value section — prevents wasted effort on solved problems
|
|
45
|
-
- Keep to ~30-40 lines when filled out
|
|
1
|
+
# Stack Research Template
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
Use when researching the technology stack for a project or phase.
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
Write to: `.planning/research/STACK.md`
|
|
6
|
+
|
|
7
|
+
---
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
```markdown
|
|
10
|
+
# Stack Research
|
|
11
|
+
|
|
12
|
+
**Domain**: [what we're building]
|
|
13
|
+
**Researched**: [date]
|
|
14
|
+
|
|
15
|
+
## Recommended Stack
|
|
16
|
+
|
|
17
|
+
| Library/Tool | Version | Purpose | Why This One |
|
|
18
|
+
|-------------|---------|---------|--------------|
|
|
19
|
+
| [name] | [ver] | [what it does] | [why it's the right choice] |
|
|
20
|
+
| [name] | [ver] | [what it does] | [why it's the right choice] |
|
|
21
|
+
|
|
22
|
+
## Alternatives Considered
|
|
23
|
+
|
|
24
|
+
| Recommended | Alternative | Why Not |
|
|
25
|
+
|-------------|------------|---------|
|
|
26
|
+
| [choice] | [option] | [tradeoff] |
|
|
27
|
+
|
|
28
|
+
## Don't Hand-Roll
|
|
29
|
+
|
|
30
|
+
Problems that look simple but have battle-tested solutions:
|
|
31
|
+
|
|
32
|
+
| Problem | Don't Build | Use Instead | Why |
|
|
33
|
+
|---------|------------|-------------|-----|
|
|
34
|
+
| [problem] | [custom solution] | [library] | [edge cases you'd miss] |
|
|
35
|
+
|
|
36
|
+
---
|
|
37
|
+
*Confidence: [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]*
|
|
38
|
+
```
|
|
39
|
+
|
|
40
|
+
## Guidelines
|
|
41
|
+
|
|
42
|
+
- **Specific versions** — not "latest", give actual numbers
|
|
43
|
+
- **"Why This One"** matters more than "What It Does"
|
|
44
|
+
- **Don't Hand-Roll** is the highest-value section — prevents wasted effort on solved problems
|
|
45
|
+
- Keep to ~30-40 lines when filled out
|
|
@@ -1,67 +1,67 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
# Research Summary
|
|
2
|
-
|
|
3
|
-
**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
|
|
4
|
-
**Topic:** [Domain/feature area]
|
|
5
|
-
**Milestone context:** [greenfield | subsequent]
|
|
6
|
-
|
|
7
|
-
## Executive Summary (5-10 bullets)
|
|
8
|
-
- [What we learned, in actionable terms — one concrete insight per bullet]
|
|
9
|
-
|
|
10
|
-
## Confidence Assessment
|
|
11
|
-
|
|
12
|
-
| Area | Confidence | Rationale |
|
|
13
|
-
|------|-----------|-----------|
|
|
14
|
-
| Stack choices | ✅ verified / ⚠️ likely / ❓ uncertain | [why] |
|
|
15
|
-
| Feature set | ✅ verified / ⚠️ likely / ❓ uncertain | [why] |
|
|
16
|
-
| Architecture pattern | ✅ verified / ⚠️ likely / ❓ uncertain | [why] |
|
|
17
|
-
| Key pitfalls | ✅ verified / ⚠️ likely / ❓ uncertain | [why] |
|
|
18
|
-
|
|
19
|
-
## Recommendations (Prescriptive)
|
|
20
|
-
|
|
21
|
-
For each recommendation, include confidence and the evidence.
|
|
22
|
-
|
|
23
|
-
1. Recommendation: [Use X / Avoid Y]
|
|
24
|
-
- Confidence: [verified | likely | uncertain]
|
|
25
|
-
- Why: [short rationale]
|
|
26
|
-
- Evidence: [URL(s)]
|
|
27
|
-
- Counterpoints / tradeoffs: [what would change the decision]
|
|
28
|
-
|
|
29
|
-
## Non-Goals / Anti-Features
|
|
30
|
-
- [What we explicitly will not do in v1, and why — grounded in research findings]
|
|
31
|
-
|
|
32
|
-
## Pitfalls To Avoid
|
|
33
|
-
- [Concrete mistakes teams make in this domain — phase-mapped where possible]
|
|
34
|
-
|
|
35
|
-
## Open Questions (Blockers)
|
|
36
|
-
- [What must be decided before planning can proceed]
|
|
37
|
-
|
|
38
|
-
## Implications for Roadmap
|
|
39
|
-
|
|
40
|
-
This section is the critical handoff from research to ROADMAP.md. The roadmapper reads this.
|
|
41
|
-
|
|
42
|
-
### Suggested Phase Structure
|
|
43
|
-
Derived from architecture build order + pitfall avoidance priorities:
|
|
44
|
-
|
|
45
|
-
| Phase | Focus | Rationale |
|
|
46
|
-
|-------|-------|-----------|
|
|
47
|
-
| Phase 1 | [Foundation: e.g., data model + auth] | [why this must come first — dependency or risk] |
|
|
48
|
-
| Phase 2 | [Core: e.g., primary user workflow] | [what unblocks after Phase 1] |
|
|
49
|
-
| Phase 3 | [Integration: e.g., external services] | [why deferred — complexity or dependency] |
|
|
50
|
-
| Phase N | [Polish / edge cases] | [why last] |
|
|
51
|
-
|
|
52
|
-
### Research Flags (Phase-Level)
|
|
53
|
-
These are signals for the planner — which phases need deeper domain research vs standard patterns:
|
|
54
|
-
|
|
55
|
-
| Phase | Flag | Reason |
|
|
56
|
-
|-------|------|--------|
|
|
57
|
-
| Phase 1 | ⚠️ Needs deeper research | [e.g., "auth pattern depends on regulatory context"] |
|
|
58
|
-
| Phase 2 | ✅ Standard pattern | [e.g., "CRUD with established library — no surprises"] |
|
|
59
|
-
| Phase N | ❓ Uncertain | [e.g., "real-time sync has multiple viable approaches"] |
|
|
60
|
-
|
|
61
|
-
## Sources
|
|
62
|
-
|
|
63
|
-
| Claim | URL | Accessed |
|
|
64
|
-
|-------|-----|---------|
|
|
65
|
-
| [Stack recommendation] | [URL] | [YYYY-MM-DD] |
|
|
66
|
-
| [Architecture pattern] | [URL] | [YYYY-MM-DD] |
|
|
67
|
-
| [Pitfall] | [URL] | [YYYY-MM-DD] |
|
|
1
|
+
# Research Summary
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
|
|
4
|
+
**Topic:** [Domain/feature area]
|
|
5
|
+
**Milestone context:** [greenfield | subsequent]
|
|
6
|
+
|
|
7
|
+
## Executive Summary (5-10 bullets)
|
|
8
|
+
- [What we learned, in actionable terms — one concrete insight per bullet]
|
|
9
|
+
|
|
10
|
+
## Confidence Assessment
|
|
11
|
+
|
|
12
|
+
| Area | Confidence | Rationale |
|
|
13
|
+
|------|-----------|-----------|
|
|
14
|
+
| Stack choices | ✅ verified / ⚠️ likely / ❓ uncertain | [why] |
|
|
15
|
+
| Feature set | ✅ verified / ⚠️ likely / ❓ uncertain | [why] |
|
|
16
|
+
| Architecture pattern | ✅ verified / ⚠️ likely / ❓ uncertain | [why] |
|
|
17
|
+
| Key pitfalls | ✅ verified / ⚠️ likely / ❓ uncertain | [why] |
|
|
18
|
+
|
|
19
|
+
## Recommendations (Prescriptive)
|
|
20
|
+
|
|
21
|
+
For each recommendation, include confidence and the evidence.
|
|
22
|
+
|
|
23
|
+
1. Recommendation: [Use X / Avoid Y]
|
|
24
|
+
- Confidence: [verified | likely | uncertain]
|
|
25
|
+
- Why: [short rationale]
|
|
26
|
+
- Evidence: [URL(s)]
|
|
27
|
+
- Counterpoints / tradeoffs: [what would change the decision]
|
|
28
|
+
|
|
29
|
+
## Non-Goals / Anti-Features
|
|
30
|
+
- [What we explicitly will not do in v1, and why — grounded in research findings]
|
|
31
|
+
|
|
32
|
+
## Pitfalls To Avoid
|
|
33
|
+
- [Concrete mistakes teams make in this domain — phase-mapped where possible]
|
|
34
|
+
|
|
35
|
+
## Open Questions (Blockers)
|
|
36
|
+
- [What must be decided before planning can proceed]
|
|
37
|
+
|
|
38
|
+
## Implications for Roadmap
|
|
39
|
+
|
|
40
|
+
This section is the critical handoff from research to ROADMAP.md. The roadmapper reads this.
|
|
41
|
+
|
|
42
|
+
### Suggested Phase Structure
|
|
43
|
+
Derived from architecture build order + pitfall avoidance priorities:
|
|
44
|
+
|
|
45
|
+
| Phase | Focus | Rationale |
|
|
46
|
+
|-------|-------|-----------|
|
|
47
|
+
| Phase 1 | [Foundation: e.g., data model + auth] | [why this must come first — dependency or risk] |
|
|
48
|
+
| Phase 2 | [Core: e.g., primary user workflow] | [what unblocks after Phase 1] |
|
|
49
|
+
| Phase 3 | [Integration: e.g., external services] | [why deferred — complexity or dependency] |
|
|
50
|
+
| Phase N | [Polish / edge cases] | [why last] |
|
|
51
|
+
|
|
52
|
+
### Research Flags (Phase-Level)
|
|
53
|
+
These are signals for the planner — which phases need deeper domain research vs standard patterns:
|
|
54
|
+
|
|
55
|
+
| Phase | Flag | Reason |
|
|
56
|
+
|-------|------|--------|
|
|
57
|
+
| Phase 1 | ⚠️ Needs deeper research | [e.g., "auth pattern depends on regulatory context"] |
|
|
58
|
+
| Phase 2 | ✅ Standard pattern | [e.g., "CRUD with established library — no surprises"] |
|
|
59
|
+
| Phase N | ❓ Uncertain | [e.g., "real-time sync has multiple viable approaches"] |
|
|
60
|
+
|
|
61
|
+
## Sources
|
|
62
|
+
|
|
63
|
+
| Claim | URL | Accessed |
|
|
64
|
+
|-------|-----|---------|
|
|
65
|
+
| [Stack recommendation] | [URL] | [YYYY-MM-DD] |
|
|
66
|
+
| [Architecture pattern] | [URL] | [YYYY-MM-DD] |
|
|
67
|
+
| [Pitfall] | [URL] | [YYYY-MM-DD] |
|
|
@@ -1,62 +1,74 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
# ROADMAP.md Template
|
|
2
|
-
|
|
3
|
-
Use this template when creating `.planning/ROADMAP.md` (phase breakdown + progress tracker).
|
|
4
|
-
|
|
5
|
-
```markdown
|
|
6
|
-
# Roadmap: [Project Name]
|
|
7
|
-
|
|
8
|
-
## Overview
|
|
9
|
-
|
|
10
|
-
[One paragraph: what v1 delivers and why.]
|
|
11
|
-
|
|
12
|
-
## Phases (Status Legend: [ ] not started, [-] in progress, [x] complete)
|
|
13
|
-
|
|
14
|
-
- [ ] **Phase 1: [Name]** - [One-line goal]
|
|
15
|
-
- [ ] **Phase 2: [Name]** - [One-line goal]
|
|
16
|
-
- [ ] **Phase 3: [Name]** - [One-line goal]
|
|
17
|
-
|
|
18
|
-
## Phase Details
|
|
19
|
-
|
|
20
|
-
### Phase 1: [Name]
|
|
21
|
-
|
|
22
|
-
**Goal**: [What this phase delivers]
|
|
23
|
-
**Status**: [ ]
|
|
24
|
-
**Requirements**: [REQ-IDs from `.planning/SPEC.md`]
|
|
25
|
-
**Success Criteria** (must be TRUE when done):
|
|
26
|
-
1. [Observable behavior]
|
|
27
|
-
2. [Observable behavior]
|
|
28
|
-
|
|
29
|
-
### Phase 2: [Name]
|
|
30
|
-
|
|
31
|
-
**Goal**: [What this phase delivers]
|
|
32
|
-
**Status**: [ ]
|
|
33
|
-
**Depends on**: Phase 1
|
|
34
|
-
**Requirements**: [REQ-IDs]
|
|
35
|
-
**Success Criteria**:
|
|
36
|
-
1. [Observable behavior]
|
|
37
|
-
2. [Observable behavior]
|
|
38
|
-
|
|
39
|
-
|
|
40
|
-
|
|
41
|
-
|
|
42
|
-
|
|
43
|
-
|
|
44
|
-
|
|
45
|
-
|
|
46
|
-
|
|
47
|
-
|
|
48
|
-
|
|
49
|
-
|
|
50
|
-
|
|
51
|
-
|
|
52
|
-
|
|
53
|
-
|
|
54
|
-
|
|
55
|
-
|
|
56
|
-
|
|
57
|
-
|
|
58
|
-
|
|
59
|
-
|
|
60
|
-
|
|
61
|
-
|
|
62
|
-
|
|
1
|
+
# ROADMAP.md Template
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
Use this template when creating `.planning/ROADMAP.md` (phase breakdown + progress tracker).
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
```markdown
|
|
6
|
+
# Roadmap: [Project Name]
|
|
7
|
+
|
|
8
|
+
## Overview
|
|
9
|
+
|
|
10
|
+
[One paragraph: what v1 delivers and why.]
|
|
11
|
+
|
|
12
|
+
## Phases (Status Legend: [ ] not started, [-] in progress, [x] complete)
|
|
13
|
+
|
|
14
|
+
- [ ] **Phase 1: [Name]** - [One-line goal]
|
|
15
|
+
- [ ] **Phase 2: [Name]** - [One-line goal]
|
|
16
|
+
- [ ] **Phase 3: [Name]** - [One-line goal]
|
|
17
|
+
|
|
18
|
+
## Phase Details
|
|
19
|
+
|
|
20
|
+
### Phase 1: [Name]
|
|
21
|
+
|
|
22
|
+
**Goal**: [What this phase delivers]
|
|
23
|
+
**Status**: [ ]
|
|
24
|
+
**Requirements**: [REQ-IDs from `.planning/SPEC.md`]
|
|
25
|
+
**Success Criteria** (must be TRUE when done):
|
|
26
|
+
1. [Observable behavior]
|
|
27
|
+
2. [Observable behavior]
|
|
28
|
+
|
|
29
|
+
### Phase 2: [Name]
|
|
30
|
+
|
|
31
|
+
**Goal**: [What this phase delivers]
|
|
32
|
+
**Status**: [ ]
|
|
33
|
+
**Depends on**: Phase 1
|
|
34
|
+
**Requirements**: [REQ-IDs]
|
|
35
|
+
**Success Criteria**:
|
|
36
|
+
1. [Observable behavior]
|
|
37
|
+
2. [Observable behavior]
|
|
38
|
+
|
|
39
|
+
### Phase 3: [Name]
|
|
40
|
+
|
|
41
|
+
**Goal**: [What this phase delivers]
|
|
42
|
+
**Status**: [ ]
|
|
43
|
+
**Depends on**: Phase 2
|
|
44
|
+
**Requirements**: [REQ-IDs]
|
|
45
|
+
**Success Criteria**:
|
|
46
|
+
1. [Observable behavior]
|
|
47
|
+
2. [Observable behavior]
|
|
48
|
+
|
|
49
|
+
---
|
|
50
|
+
*Created: [YYYY-MM-DD]*
|
|
51
|
+
```
|
|
52
|
+
|
|
53
|
+
## Guidelines
|
|
54
|
+
|
|
55
|
+
- Prefer 3-8 phases for most projects.
|
|
56
|
+
- Every v1 requirement in `.planning/SPEC.md` must map to exactly one phase (no orphans).
|
|
57
|
+
- Success criteria are 2-5 observable behaviors per phase.
|
|
58
|
+
- No time estimates: focus on verifiable outcomes.
|
|
59
|
+
- These status markers are the portable source of truth. Workflow files and summaries should use `[ ]`, `[-]`, and `[x]` consistently.
|
|
60
|
+
- Keep each overview phase marker and its matching Phase Details `**Status**` marker identical. Use `gsdd phase-status <phase> <status>` instead of hand-editing either location.
|
|
61
|
+
- Treat `<details>...</details>` sections as archived roadmap history only; lifecycle helpers ignore phases inside those blocks.
|
|
62
|
+
|
|
63
|
+
## Coverage Verification
|
|
64
|
+
|
|
65
|
+
After creating the roadmap, verify:
|
|
66
|
+
```
|
|
67
|
+
For each v1 requirement in .planning/SPEC.md:
|
|
68
|
+
[ ] Requirement appears in exactly one phase's "Requirements" list
|
|
69
|
+
[ ] The phase's success criteria would prove the requirement is met
|
|
70
|
+
```
|
|
71
|
+
|
|
72
|
+
If a requirement doesn't map to any phase: add a phase or expand an existing one.
|
|
73
|
+
If a requirement maps to multiple phases: clarify which phase owns it.
|
|
74
|
+
|