| name | gstack-coding-discipline |
| description | A 5-tier dispatch framework for coding tasks in AI agent workflows. Routes tasks from SIMPLE (one-file typo fix) to FULL (multi-day feature build) with appropriate rigor at each level. Prevents over-engineering simple tasks and under-planning complex ones. |
| metadata | {"emoji":"⚙️","category":"model-behavior","platform":"any (designed for Claude Code / OpenClaw)"} |
gstack Coding Discipline
A 5-tier dispatch framework that matches coding task complexity to the right level of rigor. Inspired by the gstack skill set for Claude Code.
The Problem
Without dispatch tiers:
- Simple typo fixes get full architecture reviews (slow, wasteful)
- Complex features get "just code it" treatment (bugs, rework)
- No shared vocabulary for "how much process does this need?"
The 5 Tiers
Tier 1: SIMPLE
When: Typo, one-file config change, single obvious fix.
Process: Direct execution. No planning needed.
Example: Fix a misspelled variable name. Update a version number. Add a missing import.
Task: "Fix the typo in line 42 of config.py"
→ Just do it. No plan. No review.
Tier 2: MEDIUM
When: Multi-file feature, refactors, adding a new endpoint.
Process: Lightweight discipline. Read the relevant files first, state the plan in 2-3 bullets, then execute.
Example: Add a new API endpoint that touches the router, handler, and tests.
Task: "Add a /health endpoint that returns service status"
→ Read existing routes. Plan: add route + handler + test. Execute.
Tier 3: HEAVY
When: Specific audit or review needed. Code quality concerns. Performance investigation.
Process: Formal investigation with structured output. Use commands like /review, /qa, /investigate.
Example: "Why is the billing endpoint slow?" → Profile, measure, report.
Task: "Audit the auth middleware for security issues"
→ Systematic file-by-file review. Risk matrix output. Prioritized findings.
Tier 4: FULL
When: Complete feature build, multi-day scope, new service.
Process: Full lifecycle: plan → implement → test → ship → report.
Example: Build a new notification service from scratch.
Task: "Build the weekly digest email feature"
→ /autoplan → implement each component → integration test → /ship → report back
Tier 5: PLAN
When: Plan before building. Architecture decisions. Design review needed before code.
Process: Plan only — no code. Produce a plan document for human review.
Example: "How should we restructure the database for multi-tenancy?"
Task: "Design the caching strategy for the API"
→ /office-hours → /autoplan → save plan file → report back for approval
Dispatch Decision Tree
Is it a one-file, obvious change? ──▶ SIMPLE
│ NO
▼
Does it touch 2-5 files with clear scope? ──▶ MEDIUM
│ NO
▼
Is it an audit/review/investigation? ──▶ HEAVY
│ NO
▼
Is it a full feature that needs building? ──▶ FULL
│
Does it need design approval first? ──▶ PLAN
Key Commands (gstack vocabulary)
| Command | Tier | Purpose |
|---|
/autoplan | FULL, PLAN | Generate implementation plan from requirements |
/review | HEAVY | Structured code review |
/ship | FULL | Pre-ship checklist (tests, lint, changelog) |
/qa | HEAVY, FULL | Quality assurance pass |
/cso | HEAVY | Chief Security Officer review |
/investigate | HEAVY | Deep-dive into a specific problem |
/design-review | PLAN | Architecture review before implementation |
/retro | FULL | Post-implementation retrospective |
/office-hours | PLAN | Open-ended design discussion |
Integration with CRICD
The tier determines how much CRICD structure your prompt needs:
| Tier | CRICD | Notes |
|---|
| SIMPLE | C + I only | Context + Instruction sufficient |
| MEDIUM | C + R + I | Add Relevance (which files) |
| HEAVY | Full CRICD | Everything including Constraints |
| FULL | Full CRICD + D | Demonstration mandatory |
| PLAN | C + I + C | Context, Instruction, Constraints (no code Demo) |
Anti-Patterns
- Over-tiering: Running FULL process on a SIMPLE task → 10x slower, no quality gain
- Under-tiering: Running SIMPLE process on a FULL task → bugs, rework, tech debt
- Tier inflation: Everything becomes HEAVY because "we should be thorough" → team bottleneck
- Skipping PLAN for FULL: Jumping to implementation without design → wrong architecture, costly rework
Key Principle
Match the rigor to the risk. A typo fix needs zero ceremony. A billing system needs all of it. The 5 tiers give you a shared vocabulary for making that call explicitly instead of by gut feel.
