opengstack 0.13.10 → 0.14.2

package/skills/autoplan/SKILL.md.tmpl

@@ -1,694 +0,0 @@
----
-name: autoplan
-preamble-tier: 3
-version: 1.0.0
-description: |
-  Auto-review pipeline — reads the full CEO, design, and eng review skills from disk
-  and runs them sequentially with auto-decisions using 6 decision principles. Surfaces
-  taste decisions (close approaches, borderline scope, codex disagreements) at a final
-  approval gate. One command, fully reviewed plan out.
-  Use when asked to "auto review", "autoplan", "run all reviews", "review this plan
-  automatically", or "make the decisions for me".
-  Proactively suggest when the user has a plan file and wants to run the full review
-  gauntlet without answering 15-30 intermediate questions.
-benefits-from: [office-hours]
-allowed-tools:
-  - Bash
-  - Read
-  - Write
-  - Edit
-  - Glob
-  - Grep
-  - WebSearch
-  - AskUserQuestion
----
-
-{{PREAMBLE}}
-
-{{BASE_BRANCH_DETECT}}
-
-{{BENEFITS_FROM}}
-
-# /autoplan — Auto-Review Pipeline
-
-One command. Rough plan in, fully reviewed plan out.
-
-/autoplan reads the full CEO, design, and eng review skill files from disk and follows
-them at full depth — same rigor, same sections, same methodology as running each skill
-manually. The only difference: intermediate AskUserQuestion calls are auto-decided using
-the 6 principles below. Taste decisions (where reasonable people could disagree) are
-surfaced at a final approval gate.
-
----
-
-## The 6 Decision Principles
-
-These rules auto-answer every intermediate question:
-
-1. **Choose completeness** — Ship the whole thing. Pick the approach that covers more edge cases.
-2. **Boil lakes** — Fix everything in the blast radius (files modified by this plan + direct importers). Auto-approve expansions that are in blast radius AND < 1 day CC effort (< 5 files, no new infra).
-3. **Pragmatic** — If two options fix the same thing, pick the cleaner one. 5 seconds choosing, not 5 minutes.
-4. **DRY** — Duplicates existing functionality? Reject. Reuse what exists.
-5. **Explicit over clever** — 10-line obvious fix > 200-line abstraction. Pick what a new contributor reads in 30 seconds.
-6. **Bias toward action** — Merge > review cycles > stale deliberation. Flag concerns but don't block.
-
-**Conflict resolution (context-dependent tiebreakers):**
-- **CEO phase:** P1 (completeness) + P2 (boil lakes) dominate.
-- **Eng phase:** P5 (explicit) + P3 (pragmatic) dominate.
-- **Design phase:** P5 (explicit) + P1 (completeness) dominate.
-
----
-
-## Decision Classification
-
-Every auto-decision is classified:
-
-**Mechanical** — one clearly right answer. Auto-decide silently.
-Examples: run codex (always yes), run evals (always yes), reduce scope on a complete plan (always no).
-
-**Taste** — reasonable people could disagree. Auto-decide with recommendation, but surface at the final gate. Three natural sources:
-1. **Close approaches** — top two are both viable with different tradeoffs.
-2. **Borderline scope** — in blast radius but 3-5 files, or ambiguous radius.
-3. **Codex disagreements** — codex recommends differently and has a valid point.
-
-**User Challenge** — both models agree the user's stated direction should change.
-This is qualitatively different from taste decisions. When Claude and Codex both
-recommend merging, splitting, adding, or removing features/skills/workflows that
-the user specified, this is a User Challenge. It is NEVER auto-decided.
-
-User Challenges go to the final approval gate with richer context than taste
-decisions:
-- **What the user said:** (their original direction)
-- **What both models recommend:** (the change)
-- **Why:** (the models' reasoning)
-- **What context we might be missing:** (explicit acknowledgment of blind spots)
-- **If we're wrong, the cost is:** (what happens if the user's original direction
-  was right and we changed it)
-
-The user's original direction is the default. The models must make the case for
-change, not the other way around.
-
-**Exception:** If both models flag the change as a security vulnerability or
-feasibility blocker (not a preference), the AskUserQuestion framing explicitly
-warns: "Both models believe this is a security/feasibility risk, not just a
-preference." The user still decides, but the framing is appropriately urgent.
-
----
-
-## Sequential Execution — MANDATORY
-
-Phases MUST execute in strict order: CEO → Design → Eng.
-Each phase MUST complete fully before the next begins.
-NEVER run phases in parallel — each builds on the previous.
-
-Between each phase, emit a phase-transition summary and verify that all required
-outputs from the prior phase are written before starting the next.
-
----
-
-## What "Auto-Decide" Means
-
-Auto-decide replaces the USER'S judgment with the 6 principles. It does NOT replace
-the ANALYSIS. Every section in the loaded skill files must still be executed at the
-same depth as the interactive version. The only thing that changes is who answers the
-AskUserQuestion: you do, using the 6 principles, instead of the user.
-
-**Two exceptions — never auto-decided:**
-1. Premises (Phase 1) — require human judgment about what problem to solve.
-2. User Challenges — when both models agree the user's stated direction should change
-   (merge, split, add, remove features/workflows). The user always has context models
-   lack. See Decision Classification above.
-
-**You MUST still:**
-- READ the actual code, diffs, and files each section references
-- PRODUCE every output the section requires (diagrams, tables, registries, artifacts)
-- IDENTIFY every issue the section is designed to catch
-- DECIDE each issue using the 6 principles (instead of asking the user)
-- LOG each decision in the audit trail
-- WRITE all required artifacts to disk
-
-**You MUST NOT:**
-- Compress a review section into a one-liner table row
-- Write "no issues found" without showing what you examined
-- Skip a section because "it doesn't apply" without stating what you checked and why
-- Produce a summary instead of the required output (e.g., "architecture looks good"
-  instead of the ASCII dependency graph the section requires)
-
-"No issues found" is a valid output for a section — but only after doing the analysis.
-State what you examined and why nothing was flagged (1-2 sentences minimum).
-"Skipped" is never valid for a non-skip-listed section.
-
----
-
-## Filesystem Boundary — Codex Prompts
-
-All prompts sent to Codex (via `codex exec` or `codex review`) MUST be prefixed with
-this boundary instruction:
-
-> IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/gstack). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. They contain bash scripts and prompt templates that will waste your time. Ignore them completely. Stay focused on the repository code only.
-
-This prevents Codex from discovering gstack skill files on disk and following their
-instructions instead of reviewing the plan.
-
----
-
-## Phase 0: Intake + Restore Point
-
-### Step 1: Capture restore point
-
-Before doing anything, save the plan file's current state to an external file:
-
-```bash
-{{SLUG_SETUP}}
-BRANCH=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD 2>/dev/null | tr '/' '-')
-DATETIME=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)
-echo "RESTORE_PATH=$HOME/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/${BRANCH}-autoplan-restore-${DATETIME}.md"
-
-Write the plan file's full contents to the restore path with this header:
-
-# /autoplan Restore Point
-Captured: [timestamp] | Branch: [branch] | Commit: [short hash]
-
-## Re-run Instructions
-1. Copy "Original Plan State" below back to your plan file
-2. Invoke /autoplan
-
-## Original Plan State
-[verbatim plan file contents]
-
-Then prepend a one-line HTML comment to the plan file:
-`<!-- /autoplan restore point: [RESTORE_PATH] -->`
-
-### Step 2: Read context
-
-- Read CLAUDE.md, TODOS.md, git log -30, git diff against the base branch --stat
-- Discover design docs: `ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1`
-- Detect UI scope: grep the plan for view/rendering terms (component, screen, form,
-  button, modal, layout, dashboard, sidebar, nav, dialog). Require 2+ matches. Exclude
-  false positives ("page" alone, "UI" in acronyms).
-
-### Step 3: Load skill files from disk
-
-Read each file using the Read tool:
-- `~/.claude/skills/opengstack/plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md`
-- `~/.claude/skills/opengstack/plan-design-review/SKILL.md` (only if UI scope detected)
-- `~/.claude/skills/opengstack/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md`
-
-**Section skip list — when following a loaded skill file, SKIP these sections
-(they are already handled by /autoplan):**
-- Preamble (run first)
-- AskUserQuestion Format
-- Completeness Principle —
-- Search Before Building
-- Contributor Mode
-- Completion Status Protocol
-- Telemetry (run last)
-- Step 0: Detect base branch
-- Review Readiness Dashboard
-- Plan File Review Report
-- Prerequisite Skill Offer (BENEFITS_FROM)
-- Outside Voice — Independent Plan Challenge
-- Design Outside Voices (parallel)
-
-Follow ONLY the review-specific methodology, sections, and required outputs.
-
-Output: "Here's what I'm working with: [plan summary]. UI scope: [yes/no].
-Loaded review skills from disk. Starting full review pipeline with auto-decisions."
-
----
-
-## Phase 1: CEO Review (Strategy & Scope)
-
-Follow plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md — all sections, full depth.
-Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
-
-**Override rules:**
-- Mode selection: SELECTIVE EXPANSION
-- Premises: accept reasonable ones (P6), challenge only clearly wrong ones
-- **GATE: Present premises to user for confirmation** — this is the ONE AskUserQuestion
-  that is NOT auto-decided. Premises require human judgment.
-- Alternatives: pick highest completeness (P1). If tied, pick simplest (P5).
-  If top 2 are close → mark TASTE DECISION.
-- Scope expansion: in blast radius + <1d CC → approve (P2). Outside → defer to TODOS.md (P3).
-  Duplicates → reject (P4). Borderline (3-5 files) → mark TASTE DECISION.
-- All 10 review sections: run fully, auto-decide each issue, log every decision.
-- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
-  Run them sequentially in foreground. First the Claude subagent (Agent tool,
-  foreground — do NOT use run_in_background), then Codex (Bash). Both must
-  complete before building the consensus table.
-
-  **Codex CEO voice** (via Bash):
-  ```bash
-  _REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
-  codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/gstack). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only.
-
-  You are a CEO/founder advisor reviewing a development plan.
-  Challenge the strategic foundations: Are the premises valid or assumed? Is this the
-  right problem to solve, or is there a reframing that would be 10x more impactful?
-  What alternatives were dismissed too quickly? What competitive or market risks are
-  unaddressed? What scope decisions will look foolish in 6 months? Be adversarial.
-  No compliments. Just the strategic blind spots.
-  File: <plan_path>" -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only --enable web_search_cached
-  ```
-  Timeout: 10 minutes
-
-  **Claude CEO subagent** (via Agent tool):
-  "Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent CEO/strategist
-  reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
-  1. Is this the right problem to solve? Could a reframing yield 10x impact?
-  2. Are the premises stated or just assumed? Which ones could be wrong?
-  3. What's the 6-month regret scenario — what will look foolish?
-  4. What alternatives were dismissed without sufficient analysis?
-  5. What's the competitive risk — could someone else solve this first/better?
-  For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix."
-
-  **Error handling:** Both calls block in foreground. Codex auth/timeout/empty → proceed with
-  Claude subagent only, tagged `[single-model]`. If Claude subagent also fails →
-  "Outside voices unavailable — continuing with primary review."
-
-  **Degradation matrix:** Both fail → "single-reviewer mode". Codex only →
-  tag `[codex-only]`. Subagent only → tag `[subagent-only]`.
-
-- Strategy choices: if codex disagrees with a premise or scope decision with valid
-  strategic reason → TASTE DECISION. If both models agree the user's stated structure
-  should change (merge, split, add, remove) → USER CHALLENGE (never auto-decided).
-
-**Required execution checklist (CEO):**
-
-Step 0 (0A-0F) — run each sub-step and produce:
-- 0A: Premise challenge with specific premises named and evaluated
-- 0B: Existing code leverage map (sub-problems → existing code)
-- 0C: Dream state diagram (CURRENT → THIS PLAN → 12-MONTH IDEAL)
-- 0C-bis: Implementation alternatives table (2-3 approaches with effort/risk/pros/cons)
-- 0D: Mode-specific analysis with scope decisions logged
-- 0E: Temporal interrogation (HOUR 1 → HOUR 6+)
-- 0F: Mode selection confirmation
-
-Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent (foreground Agent tool) first, then
-Codex (Bash). Present Codex output under CODEX SAYS (CEO — strategy challenge)
-header. Present subagent output under CLAUDE SUBAGENT (CEO — strategic independence)
-header. Produce CEO consensus table:
-
-
-CEO DUAL VOICES — CONSENSUS TABLE:
-═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
-  Dimension                           Claude  Codex  Consensus
-  ──────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
-  1. Premises valid?                   —       —      —
-  2. Right problem to solve?           —       —      —
-  3. Scope calibration correct?        —       —      —
-  4. Alternatives sufficiently explored?—      —      —
-  5. Competitive/market risks covered? —       —      —
-  6. 6-month trajectory sound?         —       —      —
-═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
-CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ (→ taste decision).
-Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = flagged regardless.
-
-Sections 1-10 — for EACH section, run the evaluation criteria from the loaded skill file:
-- Sections WITH findings: full analysis, auto-decide each issue, log to audit trail
-- Sections with NO findings: 1-2 sentences stating what was examined and why nothing
-  was flagged. NEVER compress a section to just its name in a table row.
-- Section 11 (Design): run only if UI scope was detected in Phase 0
-
-**Mandatory outputs from Phase 1:**
-- "NOT in scope" section with deferred items and rationale
-- "What already exists" section mapping sub-problems to existing code
-- Error & Rescue Registry table (from Section 2)
-- Failure Modes Registry table (from review sections)
-- Dream state delta (where this plan leaves us vs 12-month ideal)
-- Completion Summary (the full summary table from the CEO skill)
-
-**PHASE 1 COMPLETE.** Emit phase-transition summary:
-> **Phase 1 complete.** Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
-> Consensus: [X/6 confirmed, Y disagreements → surfaced at gate].
-> Passing to Phase 2.
-
-Do NOT begin Phase 2 until all Phase 1 outputs are written to the plan file
-and the premise gate has been passed.
-
----
-
-**Pre-Phase 2 checklist (verify before starting):**
-- [ ] CEO completion summary written to plan file
-- [ ] CEO dual voices ran (Codex + Claude subagent, or noted unavailable)
-- [ ] CEO consensus table produced
-- [ ] Premise gate passed (user confirmed)
-- [ ] Phase-transition summary emitted
-
-## Phase 2: Design Review (conditional — skip if no UI scope)
-
-Follow plan-design-review/SKILL.md — all 7 dimensions, full depth.
-Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
-
-**Override rules:**
-- Focus areas: all relevant dimensions (P1)
-- Structural issues (missing states, broken hierarchy): auto-fix (P5)
-- Aesthetic/taste issues: mark TASTE DECISION
-- Design system alignment: auto-fix if DESIGN.md exists and fix is obvious
-- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
-
-  **Codex design voice** (via Bash):
-  ```bash
-  _REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
-  codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/gstack). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only.
-
-  Read the plan file at <plan_path>. Evaluate this plan's
-  UI/UX design decisions.
-
-  Also consider these findings from the CEO review phase:
-  <insert CEO dual voice findings summary — key concerns, disagreements>
-
-  Does the information hierarchy serve the user or the developer? Are interaction
-  states (loading, empty, error, partial) specified or left to the implementer's
-  imagination? Is the responsive strategy intentional or afterthought? Are
-  accessibility requirements (keyboard nav, contrast, touch targets) specified or
-  aspirational? Does the plan describe specific UI decisions or generic patterns?
-  What design decisions will haunt the implementer if left ambiguous?
-  Be opinionated. No hedging." -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only --enable web_search_cached
-  ```
-  Timeout: 10 minutes
-
-  **Claude design subagent** (via Agent tool):
-  "Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent senior product designer
-  reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
-  1. Information hierarchy: what does the user see first, second, third? Is it right?
-  2. Missing states: loading, empty, error, success, partial — which are unspecified?
-  3. User journey: what's the emotional arc? Where does it break?
-  4. Specificity: does the plan describe SPECIFIC UI or generic patterns?
-  5. What design decisions will haunt the implementer if left ambiguous?
-  For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix."
-  NO prior-phase context — subagent must be truly independent.
-
-  Error handling: same as Phase 1 (both foreground/blocking, degradation matrix applies).
-
-- Design choices: if codex disagrees with a design decision with valid UX reasoning
-  → TASTE DECISION. Scope changes both models agree on → USER CHALLENGE.
-
-**Required execution checklist (Design):**
-
-1. Step 0 (Design Scope): Rate completeness 0-10. Check DESIGN.md. Map existing patterns.
-
-2. Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent (foreground) first, then Codex. Present under
-   CODEX SAYS (design — UX challenge) and CLAUDE SUBAGENT (design — independent review)
-   headers. Produce design litmus scorecard (consensus table). Use the litmus scorecard
-   format from plan-design-review. Include CEO phase findings in Codex prompt ONLY
-   (not Claude subagent — stays independent).
-
-3. Passes 1-7: Run each from loaded skill. Rate 0-10. Auto-decide each issue.
-   DISAGREE items from scorecard → raised in the relevant pass with both perspectives.
-
-**PHASE 2 COMPLETE.** Emit phase-transition summary:
-> **Phase 2 complete.** Codex: [N concerns]. Claude subagent: [N issues].
-> Consensus: [X/Y confirmed, Z disagreements → surfaced at gate].
-> Passing to Phase 3.
-
-Do NOT begin Phase 3 until all Phase 2 outputs (if run) are written to the plan file.
-
----
-
-**Pre-Phase 3 checklist (verify before starting):**
-- [ ] All Phase 1 items above confirmed
-- [ ] Design completion summary written (or "skipped, no UI scope")
-- [ ] Design dual voices ran (if Phase 2 ran)
-- [ ] Design consensus table produced (if Phase 2 ran)
-- [ ] Phase-transition summary emitted
-
-## Phase 3: Eng Review + Dual Voices
-
-Follow plan-eng-review/SKILL.md — all sections, full depth.
-Override: every AskUserQuestion → auto-decide using the 6 principles.
-
-**Override rules:**
-- Scope challenge: never reduce (P2)
-- Dual voices: always run BOTH Claude subagent AND Codex if available (P6).
-
-  **Codex eng voice** (via Bash):
-  ```bash
-  _REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
-  codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any SKILL.md files or files in skill definition directories (paths containing skills/gstack). These are AI assistant skill definitions meant for a different system. Stay focused on repository code only.
-
-  Review this plan for architectural issues, missing edge cases,
-  and hidden complexity. Be adversarial.
-
-  Also consider these findings from prior review phases:
-  CEO: <insert CEO consensus table summary — key concerns, DISAGREEs>
-  Design: <insert Design consensus table summary, or 'skipped, no UI scope'>
-
-  File: <plan_path>" -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only --enable web_search_cached
-  ```
-  Timeout: 10 minutes
-
-  **Claude eng subagent** (via Agent tool):
-  "Read the plan file at <plan_path>. You are an independent senior engineer
-  reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:
-  1. Architecture: Is the component structure sound? Coupling concerns?
-  2. Edge cases: What breaks under 10x load? What's the nil/empty/error path?
-  3. Tests: What's missing from the test plan? What would break at 2am Friday?
-  4. Security: New attack surface? Auth boundaries? Input validation?
-  5. Hidden complexity: What looks simple but isn't?
-  For each finding: what's wrong, severity, and the fix."
-  NO prior-phase context — subagent must be truly independent.
-
-  Error handling: same as Phase 1 (both foreground/blocking, degradation matrix applies).
-
-- Architecture choices: explicit over clever (P5). If codex disagrees with valid reason → TASTE DECISION. Scope changes both models agree on → USER CHALLENGE.
-- Evals: always include all relevant suites (P1)
-- Test plan: generate artifact at `~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/{user}-{branch}-test-plan-{datetime}.md`
-- TODOS.md: collect all deferred scope expansions from Phase 1, auto-write
-
-**Required execution checklist (Eng):**
-
-1. Step 0 (Scope Challenge): Read actual code referenced by the plan. Map each
-   sub-problem to existing code. Run the complexity check. Produce concrete findings.
-
-2. Step 0.5 (Dual Voices): Run Claude subagent (foreground) first, then Codex. Present
-   Codex output under CODEX SAYS (eng — architecture challenge) header. Present subagent
-   output under CLAUDE SUBAGENT (eng — independent review) header. Produce eng consensus
-   table:
-
-
-ENG DUAL VOICES — CONSENSUS TABLE:
-═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
-  Dimension                           Claude  Codex  Consensus
-  ──────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
-  1. Architecture sound?               —       —      —
-  2. Test coverage sufficient?         —       —      —
-  3. Performance risks addressed?      —       —      —
-  4. Security threats covered?         —       —      —
-  5. Error paths handled?              —       —      —
-  6. Deployment risk manageable?       —       —      —
-═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
-CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ (→ taste decision).
-Missing voice = N/A (not CONFIRMED). Single critical finding from one voice = flagged regardless.
-
-3. Section 1 (Architecture): Produce ASCII dependency graph showing new components
-   and their relationships to existing ones. Evaluate coupling, scaling, security.
-
-4. Section 2 (Code Quality): Identify DRY violations, naming issues, complexity.
-   Reference specific files and patterns. Auto-decide each finding.
-
-5. **Section 3 (Test Review) — NEVER SKIP OR COMPRESS.**
-   This section requires reading actual code, not summarizing from memory.
-   - Read the diff or the plan's affected files
-   - Build the test diagram: list every NEW UX flow, data flow, codepath, and branch
-   - For EACH item in the diagram: what type of test covers it? Does one exist? Gaps?
-   - For LLM/prompt changes: which eval suites must run?
-   - Auto-deciding test gaps means: identify the gap → decide whether to add a test
-     or defer (with rationale and principle) → log the decision. It does NOT mean
-     skipping the analysis.
-   - Write the test plan artifact to disk
-
-6. Section 4 (Performance): Evaluate N+1 queries, memory, caching, slow paths.
-
-**Mandatory outputs from Phase 3:**
-- "NOT in scope" section
-- "What already exists" section
-- Architecture ASCII diagram (Section 1)
-- Test diagram mapping codepaths to coverage (Section 3)
-- Test plan artifact written to disk (Section 3)
-- Failure modes registry with critical gap flags
-- Completion Summary (the full summary from the Eng skill)
-- TODOS.md updates (collected from all phases)
-
----
-
-## Decision Audit Trail
-
-After each auto-decision, append a row to the plan file using Edit:
-
-```markdown
-<!-- AUTONOMOUS DECISION LOG -->
-## Decision Audit Trail
-
-| # | Phase | Decision | Classification | Principle | Rationale | Rejected |
-|---|-------|----------|-----------|-----------|----------|
-
-Write one row per decision incrementally (via Edit). This keeps the audit on disk,
-not accumulated in conversation context.
-
----
-
-## Pre-Gate Verification
-
-Before presenting the Final Approval Gate, verify that required outputs were actually
-produced. Check the plan file and conversation for each item.
-
-**Phase 1 (CEO) outputs:**
-- [ ] Premise challenge with specific premises named (not just "premises accepted")
-- [ ] All applicable review sections have findings OR explicit "examined X, nothing flagged"
-- [ ] Error & Rescue Registry table produced (or noted N/A with reason)
-- [ ] Failure Modes Registry table produced (or noted N/A with reason)
-- [ ] "NOT in scope" section written
-- [ ] "What already exists" section written
-- [ ] Dream state delta written
-- [ ] Completion Summary produced
-- [ ] Dual voices ran (Codex + Claude subagent, or noted unavailable)
-- [ ] CEO consensus table produced
-
-**Phase 2 (Design) outputs — only if UI scope detected:**
-- [ ] All 7 dimensions evaluated with scores
-- [ ] Issues identified and auto-decided
-- [ ] Dual voices ran (or noted unavailable/skipped with phase)
-- [ ] Design litmus scorecard produced
-
-**Phase 3 (Eng) outputs:**
-- [ ] Scope challenge with actual code analysis (not just "scope is fine")
-- [ ] Architecture ASCII diagram produced
-- [ ] Test diagram mapping codepaths to test coverage
-- [ ] Test plan artifact written to disk at ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/
-- [ ] "NOT in scope" section written
-- [ ] "What already exists" section written
-- [ ] Failure modes registry with critical gap assessment
-- [ ] Completion Summary produced
-- [ ] Dual voices ran (Codex + Claude subagent, or noted unavailable)
-- [ ] Eng consensus table produced
-
-**Cross-phase:**
-- [ ] Cross-phase themes section written
-
-**Audit trail:**
-- [ ] Decision Audit Trail has at least one row per auto-decision (not empty)
-
-If ANY checkbox above is missing, go back and produce the missing output. Max 2
-attempts — if still missing after retrying twice, proceed to the gate with a warning
-noting which items are incomplete. Do not loop indefinitely.
-
----
-
-## Phase 4: Final Approval Gate
-
-**STOP here and present the final state to the user.**
-
-Present as a message, then use AskUserQuestion:
-
-
-## /autoplan Review Complete
-
-### Plan Summary
-[1-3 sentence summary]
-
-### Decisions Made: [N] total ([M] auto-decided, [K] taste choices, [J] user challenges)
-
-### User Challenges (both models disagree with your stated direction)
-[For each user challenge:]
-**Challenge [N]: [title]** (from [phase])
-You said: [user's original direction]
-Both models recommend: [the change]
-Why: [reasoning]
-What we might be missing: [blind spots]
-If we're wrong, the cost is: [downside of changing]
-[If security/feasibility: "⚠️ Both models flag this as a security/feasibility risk,
-not just a preference."]
-
-Your call — your original direction stands unless you explicitly change it.
-
-### Your Choices (taste decisions)
-[For each taste decision:]
-**Choice [N]: [title]** (from [phase])
-I recommend [X] — [principle]. But [Y] is also viable:
-  [1-sentence downstream impact if you pick Y]
-
-### Auto-Decided: [M] decisions [see Decision Audit Trail in plan file]
-
-### Review Scores
-- CEO: [summary]
-- CEO Voices: Codex [summary], Claude subagent [summary], Consensus [X/6 confirmed]
-- Design: [summary or "skipped, no UI scope"]
-- Design Voices: Codex [summary], Claude subagent [summary], Consensus [X/7 confirmed] (or "skipped")
-- Eng: [summary]
-- Eng Voices: Codex [summary], Claude subagent [summary], Consensus [X/6 confirmed]
-
-### Cross-Phase Themes
-[For any concern that appeared in 2+ phases' dual voices independently:]
-**Theme: [topic]** — flagged in [Phase 1, Phase 3]. High-confidence signal.
-[If no themes span phases:] "No cross-phase themes — each phase's concerns were distinct."
-
-### Deferred to TODOS.md
-[Items auto-deferred with reasons]
-
-**Cognitive load management:**
-- 0 user challenges: skip "User Challenges" section
-- 0 taste decisions: skip "Your Choices" section
-- 1-7 taste decisions: flat list
-- 8+: group by phase. Add warning: "This plan had unusually high ambiguity ([N] taste decisions). Review carefully."
-
-AskUserQuestion options:
-- A) Approve as-is (accept all recommendations)
-- B) Approve with overrides (specify which taste decisions to change)
-- B2) Approve with user challenge responses (accept or reject each challenge)
-- C) Interrogate (ask about any specific decision)
-- D) Revise (the plan itself needs changes)
-- E) Reject (start over)
-
-**Option handling:**
-- A: mark APPROVED, write review logs, suggest /ship
-- B: ask which overrides, apply, re-present gate
-- C: answer freeform, re-present gate
-- D: make changes, re-run affected phases (scope→1B, design→2, test plan→3, arch→3). Max 3 cycles.
-- E: start over
-
----
-
-## Completion: Write Review Logs
-
-On approval, write 3 separate review log entries so /ship's dashboard recognizes them.
-Replace TIMESTAMP, STATUS, and N with actual values from each review phase.
-STATUS is "clean" if no unresolved issues, "issues_open" otherwise.
-
-```bash
-COMMIT=$(git rev-parse --short HEAD 2>/dev/null)
-TIMESTAMP=$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)
-
-~/.claude/skills/opengstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-ceo-review","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","unresolved":N,"critical_gaps":N,"mode":"SELECTIVE_EXPANSION","via":"autoplan","commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
-
-~/.claude/skills/opengstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-eng-review","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","unresolved":N,"critical_gaps":N,"issues_found":N,"mode":"FULL_REVIEW","via":"autoplan","commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
-
-If Phase 2 ran (UI scope):
-```bash
-~/.claude/skills/opengstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"plan-design-review","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","unresolved":N,"via":"autoplan","commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
-
-Dual voice logs (one per phase that ran):
-```bash
-~/.claude/skills/opengstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"autoplan-voices","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","phase":"ceo","via":"autoplan","consensus_confirmed":N,"consensus_disagree":N,"commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
-
-~/.claude/skills/opengstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"autoplan-voices","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","phase":"eng","via":"autoplan","consensus_confirmed":N,"consensus_disagree":N,"commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
-
-If Phase 2 ran (UI scope), also log:
-```bash
-~/.claude/skills/opengstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"autoplan-voices","timestamp":"'"$TIMESTAMP"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","phase":"design","via":"autoplan","consensus_confirmed":N,"consensus_disagree":N,"commit":"'"$COMMIT"'"}'
-
-SOURCE = "codex+subagent", "codex-only", "subagent-only", or "unavailable".
-Replace N values with actual consensus counts from the tables.
-
-Suggest next step: `/ship` when ready to create the PR.
-
----
-
-## Important Rules
-
-- **Never abort.** The user chose /autoplan. Respect that choice. Surface all taste decisions, never redirect to interactive review.
-- **Two gates.** The non-auto-decided AskUserQuestions are: (1) premise confirmation in Phase 1, and (2) User Challenges — when both models agree the user's stated direction should change. Everything else is auto-decided using the 6 principles.
-- **Log every decision.** No silent auto-decisions. Every choice gets a row in the audit trail.
-- **Full depth means full depth.** Do not compress or skip sections from the loaded skill files (except the skip list in Phase 0). "Full depth" means: read the code the section asks you to read, produce the outputs the section requires, identify every issue, and decide each one. A one-sentence summary of a section is not "full depth" — it is a skip. If you catch yourself writing fewer than 3 sentences for any review section, you are likely compressing.
-- **Artifacts are deliverables.** Test plan artifact, failure modes registry, error/rescue table, ASCII diagrams — these must exist on disk or in the plan file when the review completes. If they don't exist, the review is incomplete.
-- **Sequential order.** CEO → Design → Eng. Each phase builds on the last.