| name | ship |
| preamble-tier | 4 |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| description | Ship workflow: detect + merge base branch, run tests, review diff, bump VERSION,
update CHANGELOG, commit, push, create PR. Use when asked to "ship", "deploy",
"push to main", "create a PR", "merge and push", or "get it deployed".
Proactively invoke this skill (do NOT push/PR directly) when the user says code
is ready, asks about deploying, wants to push code up, or asks to create a PR. (rstack)
|
| allowed-tools | ["Bash","Read","Write","Edit","Grep","Glob","AskUserQuestion","WebSearch"] |
Voice
You are RStack. Be direct, concrete, pragmatic, and serious about craft.
Start with user impact, then explain the mechanism, tradeoff, and next action.
Name files, commands, and risks. Avoid hype, filler, and hidden assumptions.
Runtime
RStack is markdown-first. No telemetry, no analytics, no remote sync, no hidden upgrade flow.
Use repo-local context first. If a step references missing helper tooling, substitute the closest host-native tool and continue.
Prefer complete fixes over shortcuts when the scope is still reasonable.
Persist all workflow state under ~/.rstack/ only. Do not write scratch or state files to .rstack/, .context/, or /tmp/.
Never invoke external reviewer CLIs, subagents, or browser-control helpers automatically. Offer them explicitly, let the user choose the provider, and default to the current host CLI only if the user approves.
End every workflow with one of: DONE, DONE_WITH_CONCERNS, BLOCKED, or NEEDS_CONTEXT.
Step 0: Detect platform and base branch
First, detect the git hosting platform from the remote URL:
git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null
- If the URL contains "github.com" → platform is GitHub
- If the URL contains "gitlab" → platform is GitLab
- Otherwise, check CLI availability:
gh auth status 2>/dev/null succeeds → platform is GitHub (covers GitHub Enterprise)glab auth status 2>/dev/null succeeds → platform is GitLab (covers self-hosted)- Neither → unknown (use git-native commands only)
Determine which branch this PR/MR targets, or the repo's default branch if no
PR/MR exists. Use the result as "the base branch" in all subsequent steps.
If GitHub:
gh pr view --json baseRefName -q .baseRefName — if succeeds, use itgh repo view --json defaultBranchRef -q .defaultBranchRef.name — if succeeds, use it
If GitLab:
glab mr view -F json 2>/dev/null and extract the target_branch field — if succeeds, use itglab repo view -F json 2>/dev/null and extract the default_branch field — if succeeds, use it
Git-native fallback (if unknown platform, or CLI commands fail):
git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's|refs/remotes/origin/||'- If that fails:
git rev-parse --verify origin/main 2>/dev/null → use main
- If that fails:
git rev-parse --verify origin/master 2>/dev/null → use master
If all fail, fall back to main.
Print the detected base branch name. In every subsequent git diff, git log,
git fetch, git merge, and PR/MR creation command, substitute the detected
branch name wherever the instructions say "the base branch" or <default>.
Ship: Fully Automated Ship Workflow
You are running the /ship workflow. This is a non-interactive, fully automated workflow. Do NOT ask for confirmation at any step. The user said /ship which means DO IT. Run straight through and output the PR URL at the end.
Only stop for:
- On the base branch (abort)
- Merge conflicts that can't be auto-resolved (stop, show conflicts)
- In-branch test failures (pre-existing failures are triaged, not auto-blocking)
- Pre-landing review finds ASK items that need user judgment
- MINOR or MAJOR version bump needed (ask — see Step 4)
- Greptile review comments that need user decision (complex fixes, false positives)
- AI-assessed coverage below minimum threshold (hard gate with user override — see Step 3.4)
- Plan items NOT DONE with no user override (see Step 3.45)
- Plan verification failures (see Step 3.47)
- TODOS.md missing and user wants to create one (ask — see Step 5.5)
- TODOS.md disorganized and user wants to reorganize (ask — see Step 5.5)
Never stop for:
- Uncommitted changes (always include them)
- Version bump choice (auto-pick MICRO or PATCH — see Step 4)
- CHANGELOG content (auto-generate from diff)
- Commit message approval (auto-commit)
- Multi-file changesets (auto-split into bisectable commits)
- TODOS.md completed-item detection (auto-mark)
- Auto-fixable review findings (dead code, N+1, stale comments — fixed automatically)
- Test coverage gaps within target threshold (auto-generate and commit, or flag in PR body)
Re-run behavior (idempotency):
Re-running /ship means "run the whole checklist again." Every verification step
(tests, coverage audit, plan completion, pre-landing review, adversarial review,
VERSION/CHANGELOG check, TODOS, document-release) runs on every invocation.
Only actions are idempotent:
- Step 4: If VERSION already bumped, skip the bump but still read the version
- Step 7: If already pushed, skip the push command
- Step 8: If PR exists, update the body instead of creating a new PR
Never skip a verification step because a prior
/ship run already performed it.
Step 1: Pre-flight
-
Check the current branch. If on the base branch or the repo's default branch, abort: "You're on the base branch. Ship from a feature branch."
-
Run git status (never use -uall). Uncommitted changes are always included — no need to ask.
-
Run git diff <base>...HEAD --stat and git log <base>..HEAD --oneline to understand what's being shipped.
-
Check review readiness:
Review Readiness Dashboard
After completing the review, read the review log and config to display the dashboard.
cat ~/.rstack/review-log.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, plan-eng-review, review, plan-design-review, design-review-lite, adversarial-review, external-plan-review). Ignore entries with timestamps older than 7 days. For the Eng Review row, show whichever is more recent between review (diff-scoped pre-landing review) and plan-eng-review (plan-stage architecture review). Append "(DIFF)" or "(PLAN)" to the status to distinguish. For the Adversarial row, show the most recent adversarial-review. For Design Review, show whichever is more recent between plan-design-review (full visual audit) and design-review-lite (code-level check). Append "(FULL)" or "(LITE)" to the status to distinguish. For the Outside Voice row, show the most recent external-plan-review.
Source attribution: If the most recent entry for a skill has a `"via"` field, append it to the status label in parentheses. Examples: plan-eng-review with via:"autoplan" shows as "CLEAR (PLAN via /autoplan)". review with via:"ship" shows as "CLEAR (DIFF via /ship)". Entries without a via field show as "CLEAR (PLAN)" or "CLEAR (DIFF)" as before.
Note: autoplan-voices and design-outside-voices entries are audit-trail-only (forensic data for cross-model consensus analysis). They do not appear in the dashboard and are not checked by any consumer.
Display:
+====================================================================+
| REVIEW READINESS DASHBOARD |
+====================================================================+
| Review | Runs | Last Run | Status | Required |
|-----------------|------|---------------------|-----------|----------|
| Eng Review | 1 | 2026-03-16 15:00 | CLEAR | YES |
| CEO Review | 0 | — | — | no |
| Design Review | 0 | — | — | no |
| Adversarial | 0 | — | — | no |
| Outside Voice | 0 | — | — | no |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| VERDICT: CLEARED — Eng Review passed |
+====================================================================+
Review tiers:
- Eng Review (required by default): The only review that gates shipping. Covers architecture, code quality, tests, performance. Can be disabled globally with `rstack-config set skip_eng_review true` (the "don't bother me" setting).
- CEO Review (optional): Use your judgment. Recommend it for big product/business changes, new user-facing features, or scope decisions. Skip for bug fixes, refactors, infra, and cleanup.
- Design Review (optional): Use your judgment. Recommend it for UI/UX changes. Skip for backend-only, infra, or prompt-only changes.
- Adversarial Review (optional): Local-only and user-approved. Use it when the user explicitly wants an extra failure-mode pass.
- Outside Voice (optional): Independent plan review from a user-approved local reviewer CLI. Never gates shipping.
Verdict logic:
- CLEARED: Eng Review has >= 1 entry within 7 days from either `review` or `plan-eng-review` with status "clean" (or `skip_eng_review` is `true`)
- NOT CLEARED: Eng Review missing, stale (>7 days), or has open issues
- CEO, Design, and outside reviews are shown for context but never block shipping
- If `skip_eng_review` config is `true`, Eng Review shows "SKIPPED (global)" and verdict is CLEARED
Staleness detection: After displaying the dashboard, check if any existing reviews may be stale:
- Parse the `---HEAD---` section from the bash output to get the current HEAD commit hash
- For each review entry that has a `commit` field: compare it against the current HEAD. If different, count elapsed commits: `git rev-list --count STORED_COMMIT..HEAD`. Display: "Note: {skill} review from {date} may be stale — {N} commits since review"
- For entries without a `commit` field (legacy entries): display "Note: {skill} review from {date} has no commit tracking — consider re-running for accurate staleness detection"
- If all reviews match the current HEAD, do not display any staleness notes
If the Eng Review is NOT "CLEAR":
Print: "No prior eng review found — ship will run its own pre-landing review in Step 3.5."
Check diff size: git diff <base>...HEAD --stat | tail -1. If the diff is >200 lines, add: "Note: This is a large diff. Consider running /plan-eng-review or /autoplan for architecture-level review before shipping."
If CEO Review is missing, mention as informational ("CEO Review not run — recommended for product changes") but do NOT block.
For Design Review: run source <(~/.claude/skills/rstack/bin/rstack-diff-scope <base> 2>/dev/null). If SCOPE_FRONTEND=true and no design review (plan-design-review or design-review-lite) exists in the dashboard, mention: "Design Review not run — this PR changes frontend code. The lite design check will run automatically in Step 3.5, but consider running /design-review for a full visual audit post-implementation." Still never block.
Continue to Step 1.5 — do NOT block or ask. Ship runs its own review in Step 3.5.
Step 1.5: Distribution Pipeline Check
If the diff introduces a new standalone artifact (CLI binary, library package, tool) — not a web
service with existing deployment — verify that a distribution pipeline exists.
-
Check if the diff adds a new cmd/ directory, main.go, or bin/ entry point:
git diff origin/<base> --name-only | grep -E '(cmd/.*/main\.go|bin/|Cargo\.toml|setup\.py|package\.json)' | head -5
-
If new artifact detected, check for a release workflow:
ls .github/workflows/ 2>/dev/null | grep -iE 'release|publish|dist'
grep -qE 'release|publish|deploy' .gitlab-ci.yml 2>/dev/null && echo "GITLAB_CI_RELEASE"
-
If no release pipeline exists and a new artifact was added: Use AskUserQuestion:
- "This PR adds a new binary/tool but there's no CI/CD pipeline to build and publish it.
Users won't be able to download the artifact after merge."
- A) Add a release workflow now (CI/CD release pipeline — GitHub Actions or GitLab CI depending on platform)
- B) Defer — add to TODOS.md
- C) Not needed — this is internal/web-only, existing deployment covers it
-
If release pipeline exists: Continue silently.
-
If no new artifact detected: Skip silently.
Step 2: Merge the base branch (BEFORE tests)
Fetch and merge the base branch into the feature branch so tests run against the merged state:
git fetch origin <base> && git merge origin/<base> --no-edit
If there are merge conflicts: Try to auto-resolve if they are simple (VERSION, schema.rb, CHANGELOG ordering). If conflicts are complex or ambiguous, STOP and show them.
If already up to date: Continue silently.
Step 2.5: Test Framework Bootstrap
Test Framework Bootstrap
Detect existing test framework and project runtime:
setopt +o nomatch 2>/dev/null || true
[ -f Gemfile ] && echo "RUNTIME:ruby"
[ -f package.json ] && echo "RUNTIME:node"
[ -f requirements.txt ] || [ -f pyproject.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:python"
[ -f go.mod ] && echo "RUNTIME:go"
[ -f Cargo.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:rust"
[ -f composer.json ] && echo "RUNTIME:php"
[ -f mix.exs ] && echo "RUNTIME:elixir"
[ -f Gemfile ] && grep -q "rails" Gemfile 2>/dev/null && echo "FRAMEWORK:rails"
[ -f package.json ] && grep -q '"next"' package.json 2>/dev/null && echo "FRAMEWORK:nextjs"
ls jest.config.* vitest.config.* playwright.config.* .rspec pytest.ini pyproject.toml phpunit.xml 2>/dev/null
ls -d test/ tests/ spec/ __tests__/ cypress/ e2e/ 2>/dev/null
[ -f ~/.rstack/no-test-bootstrap ] && echo "BOOTSTRAP_DECLINED"
If test framework detected (config files or test directories found):
Print "Test framework detected: {name} ({N} existing tests). Skipping bootstrap."
Read 2-3 existing test files to learn conventions (naming, imports, assertion style, setup patterns).
Store conventions as prose context for use in Phase 8e.5 or Step 3.4. Skip the rest of bootstrap.
If BOOTSTRAP_DECLINED appears: Print "Test bootstrap previously declined — skipping." Skip the rest of bootstrap.
If NO runtime detected (no config files found): Use AskUserQuestion:
"I couldn't detect your project's language. What runtime are you using?"
Options: A) Node.js/TypeScript B) Ruby/Rails C) Python D) Go E) Rust F) PHP G) Elixir H) This project doesn't need tests.
If user picks H → write ~/.rstack/no-test-bootstrap and continue without tests.
If runtime detected but no test framework — bootstrap:
B2. Research best practices
Use WebSearch to find current best practices for the detected runtime:
"[runtime] best test framework 2025 2026""[framework A] vs [framework B] comparison"
If WebSearch is unavailable, use this built-in knowledge table:
| Runtime | Primary recommendation | Alternative |
|---|
| Ruby/Rails | minitest + fixtures + capybara | rspec + factory_bot + shoulda-matchers |
| Node.js | vitest + @testing-library | jest + @testing-library |
| Next.js | vitest + @testing-library/react + playwright | jest + cypress |
| Python | pytest + pytest-cov | unittest |
| Go | stdlib testing + testify | stdlib only |
| Rust | cargo test (built-in) + mockall | — |
| PHP | phpunit + mockery | pest |
| Elixir | ExUnit (built-in) + ex_machina | — |
B3. Framework selection
Use AskUserQuestion:
"I detected this is a [Runtime/Framework] project with no test framework. I researched current best practices. Here are the options:
A) [Primary] — [rationale]. Includes: [packages]. Supports: unit, integration, smoke, e2e
B) [Alternative] — [rationale]. Includes: [packages]
C) Skip — don't set up testing right now
RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because [reason based on project context]"
If user picks C → write ~/.rstack/no-test-bootstrap. Tell user: "If you change your mind later, delete ~/.rstack/no-test-bootstrap and re-run." Continue without tests.
If multiple runtimes detected (monorepo) → ask which runtime to set up first, with option to do both sequentially.
B4. Install and configure
- Install the chosen packages (npm/bun/gem/pip/etc.)
- Create minimal config file
- Create directory structure (test/, spec/, etc.)
- Create one example test matching the project's code to verify setup works
If package installation fails → debug once. If still failing → revert with git checkout -- package.json package-lock.json (or equivalent for the runtime). Warn user and continue without tests.
B4.5. First real tests
Generate 3-5 real tests for existing code:
- Find recently changed files:
git log --since=30.days --name-only --format="" | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head -10
- Prioritize by risk: Error handlers > business logic with conditionals > API endpoints > pure functions
- For each file: Write one test that tests real behavior with meaningful assertions. Never
expect(x).toBeDefined() — test what the code DOES.
- Run each test. Passes → keep. Fails → fix once. Still fails → delete silently.
- Generate at least 1 test, cap at 5.
Never import secrets, API keys, or credentials in test files. Use environment variables or test fixtures.
B5. Verify
{detected test command}
If tests fail → debug once. If still failing → revert all bootstrap changes and warn user.
B5.5. CI/CD pipeline
ls -d .github/ 2>/dev/null && echo "CI:github"
ls .gitlab-ci.yml .circleci/ bitrise.yml 2>/dev/null
If .github/ exists (or no CI detected — default to GitHub Actions):
Create .github/workflows/test.yml with:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest- Appropriate setup action for the runtime (setup-node, setup-ruby, setup-python, etc.)
- The same test command verified in B5
- Trigger: push + pull_request
If non-GitHub CI detected → skip CI generation with note: "Detected {provider} — CI pipeline generation supports GitHub Actions only. Add test step to your existing pipeline manually."
B6. Create TESTING.md
First check: If TESTING.md already exists → read it and update/append rather than overwriting. Never destroy existing content.
Write TESTING.md with:
- Philosophy: "100% test coverage is the key to great vibe coding. Tests let you move fast, trust your instincts, and ship with confidence — without them, vibe coding is just yolo coding. With tests, it's a superpower."
- Framework name and version
- How to run tests (the verified command from B5)
- Test layers: Unit tests (what, where, when), Integration tests, Smoke tests, E2E tests
- Conventions: file naming, assertion style, setup/teardown patterns
B7. Update CLAUDE.md
First check: If CLAUDE.md already has a ## Testing section → skip. Don't duplicate.
Append a ## Testing section:
- Run command and test directory
- Reference to TESTING.md
- Test expectations:
- 100% test coverage is the goal — tests make vibe coding safe
- When writing new functions, write a corresponding test
- When fixing a bug, write a regression test
- When adding error handling, write a test that triggers the error
- When adding a conditional (if/else, switch), write tests for BOTH paths
- Never commit code that makes existing tests fail
B8. Commit
git status --porcelain
Only commit if there are changes. Stage all bootstrap files (config, test directory, TESTING.md, CLAUDE.md, .github/workflows/test.yml if created):
git commit -m "chore: bootstrap test framework ({framework name})"
Step 3: Run tests (on merged code)
Do NOT run RAILS_ENV=test bin/rails db:migrate — bin/test-lane already calls
db:test:prepare internally, which loads the schema into the correct lane database.
Running bare test migrations without INSTANCE hits an orphan DB and corrupts structure.sql.
Run both test suites in parallel:
mkdir -p ~/.rstack/tmp
bin/test-lane 2>&1 | tee ~/.rstack/tmp/ship_tests.txt &
npm run test 2>&1 | tee ~/.rstack/tmp/ship_vitest.txt &
wait
After both complete, read the output files and check pass/fail.
If any test fails: Do NOT immediately stop. Apply the Test Failure Ownership Triage:
Test Failure Ownership Triage
When tests fail, do NOT immediately stop. First, determine ownership:
Step T1: Classify each failure
For each failing test:
-
Get the files changed on this branch:
git diff origin/<base>...HEAD --name-only
-
Classify the failure:
- In-branch if: the failing test file itself was modified on this branch, OR the test output references code that was changed on this branch, OR you can trace the failure to a change in the branch diff.
- Likely pre-existing if: neither the test file nor the code it tests was modified on this branch, AND the failure is unrelated to any branch change you can identify.
- When ambiguous, default to in-branch. It is safer to stop the developer than to let a broken test ship. Only classify as pre-existing when you are confident.
This classification is heuristic — use your judgment reading the diff and the test output. You do not have a programmatic dependency graph.
Step T2: Handle in-branch failures
STOP. These are your failures. Show them and do not proceed. The developer must fix their own broken tests before shipping.
Step T3: Handle pre-existing failures
Check REPO_MODE from the preamble output.
If REPO_MODE is solo:
Use AskUserQuestion:
These test failures appear pre-existing (not caused by your branch changes):
[list each failure with file:line and brief error description]
Since this is a solo repo, you're the only one who will fix these.
RECOMMENDATION: Choose A — fix now while the context is fresh. Completeness: 9/10.
A) Investigate and fix now (human: ~2-4h / CC: ~15min) — Completeness: 10/10
B) Add as P0 TODO — fix after this branch lands — Completeness: 7/10
C) Skip — I know about this, ship anyway — Completeness: 3/10
If REPO_MODE is collaborative or unknown:
Use AskUserQuestion:
These test failures appear pre-existing (not caused by your branch changes):
[list each failure with file:line and brief error description]
This is a collaborative repo — these may be someone else's responsibility.
RECOMMENDATION: Choose B — assign it to whoever broke it so the right person fixes it. Completeness: 9/10.
A) Investigate and fix now anyway — Completeness: 10/10
B) Blame + assign GitHub issue to the author — Completeness: 9/10
C) Add as P0 TODO — Completeness: 7/10
D) Skip — ship anyway — Completeness: 3/10
Step T4: Execute the chosen action
If "Investigate and fix now":
- Switch to /investigate mindset: root cause first, then minimal fix.
- Fix the pre-existing failure.
- Commit the fix separately from the branch's changes:
git commit -m "fix: pre-existing test failure in <test-file>"
- Continue with the workflow.
If "Add as P0 TODO":
- If
TODOS.md exists, add the entry following the format in review/TODOS-format.md (or .claude/skills/review/TODOS-format.md).
- If
TODOS.md does not exist, create it with the standard header and add the entry.
- Entry should include: title, the error output, which branch it was noticed on, and priority P0.
- Continue with the workflow — treat the pre-existing failure as non-blocking.
If "Blame + assign GitHub issue" (collaborative only):
If "Skip":
- Continue with the workflow.
- Note in output: "Pre-existing test failure skipped: "
After triage: If any in-branch failures remain unfixed, STOP. Do not proceed. If all failures were pre-existing and handled (fixed, TODOed, assigned, or skipped), continue to Step 3.25.
If all pass: Continue silently — just note the counts briefly.
Step 3.25: Eval Suites (conditional)
Evals are mandatory when prompt-related files change. Skip this step entirely if no prompt files are in the diff.
1. Check if the diff touches prompt-related files:
git diff origin/<base> --name-only
Match against these patterns (from CLAUDE.md):
app/services/*_prompt_builder.rbapp/services/*_generation_service.rb, *_writer_service.rb, *_designer_service.rbapp/services/*_evaluator.rb, *_scorer.rb, *_classifier_service.rb, *_analyzer.rbapp/services/concerns/*voice*.rb, *writing*.rb, *prompt*.rb, *token*.rbapp/services/chat_tools/*.rb, app/services/x_thread_tools/*.rbconfig/system_prompts/*.txttest/evals/**/* (eval infrastructure changes affect all suites)
If no matches: Print "No prompt-related files changed — skipping evals." and continue to Step 3.5.
2. Identify affected eval suites:
Each eval runner (test/evals/*_eval_runner.rb) declares PROMPT_SOURCE_FILES listing which source files affect it. Grep these to find which suites match the changed files:
grep -l "changed_file_basename" test/evals/*_eval_runner.rb
Map runner → test file: post_generation_eval_runner.rb → post_generation_eval_test.rb.
Special cases:
- Changes to
test/evals/judges/*.rb, test/evals/support/*.rb, or test/evals/fixtures/ affect ALL suites that use those judges/support files. Check imports in the eval test files to determine which.
- Changes to
config/system_prompts/*.txt — grep eval runners for the prompt filename to find affected suites.
- If unsure which suites are affected, run ALL suites that could plausibly be impacted. Over-testing is better than missing a regression.
3. Run affected suites at EVAL_JUDGE_TIER=full:
/ship is a pre-merge gate, so always use full tier (Sonnet structural + Opus persona judges).
mkdir -p ~/.rstack/tmp
EVAL_JUDGE_TIER=full EVAL_VERBOSE=1 bin/test-lane --eval test/evals/<suite>_eval_test.rb 2>&1 | tee ~/.rstack/tmp/ship_evals.txt
If multiple suites need to run, run them sequentially (each needs a test lane). If the first suite fails, stop immediately — don't burn API cost on remaining suites.
4. Check results:
- If any eval fails: Show the failures, the cost dashboard, and STOP. Do not proceed.
- If all pass: Note pass counts and cost. Continue to Step 3.5.
5. Save eval output — include eval results and cost dashboard in the PR body (Step 8).
Tier reference (for context — /ship always uses full):
| Tier | When | Speed (cached) | Cost |
|---|
fast (Haiku) | Dev iteration, smoke tests | ~5s (14x faster) | ~$0.07/run |
standard (Sonnet) | Default dev, bin/test-lane --eval | ~17s (4x faster) | ~$0.37/run |
full (Opus persona) | /ship and pre-merge | ~72s (baseline) | ~$1.27/run |
Step 3.4: Test Coverage Audit
100% coverage is the goal — every untested path is a path where bugs hide and vibe coding becomes yolo coding. Evaluate what was ACTUALLY coded (from the diff), not what was planned.
Test Framework Detection
Before analyzing coverage, detect the project's test framework:
- Read CLAUDE.md — look for a
## Testing section with test command and framework name. If found, use that as the authoritative source.
- If CLAUDE.md has no testing section, auto-detect:
setopt +o nomatch 2>/dev/null || true
[ -f Gemfile ] && echo "RUNTIME:ruby"
[ -f package.json ] && echo "RUNTIME:node"
[ -f requirements.txt ] || [ -f pyproject.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:python"
[ -f go.mod ] && echo "RUNTIME:go"
[ -f Cargo.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:rust"
ls jest.config.* vitest.config.* playwright.config.* cypress.config.* .rspec pytest.ini phpunit.xml 2>/dev/null
ls -d test/ tests/ spec/ __tests__/ cypress/ e2e/ 2>/dev/null
- If no framework detected: falls through to the Test Framework Bootstrap step (Step 2.5) which handles full setup.
0. Before/after test count:
find . -name '*.test.*' -o -name '*.spec.*' -o -name '*_test.*' -o -name '*_spec.*' | grep -v node_modules | wc -l
Store this number for the PR body.
1. Trace every codepath changed using git diff origin/<base>...HEAD:
Read every changed file. For each one, trace how data flows through the code — don't just list functions, actually follow the execution:
- Read the diff. For each changed file, read the full file (not just the diff hunk) to understand context.
- Trace data flow. Starting from each entry point (route handler, exported function, event listener, component render), follow the data through every branch:
- Where does input come from? (request params, props, database, API call)
- What transforms it? (validation, mapping, computation)
- Where does it go? (database write, API response, rendered output, side effect)
- What can go wrong at each step? (null/undefined, invalid input, network failure, empty collection)
- Diagram the execution. For each changed file, draw an ASCII diagram showing:
- Every function/method that was added or modified
- Every conditional branch (if/else, switch, ternary, guard clause, early return)
- Every error path (try/catch, rescue, error boundary, fallback)
- Every call to another function (trace into it — does IT have untested branches?)
- Every edge: what happens with null input? Empty array? Invalid type?
This is the critical step — you're building a map of every line of code that can execute differently based on input. Every branch in this diagram needs a test.
2. Map user flows, interactions, and error states:
Code coverage isn't enough — you need to cover how real users interact with the changed code. For each changed feature, think through:
- User flows: What sequence of actions does a user take that touches this code? Map the full journey (e.g., "user clicks 'Pay' → form validates → API call → success/failure screen"). Each step in the journey needs a test.
- Interaction edge cases: What happens when the user does something unexpected?
- Double-click/rapid resubmit
- Navigate away mid-operation (back button, close tab, click another link)
- Submit with stale data (page sat open for 30 minutes, session expired)
- Slow connection (API takes 10 seconds — what does the user see?)
- Concurrent actions (two tabs, same form)
- Error states the user can see: For every error the code handles, what does the user actually experience?
- Is there a clear error message or a silent failure?
- Can the user recover (retry, go back, fix input) or are they stuck?
- What happens with no network? With a 500 from the API? With invalid data from the server?
- Empty/zero/boundary states: What does the UI show with zero results? With 10,000 results? With a single character input? With maximum-length input?
Add these to your diagram alongside the code branches. A user flow with no test is just as much a gap as an untested if/else.
3. Check each branch against existing tests:
Go through your diagram branch by branch — both code paths AND user flows. For each one, search for a test that exercises it:
- Function
processPayment() → look for billing.test.ts, billing.spec.ts, test/billing_test.rb
- An if/else → look for tests covering BOTH the true AND false path
- An error handler → look for a test that triggers that specific error condition
- A call to
helperFn() that has its own branches → those branches need tests too
- A user flow → look for an integration or E2E test that walks through the journey
- An interaction edge case → look for a test that simulates the unexpected action
Quality scoring rubric:
- ★★★ Tests behavior with edge cases AND error paths
- ★★ Tests correct behavior, happy path only
- ★ Smoke test / existence check / trivial assertion (e.g., "it renders", "it doesn't throw")
E2E Test Decision Matrix
When checking each branch, also determine whether a unit test or E2E/integration test is the right tool:
RECOMMEND E2E (mark as [→E2E] in the diagram):
- Common user flow spanning 3+ components/services (e.g., signup → verify email → first login)
- Integration point where mocking hides real failures (e.g., API → queue → worker → DB)
- Auth/payment/data-destruction flows — too important to trust unit tests alone
RECOMMEND EVAL (mark as [→EVAL] in the diagram):
- Critical LLM call that needs a quality eval (e.g., prompt change → test output still meets quality bar)
- Changes to prompt templates, system instructions, or tool definitions
STICK WITH UNIT TESTS:
- Pure function with clear inputs/outputs
- Internal helper with no side effects
- Edge case of a single function (null input, empty array)
- Obscure/rare flow that isn't customer-facing
REGRESSION RULE (mandatory)
IRON RULE: When the coverage audit identifies a REGRESSION — code that previously worked but the diff broke — a regression test is written immediately. No AskUserQuestion. No skipping. Regressions are the highest-priority test because they prove something broke.
A regression is when:
- The diff modifies existing behavior (not new code)
- The existing test suite (if any) doesn't cover the changed path
- The change introduces a new failure mode for existing callers
When uncertain whether a change is a regression, err on the side of writing the test.
Format: commit as test: regression test for {what broke}
4. Output ASCII coverage diagram:
Include BOTH code paths and user flows in the same diagram. Mark E2E-worthy and eval-worthy paths:
CODE PATH COVERAGE
===========================
[+] src/services/billing.ts
│
├── processPayment()
│ ├── [★★★ TESTED] Happy path + card declined + timeout — billing.test.ts:42
│ ├── [GAP] Network timeout — NO TEST
│ └── [GAP] Invalid currency — NO TEST
│
└── refundPayment()
├── [★★ TESTED] Full refund — billing.test.ts:89
└── [★ TESTED] Partial refund (checks non-throw only) — billing.test.ts:101
USER FLOW COVERAGE
===========================
[+] Payment checkout flow
│
├── [★★★ TESTED] Complete purchase — checkout.e2e.ts:15
├── [GAP] [→E2E] Double-click submit — needs E2E, not just unit
├── [GAP] Navigate away during payment — unit test sufficient
└── [★ TESTED] Form validation errors (checks render only) — checkout.test.ts:40
[+] Error states
│
├── [★★ TESTED] Card declined message — billing.test.ts:58
├── [GAP] Network timeout UX (what does user see?) — NO TEST
└── [GAP] Empty cart submission — NO TEST
[+] LLM integration
│
└── [GAP] [→EVAL] Prompt template change — needs eval test
─────────────────────────────────
COVERAGE: 5/13 paths tested (38%)
Code paths: 3/5 (60%)
User flows: 2/8 (25%)
QUALITY: ★★★: 2 ★★: 2 ★: 1
GAPS: 8 paths need tests (2 need E2E, 1 needs eval)
─────────────────────────────────
Fast path: All paths covered → "Step 3.4: All new code paths have test coverage ✓" Continue.
5. Generate tests for uncovered paths:
If test framework detected (or bootstrapped in Step 2.5):
- Prioritize error handlers and edge cases first (happy paths are more likely already tested)
- Read 2-3 existing test files to match conventions exactly
- Generate unit tests. Mock all external dependencies (DB, API, Redis).
- For paths marked [→E2E]: generate integration/E2E tests using the project's E2E framework (Playwright, Cypress, Capybara, etc.)
- For paths marked [→EVAL]: generate eval tests using the project's eval framework, or flag for manual eval if none exists
- Write tests that exercise the specific uncovered path with real assertions
- Run each test. Passes → commit as
test: coverage for {feature}
- Fails → fix once. Still fails → revert, note gap in diagram.
Caps: 30 code paths max, 20 tests generated max (code + user flow combined), 2-min per-test exploration cap.
If no test framework AND user declined bootstrap → diagram only, no generation. Note: "Test generation skipped — no test framework configured."
Diff is test-only changes: Skip Step 3.4 entirely: "No new application code paths to audit."
6. After-count and coverage summary:
find . -name '*.test.*' -o -name '*.spec.*' -o -name '*_test.*' -o -name '*_spec.*' | grep -v node_modules | wc -l
For PR body: Tests: {before} → {after} (+{delta} new)
Coverage line: Test Coverage Audit: N new code paths. M covered (X%). K tests generated, J committed.
7. Coverage gate:
Before proceeding, check CLAUDE.md for a ## Test Coverage section with Minimum: and Target: fields. If found, use those percentages. Otherwise use defaults: Minimum = 60%, Target = 80%.
Using the coverage percentage from the diagram in substep 4 (the COVERAGE: X/Y (Z%) line):
-
>= target: Pass. "Coverage gate: PASS ({X}%)." Continue.
-
>= minimum, < target: Use AskUserQuestion:
- "AI-assessed coverage is {X}%. {N} code paths are untested. Target is {target}%."
- RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because untested code paths are where production bugs hide.
- Options:
A) Generate more tests for remaining gaps (recommended)
B) Ship anyway — I accept the coverage risk
C) These paths don't need tests — mark as intentionally uncovered
- If A: Loop back to substep 5 (generate tests) targeting the remaining gaps. After second pass, if still below target, present AskUserQuestion again with updated numbers. Maximum 2 generation passes total.
- If B: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: {X}% — user accepted risk."
- If C: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: {X}% — {N} paths intentionally uncovered."
-
< minimum: Use AskUserQuestion:
- "AI-assessed coverage is critically low ({X}%). {N} of {M} code paths have no tests. Minimum threshold is {minimum}%."
- RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because less than {minimum}% means more code is untested than tested.
- Options:
A) Generate tests for remaining gaps (recommended)
B) Override — ship with low coverage (I understand the risk)
- If A: Loop back to substep 5. Maximum 2 passes. If still below minimum after 2 passes, present the override choice again.
- If B: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: OVERRIDDEN at {X}%."
Coverage percentage undetermined: If the coverage diagram doesn't produce a clear numeric percentage (ambiguous output, parse error), skip the gate with: "Coverage gate: could not determine percentage — skipping." Do not default to 0% or block.
Test-only diffs: Skip the gate (same as the existing fast-path).
100% coverage: "Coverage gate: PASS (100%)." Continue.
Test Plan Artifact
After producing the coverage diagram, write a test plan artifact so /qa and /qa-only can consume it:
eval "$(~/.claude/skills/rstack/bin/rstack-slug 2>/dev/null)" && mkdir -p ~/.rstack/projects/$SLUG
USER=$(whoami)
DATETIME=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)
Write to ~/.rstack/projects/{slug}/{user}-{branch}-ship-test-plan-{datetime}.md:
# Test Plan
Generated by /ship on {date}
Branch: {branch}
Repo: {owner/repo}
## Affected Pages/Routes
- {URL path} — {what to test and why}
## Key Interactions to Verify
- {interaction description} on {page}
## Edge Cases
- {edge case} on {page}
## Critical Paths
- {end-to-end flow that must work}
Step 3.45: Plan Completion Audit
Plan File Discovery
-
Conversation context (primary): Check if there is an active plan file in this conversation. The host agent's system messages include plan file paths when in plan mode. If found, use it directly — this is the most reliable signal.
-
Content-based search (fallback): If no plan file is referenced in conversation context, search by content:
setopt +o nomatch 2>/dev/null || true
BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null | tr '/' '-')
REPO=$(basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null)")
_PLAN_SLUG=$(git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null | sed 's|.*[:/]\([^/]*/[^/]*\)\.git$|\1|;s|.*[:/]\([^/]*/[^/]*\)$|\1|' | tr '/' '-' | tr -cd 'a-zA-Z0-9._-') || true
_PLAN_SLUG="${_PLAN_SLUG:-$(basename "$PWD" | tr -cd 'a-zA-Z0-9._-')}"
for PLAN_DIR in "$HOME/.rstack/projects/$_PLAN_SLUG" "$HOME/.rstack/plans"; do
[ -d "$PLAN_DIR" ] || continue
PLAN=$(ls -t "$PLAN_DIR"/*.md 2>/dev/null | xargs grep -l "$BRANCH" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
[ -z "$PLAN" ] && PLAN=$(ls -t "$PLAN_DIR"/*.md 2>/dev/null | xargs grep -l "$REPO" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
[ -z "$PLAN" ] && PLAN=$(find "$PLAN_DIR" -name '*.md' -mmin -1440 -maxdepth 1 2>/dev/null | xargs ls -t 2>/dev/null | head -1)
[ -n "$PLAN" ] && break
done
[ -n "$PLAN" ] && echo "PLAN_FILE: $PLAN" || echo "NO_PLAN_FILE"
- Validation: If a plan file was found via content-based search (not conversation context), read the first 20 lines and verify it is relevant to the current branch's work. If it appears to be from a different project or feature, treat as "no plan file found."
Error handling:
- No plan file found → skip with "No plan file detected — skipping."
- Plan file found but unreadable (permissions, encoding) → skip with "Plan file found but unreadable — skipping."
Actionable Item Extraction
Read the plan file. Extract every actionable item — anything that describes work to be done. Look for:
- Checkbox items:
- [ ] ... or - [x] ...
- Numbered steps under implementation headings: "1. Create ...", "2. Add ...", "3. Modify ..."
- Imperative statements: "Add X to Y", "Create a Z service", "Modify the W controller"
- File-level specifications: "New file: path/to/file.ts", "Modify path/to/existing.rb"
- Test requirements: "Test that X", "Add test for Y", "Verify Z"
- Data model changes: "Add column X to table Y", "Create migration for Z"
Ignore:
- Context/Background sections (
## Context, ## Background, ## Problem)
- Questions and open items (marked with ?, "TBD", "TODO: decide")
- Review report sections (
## RSTACK REVIEW REPORT)
- Explicitly deferred items ("Future:", "Out of scope:", "NOT in scope:", "P2:", "P3:", "P4:")
- CEO Review Decisions sections (these record choices, not work items)
Cap: Extract at most 50 items. If the plan has more, note: "Showing top 50 of N plan items — full list in plan file."
No items found: If the plan contains no extractable actionable items, skip with: "Plan file contains no actionable items — skipping completion audit."
For each item, note:
- The item text (verbatim or concise summary)
- Its category: CODE | TEST | MIGRATION | CONFIG | DOCS
Cross-Reference Against Diff
Run git diff origin/<base>...HEAD and git log origin/<base>..HEAD --oneline to understand what was implemented.
For each extracted plan item, check the diff and classify:
- DONE — Clear evidence in the diff that this item was implemented. Cite the specific file(s) changed.
- PARTIAL — Some work toward this item exists in the diff but it's incomplete (e.g., model created but controller missing, function exists but edge cases not handled).
- NOT DONE — No evidence in the diff that this item was addressed.
- CHANGED — The item was implemented using a different approach than the plan described, but the same goal is achieved. Note the difference.
Be conservative with DONE — require clear evidence in the diff. A file being touched is not enough; the specific functionality described must be present.
Be generous with CHANGED — if the goal is met by different means, that counts as addressed.
Output Format
PLAN COMPLETION AUDIT
═══════════════════════════════
Plan: {plan file path}
## Implementation Items
[DONE] Create UserService — src/services/user_service.rb (+142 lines)
[PARTIAL] Add validation — model validates but missing controller checks
[NOT DONE] Add caching layer — no cache-related changes in diff
[CHANGED] "Redis queue" → implemented with Sidekiq instead
## Test Items
[DONE] Unit tests for UserService — test/services/user_service_test.rb
[NOT DONE] E2E test for signup flow
## Migration Items
[DONE] Create users table — db/migrate/20240315_create_users.rb
─────────────────────────────────
COMPLETION: 4/7 DONE, 1 PARTIAL, 1 NOT DONE, 1 CHANGED
─────────────────────────────────
Gate Logic
After producing the completion checklist:
- All DONE or CHANGED: Pass. "Plan completion: PASS — all items addressed." Continue.
- Only PARTIAL items (no NOT DONE): Continue with a note in the PR body. Not blocking.
- Any NOT DONE items: Use AskUserQuestion:
- Show the completion checklist above
- "{N} items from the plan are NOT DONE. These were part of the original plan but are missing from the implementation."
- RECOMMENDATION: depends on item count and severity. If 1-2 minor items (docs, config), recommend B. If core functionality is missing, recommend A.
- Options:
A) Stop — implement the missing items before shipping
B) Ship anyway — defer these to a follow-up (will create P1 TODOs in Step 5.5)
C) These items were intentionally dropped — remove from scope
- If A: STOP. List the missing items for the user to implement.
- If B: Continue. For each NOT DONE item, create a P1 TODO in Step 5.5 with "Deferred from plan: {plan file path}".
- If C: Continue. Note in PR body: "Plan items intentionally dropped: {list}."
No plan file found: Skip entirely. "No plan file detected — skipping plan completion audit."
Include in PR body (Step 8): Add a ## Plan Completion section with the checklist summary.
Step 3.47: Plan Verification
Automatically verify the plan's testing/verification steps using the /qa-only skill.
1. Check for verification section
Using the plan file already discovered in Step 3.45, look for a verification section. Match any of these headings: ## Verification, ## Test plan, ## Testing, ## How to test, ## Manual testing, or any section with verification-flavored items (URLs to visit, things to check visually, interactions to test).
If no verification section found: Skip with "No verification steps found in plan — skipping auto-verification."
If no plan file was found in Step 3.45: Skip (already handled).
2. Check for running dev server
Before invoking browse-based verification, check if a dev server is reachable:
curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:3000 2>/dev/null || \
curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:8080 2>/dev/null || \
curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:5173 2>/dev/null || \
curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:4000 2>/dev/null || echo "NO_SERVER"
If NO_SERVER: Skip with "No dev server detected — skipping plan verification. Run /qa separately after deploying."
3. Invoke /qa-only inline
Read the /qa-only skill from disk:
cat ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../qa-only/SKILL.md
If unreadable: Skip with "Could not load /qa-only — skipping plan verification."
Follow the /qa-only workflow with these modifications:
- Skip the preamble (already handled by /ship)
- Use the plan's verification section as the primary test input — treat each verification item as a test case
- Use the detected dev server URL as the base URL
- Skip the fix loop — this is report-only verification during /ship
- Cap at the verification items from the plan — do not expand into general site QA
4. Gate logic
- All verification items PASS: Continue silently. "Plan verification: PASS."
- Any FAIL: Use AskUserQuestion:
- Show the failures with screenshot evidence
- RECOMMENDATION: Choose A if failures indicate broken functionality. Choose B if cosmetic only.
- Options:
A) Fix the failures before shipping (recommended for functional issues)
B) Ship anyway — known issues (acceptable for cosmetic issues)
- No verification section / no server / unreadable skill: Skip (non-blocking).
5. Include in PR body
Add a ## Verification Results section to the PR body (Step 8):
- If verification ran: summary of results (N PASS, M FAIL, K SKIPPED)
- If skipped: reason for skipping (no plan, no server, no verification section)
Step 3.48: Scope Drift Detection
Before reviewing code quality, check: did they build what was requested — nothing more, nothing less?
-
Read TODOS.md (if it exists). Read PR description (gh pr view --json body --jq .body 2>/dev/null || true).
Read commit messages (git log origin/<base>..HEAD --oneline).
If no PR exists: rely on commit messages and TODOS.md for stated intent — this is the common case since /review runs before /ship creates the PR.
-
Identify the stated intent — what was this branch supposed to accomplish?
-
Run git diff origin/<base>...HEAD --stat and compare the files changed against the stated intent.
-
Evaluate with skepticism (incorporating plan completion results if available from an earlier step or adjacent section):
SCOPE CREEP detection:
- Files changed that are unrelated to the stated intent
- New features or refactors not mentioned in the plan
- "While I was in there..." changes that expand blast radius
MISSING REQUIREMENTS detection:
- Requirements from TODOS.md/PR description not addressed in the diff
- Test coverage gaps for stated requirements
- Partial implementations (started but not finished)
-
Output (before the main review begins):
```
Scope Check: [CLEAN / DRIFT DETECTED / REQUIREMENTS MISSING]
Intent: <1-line summary of what was requested>
Delivered: <1-line summary of what the diff actually does>
[If drift: list each out-of-scope change]
[If missing: list each unaddressed requirement]
```
-
This is INFORMATIONAL — does not block the review. Proceed to the next step.
Step 3.5: Pre-Landing Review
Review the diff for structural issues that tests don't catch.
-
Read .claude/skills/review/checklist.md. If the file cannot be read, STOP and report the error.
-
Run git diff origin/<base> to get the full diff (scoped to feature changes against the freshly-fetched base branch).
-
Apply the review checklist in two passes:
- Pass 1 (CRITICAL): SQL & Data Safety, LLM Output Trust Boundary
- Pass 2 (INFORMATIONAL): All remaining categories
Confidence Calibration
Every finding MUST include a confidence score (1-10):
| Score | Meaning | Display rule |
|---|
| 9-10 | Verified by reading specific code. Concrete bug or exploit demonstrated. | Show normally |
| 7-8 | High confidence pattern match. Very likely correct. | Show normally |
| 5-6 | Moderate. Could be a false positive. | Show with caveat: "Medium confidence, verify this is actually an issue" |
| 3-4 | Low confidence. Pattern is suspicious but may be fine. | Suppress from main report. Include in appendix only. |
| 1-2 | Speculation. | Only report if severity would be P0. |
Finding format:
`[SEVERITY] (confidence: N/10) file:line — description`
Example:
`[P1] (confidence: 9/10) app/models/user.rb:42 — SQL injection via string interpolation in where clause`
`[P2] (confidence: 5/10) app/controllers/api/v1/users_controller.rb:18 — Possible N+1 query, verify with production logs`
Calibration learning: If you report a finding with confidence < 7 and the user
confirms it IS a real issue, that is a calibration event. Your initial confidence was
too low. Log the corrected pattern as a learning so future reviews catch it with
higher confidence.
Design Review (conditional, diff-scoped)
Check if the diff touches frontend files using rstack-diff-scope:
source <(~/.claude/skills/rstack/bin/rstack-diff-scope <base> 2>/dev/null)
If SCOPE_FRONTEND=false: Skip design review silently. No output.
If SCOPE_FRONTEND=true:
-
Check for DESIGN.md. If DESIGN.md or design-system.md exists in the repo root, read it. All design findings are calibrated against it — patterns blessed in DESIGN.md are not flagged. If not found, use universal design principles.
-
Read .claude/skills/review/design-checklist.md. If the file cannot be read, skip design review with a note: "Design checklist not found — skipping design review."
-
Read each changed frontend file (full file, not just diff hunks). Frontend files are identified by the patterns listed in the checklist.
-
Apply the design checklist against the changed files. For each item:
- [HIGH] mechanical CSS fix (
outline: none, !important, font-size < 16px): classify as AUTO-FIX
- [HIGH/MEDIUM] design judgment needed: classify as ASK
- [LOW] intent-based detection: present as "Possible — verify visually or run /design-review"
-
Include findings in the review output under a "Design Review" header, following the output format in the checklist. Design findings merge with code review findings into the same Fix-First flow.
-
Log the result for the Review Readiness Dashboard:
mkdir -p ~/.rstack
echo '{"skill":"design-review-lite","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","findings":N,"auto_fixed":M,"commit":"COMMIT"}' >> ~/.rstack/review-log.jsonl
Substitute: TIMESTAMP = ISO 8601 datetime, STATUS = "clean" if 0 findings or "issues_found", N = total findings, M = auto-fixed count, COMMIT = output of git rev-parse --short HEAD.
- Optional outside design voice (never automatic):
Use AskUserQuestion:
- A) Use the current CLI for a local design pass
- B) Use another installed local reviewer CLI
- C) Skip
If the user chooses A or B:
- Write a prompt to
~/.rstack/tmp/ship-design-review-prompt.txt asking for a lightweight diff-based design check.
- Run only the user-approved local command.
- Write stderr to
~/.rstack/tmp/ship-design-review-stderr.txt.
- Present the full output under
OUTSIDE DESIGN VOICE (<provider>):.
- Treat findings the same way as the checklist findings below.
Step 3.55: Local Pre-Landing Review
Keep this review local and single-agent by default. Do not dispatch specialists,
subagents, red-team agents, or remote helpers automatically.
- Review the diff yourself for testing, maintainability, security, performance,
API contract, migrations, and design risks.
- If the user explicitly asks for an outside review, let them choose a local
reviewer CLI and run only that approved command.
- If
~/.rstack/review-log.jsonl exists, use it as the prior-review history for
deduping intentionally skipped findings on unchanged files.
- Output a summary header:
Pre-Landing Review: N issues (X critical, Y informational).
- Classify each finding as AUTO-FIX or ASK per the Fix-First Heuristic in
checklist.md.
- Auto-fix all AUTO-FIX items. Output one line per fix:
[AUTO-FIXED] [file:line] Problem -> what you did
- If ASK items remain, present them in one AskUserQuestion unless there are 3 or fewer.
- If any fixes were applied, commit the fixed files, stop, and tell the user to run
/ship again to re-test.
- Persist the review result locally:
mkdir -p ~/.rstack
echo '{"skill":"review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","issues_found":N,"critical":N,"informational":N,"quality_score":SCORE,"commit":"'"$(git rev-parse --short HEAD)"'","via":"ship"}' >> ~/.rstack/review-log.jsonl
Save the review output — it goes into the PR body in Step 8.
Step 3.75: Address Greptile review comments (if PR exists)
Read .claude/skills/review/greptile-triage.md and follow the fetch, filter, classify, and escalation detection steps.
If no PR exists, gh fails, API returns an error, or there are zero Greptile comments: Skip this step silently. Continue to Step 4.
If Greptile comments are found:
Include a Greptile summary in your output: + N Greptile comments (X valid, Y fixed, Z FP)
Before replying to any comment, run the Escalation Detection algorithm from greptile-triage.md to determine whether to use Tier 1 (friendly) or Tier 2 (firm) reply templates.
For each classified comment:
VALID & ACTIONABLE: Use AskUserQuestion with:
- The comment (file:line or [top-level] + body summary + permalink URL)
RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because [one-line reason]- Options: A) Fix now, B) Acknowledge and ship anyway, C) It's a false positive
- If user chooses A: apply the fix, commit the fixed files (
git add <fixed-files> && git commit -m "fix: address Greptile review — <brief description>"), reply using the Fix reply template from greptile-triage.md (include inline diff + explanation), and save to both per-project and global greptile-history (type: fix).
- If user chooses C: reply using the False Positive reply template from greptile-triage.md (include evidence + suggested re-rank), save to both per-project and global greptile-history (type: fp).
VALID BUT ALREADY FIXED: Reply using the Already Fixed reply template from greptile-triage.md — no AskUserQuestion needed:
- Include what was done and the fixing commit SHA
- Save to both per-project and global greptile-history (type: already-fixed)
FALSE POSITIVE: Use AskUserQuestion:
- Show the comment and why you think it's wrong (file:line or [top-level] + body summary + permalink URL)
- Options:
- A) Reply to Greptile explaining the false positive (recommended if clearly wrong)
- B) Fix it anyway (if trivial)
- C) Ignore silently
- If user chooses A: reply using the False Positive reply template from greptile-triage.md (include evidence + suggested re-rank), save to both per-project and global greptile-history (type: fp)
SUPPRESSED: Skip silently — these are known false positives from previous triage.
After all comments are resolved: If any fixes were applied, the tests from Step 3 are now stale. Re-run tests (Step 3) before continuing to Step 4. If no fixes were applied, continue to Step 4.
Step 3.8: Optional Adversarial Review
Do not send the diff to any external reviewer automatically. If the user
explicitly asks for adversarial review, let them choose a local reviewer CLI and
run only that approved command.
If the user opts in:
- Write a prompt to
~/.rstack/tmp/ship-adversarial-review-prompt.txt asking the reviewer to find production failure modes, trust-boundary issues, race conditions, and silent data corruption risks in git diff origin/<base>.
- Write stderr to
~/.rstack/tmp/ship-adversarial-review-stderr.txt.
- Present the full output under
ADVERSARIAL REVIEW (<provider>):.
- Treat FIXABLE findings like any other review findings; treat INVESTIGATE findings as informational.
- Persist the pass locally:
mkdir -p ~/.rstack
echo '{"skill":"adversarial-review","timestamp":"'"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","tier":"optional","commit":"'"$(git rev-parse --short HEAD)"'"}' >> ~/.rstack/review-log.jsonl
If the user does not opt in, skip this section silently.
Step 4: Version bump (auto-decide)
Idempotency check: Before bumping, compare VERSION against the base branch.
BASE_VERSION=$(git show origin/<base>:VERSION 2>/dev/null || echo "0.0.0.0")
CURRENT_VERSION=$(cat VERSION 2>/dev/null || echo "0.0.0.0")
echo "BASE: $BASE_VERSION HEAD: $CURRENT_VERSION"
if [ "$CURRENT_VERSION" != "$BASE_VERSION" ]; then echo "ALREADY_BUMPED"; fi
If output shows ALREADY_BUMPED, VERSION was already bumped on this branch (prior /ship run). Skip the bump action (do not modify VERSION), but read the current VERSION value — it is needed for CHANGELOG and PR body. Continue to the next step. Otherwise proceed with the bump.
-
Read the current VERSION file (4-digit format: MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH.MICRO)
-
Auto-decide the bump level based on the diff:
- Count lines changed (
git diff origin/<base>...HEAD --stat | tail -1)
- Check for feature signals: new route/page files (e.g.
app/*/page.tsx, pages/*.ts), new DB migration/schema files, new test files alongside new source files, or branch name starting with feat/
- MICRO (4th digit): < 50 lines changed, trivial tweaks, typos, config
- PATCH (3rd digit): 50+ lines changed, no feature signals detected
- MINOR (2nd digit): ASK the user if ANY feature signal is detected, OR 500+ lines changed, OR new modules/packages added
- MAJOR (1st digit): ASK the user — only for milestones or breaking changes
-
Compute the new version:
- Bumping a digit resets all digits to its right to 0
- Example:
0.19.1.0 + PATCH → 0.19.2.0
-
Write the new version to the VERSION file.
CHANGELOG (auto-generate)
-
Read CHANGELOG.md header to know the format.
-
First, enumerate every commit on the branch:
git log <base>..HEAD --oneline
Copy the full list. Count the commits. You will use this as a checklist.
-
Read the full diff to understand what each commit actually changed:
git diff <base>...HEAD
-
Group commits by theme before writing anything. Common themes:
- New features / capabilities
- Performance improvements
- Bug fixes
- Dead code removal / cleanup
- Infrastructure / tooling / tests
- Refactoring
-
Write the CHANGELOG entry covering ALL groups:
- If existing CHANGELOG entries on the branch already cover some commits, replace them with one unified entry for the new version
- Categorize changes into applicable sections:
### Added — new features### Changed — changes to existing functionality### Fixed — bug fixes### Removed — removed features
- Write concise, descriptive bullet points
- Insert after the file header (line 5), dated today
- Format:
## [X.Y.Z.W] - YYYY-MM-DD
- Voice: Lead with what the user can now do that they couldn't before. Use plain language, not implementation details. Never mention TODOS.md, internal tracking, or contributor-facing details.
-
Cross-check: Compare your CHANGELOG entry against the commit list from step 2.
Every commit must map to at least one bullet point. If any commit is unrepresented,
add it now. If the branch has N commits spanning K themes, the CHANGELOG must
reflect all K themes.
Do NOT ask the user to describe changes. Infer from the diff and commit history.
Step 5.5: TODOS.md (auto-update)
Cross-reference the project's TODOS.md against the changes being shipped. Mark completed items automatically; prompt only if the file is missing or disorganized.
Read .claude/skills/review/TODOS-format.md for the canonical format reference.
1. Check if TODOS.md exists in the repository root.
If TODOS.md does not exist: Use AskUserQuestion:
- Message: "RStack recommends maintaining a TODOS.md organized by skill/component, then priority (P0 at top through P4, then Completed at bottom). See TODOS-format.md for the full format. Would you like to create one?"
- Options: A) Create it now, B) Skip for now
- If A: Create
TODOS.md with a skeleton (# TODOS heading + ## Completed section). Continue to step 3.
- If B: Skip the rest of Step 5.5. Continue to Step 6.
2. Check structure and organization:
Read TODOS.md and verify it follows the recommended structure:
- Items grouped under
## <Skill/Component> headings
- Each item has
**Priority:** field with P0-P4 value
- A
## Completed section at the bottom
If disorganized (missing priority fields, no component groupings, no Completed section): Use AskUserQuestion:
- Message: "TODOS.md doesn't follow the recommended structure (skill/component groupings, P0-P4 priority, Completed section). Would you like to reorganize it?"
- Options: A) Reorganize now (recommended), B) Leave as-is
- If A: Reorganize in-place following TODOS-format.md. Preserve all content — only restructure, never delete items.
- If B: Continue to step 3 without restructuring.
3. Detect completed TODOs:
This step is fully automatic — no user interaction.
Use the diff and commit history already gathered in earlier steps:
git diff <base>...HEAD (full diff against the base branch)git log <base>..HEAD --oneline (all commits being shipped)
For each TODO item, check if the changes in this PR complete it by:
- Matching commit messages against the TODO title and description
- Checking if files referenced in the TODO appear in the diff
- Checking if the TODO's described work matches the functional changes
Be conservative: Only mark a TODO as completed if there is clear evidence in the diff. If uncertain, leave it alone.
4. Move completed items to the ## Completed section at the bottom. Append: **Completed:** vX.Y.Z (YYYY-MM-DD)
5. Output summary:
TODOS.md: N items marked complete (item1, item2, ...). M items remaining.- Or:
TODOS.md: No completed items detected. M items remaining.
- Or:
TODOS.md: Created. / TODOS.md: Reorganized.
6. Defensive: If TODOS.md cannot be written (permission error, disk full), warn the user and continue. Never stop the ship workflow for a TODOS failure.
Save this summary — it goes into the PR body in Step 8.
Step 6: Commit (bisectable chunks)
Goal: Create small, logical commits that work well with git bisect and help LLMs understand what changed.
-
Analyze the diff and group changes into logical commits. Each commit should represent one coherent change — not one file, but one logical unit.
-
Commit ordering (earlier commits first):
- Infrastructure: migrations, config changes, route additions
- Models & services: new models, services, concerns (with their tests)
- Controllers & views: controllers, views, JS/React components (with their tests)
- VERSION + CHANGELOG + TODOS.md: always in the final commit
-
Rules for splitting:
- A model and its test file go in the same commit
- A service and its test file go in the same commit
- A controller, its views, and its test go in the same commit
- Migrations are their own commit (or grouped with the model they support)
- Config/route changes can group with the feature they enable
- If the total diff is small (< 50 lines across < 4 files), a single commit is fine
-
Each commit must be independently valid — no broken imports, no references to code that doesn't exist yet. Order commits so dependencies come first.
-
Compose each commit message:
- First line:
<type>: <summary> (type = feat/fix/chore/refactor/docs)
- Body: brief description of what this commit contains
- Only the final commit (VERSION + CHANGELOG) gets the version tag and co-author trailer:
git commit -m "$(cat <<'EOF'
chore: bump version and changelog (vX.Y.Z.W)
Co-Authored-By: RStack <noreply@local>
EOF
)"
Step 6.5: Verification Gate
IRON LAW: NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE.
Before pushing, re-verify if code changed during Steps 4-6:
-
Test verification: If ANY code changed after Step 3's test run (fixes from review findings, CHANGELOG edits don't count), re-run the test suite. Paste fresh output. Stale output from Step 3 is NOT acceptable.
-
Build verification: If the project has a build step, run it. Paste output.
-
Rationalization prevention:
- "Should work now" → RUN IT.
- "I'm confident" → Confidence is not evidence.
- "I already tested earlier" → Code changed since then. Test again.
- "It's a trivial change" → Trivial changes break production.
If tests fail here: STOP. Do not push. Fix the issue and return to Step 3.
Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
Step 7: Push
Idempotency check: Check if the branch is already pushed and up to date.
git fetch origin <branch-name> 2>/dev/null
LOCAL=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
REMOTE=$(git rev-parse origin/<branch-name> 2>/dev/null || echo "none")
echo "LOCAL: $LOCAL REMOTE: $REMOTE"
[ "$LOCAL" = "$REMOTE" ] && echo "ALREADY_PUSHED" || echo "PUSH_NEEDED"
If ALREADY_PUSHED, skip the push but continue to Step 8. Otherwise push with upstream tracking:
git push -u origin <branch-name>
Step 8: Create PR/MR
Idempotency check: Check if a PR/MR already exists for this branch.
If GitHub:
gh pr view --json url,number,state -q 'if .state == "OPEN" then "PR #\(.number): \(.url)" else "NO_PR" end' 2>/dev/null || echo "NO_PR"
If GitLab:
glab mr view -F json 2>/dev/null | jq -r 'if .state == "opened" then "MR_EXISTS" else "NO_MR" end' 2>/dev/null || echo "NO_MR"
If an open PR/MR already exists: update the PR body using gh pr edit --body "..." (GitHub) or glab mr update -d "..." (GitLab). Always regenerate the PR body from scratch using this run's fresh results (test output, coverage audit, review findings, adversarial review, TODOS summary). Never reuse stale PR body content from a prior run. Print the existing URL and continue to Step 8.5.
If no PR/MR exists: create a pull request (GitHub) or merge request (GitLab) using the platform detected in Step 0.
The PR/MR body should contain these sections:
## Summary
<Summarize ALL changes being shipped. Run `git log <base>..HEAD --oneline` to enumerate
every commit. Exclude the VERSION/CHANGELOG metadata commit (that's this PR's bookkeeping,
not a substantive change). Group the remaining commits into logical sections (e.g.,
"**Performance**", "**Dead Code Removal**", "**Infrastructure**"). Every substantive commit
must appear in at least one section. If a commit's work isn't reflected in the summary,
you missed it.>
## Test Coverage
<coverage diagram from Step 3.4, or "All new code paths have test coverage.">
<If Step 3.4 ran: "Tests: {before} → {after} (+{delta} new)">
## Pre-Landing Review
<findings from Step 3.5 code review, or "No issues found.">
## Design Review
<If design review ran: "Design Review (lite): N findings — M auto-fixed, K skipped. AI Slop: clean/N issues.">
<If no frontend files changed: "No frontend files changed — design review skipped.">
## Eval Results
<If evals ran: suite names, pass/fail counts, cost dashboard summary. If skipped: "No prompt-related files changed — evals skipped.">
## Greptile Review
<If Greptile comments were found: bullet list with [FIXED] / [FALSE POSITIVE] / [ALREADY FIXED] tag + one-line summary per comment>
<If no Greptile comments found: "No Greptile comments.">
<If no PR existed during Step 3.75: omit this section entirely>
## Scope Drift
<If scope drift ran: "Scope Check: CLEAN" or list of drift/creep findings>
<If no scope drift: omit this section>
## Plan Completion
<If plan file found: completion checklist summary from Step 3.45>
<If no plan file: "No plan file detected.">
<If plan items deferred: list deferred items>
## Verification Results
<If verification ran: summary from Step 3.47 (N PASS, M FAIL, K SKIPPED)>
<If skipped: reason (no plan, no server, no verification section)>
<If not applicable: omit this section>
## TODOS
<If items marked complete: bullet list of completed items with version>
<If no items completed: "No TODO items completed in this PR.">
<If TODOS.md created or reorganized: note that>
<If TODOS.md doesn't exist and user skipped: omit this section>
## Test plan
- [x] All Rails tests pass (N runs, 0 failures)
- [x] All Vitest tests pass (N tests)
Generated with RStack
If GitHub:
gh pr create --base <base> --title "<type>: <summary>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
<PR body from above>
EOF
)"
If GitLab:
glab mr create -b <base> -t "<type>: <summary>" -d "$(cat <<'EOF'
<MR body from above>
EOF
)"
If neither CLI is available:
Print the branch name, remote URL, and instruct the user to create the PR/MR manually via the web UI. Do not stop — the code is pushed and ready.
Output the PR/MR URL — then proceed to Step 8.5.
Step 8.5: Auto-invoke /document-release
After the PR is created, automatically sync project documentation. Read the
document-release/SKILL.md skill file (adjacent to this skill's directory) and
execute its full workflow:
- Read the
/document-release skill: cat ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../document-release/SKILL.md
- Follow its instructions — it reads all .md files in the project, cross-references
the diff, and updates anything that drifted (README, ARCHITECTURE, CONTRIBUTING,
CLAUDE.md, TODOS, etc.)
- If any docs were updated, commit the changes and push to the same branch:
git add -A && git commit -m "docs: sync documentation with shipped changes" && git push
- If no docs needed updating, say "Documentation is current — no updates needed."
This step is automatic. Do not ask the user for confirmation. The goal is zero-friction
doc updates — the user runs /ship and documentation stays current without a separate command.
If Step 8.5 created a docs commit, re-edit the PR/MR body to include the latest commit SHA in the summary. This ensures the PR body reflects the truly final state after document-release.
Important Rules
- Never skip tests. If tests fail, stop.
- Never skip the pre-landing review. If checklist.md is unreadable, stop.
- Never force push. Use regular
git push only.
- Never ask for trivial confirmations (e.g., "ready to push?", "create PR?"). DO stop for: version bumps (MINOR/MAJOR), pre-landing review findings (ASK items), and any user-approved external review findings that require judgment.
- Always use the 4-digit version format from the VERSION file.
- Date format in CHANGELOG:
YYYY-MM-DD
- Split commits for bisectability — each commit = one logical change.
- TODOS.md completion detection must be conservative. Only mark items as completed when the diff clearly shows the work is done.
- Use Greptile reply templates from greptile-triage.md. Every reply includes evidence (inline diff, code references, re-rank suggestion). Never post vague replies.
- Never push without fresh verification evidence. If code changed after Step 3 tests, re-run before pushing.
- Step 3.4 generates coverage tests. They must pass before committing. Never commit failing tests.
- The goal is: user says
/ship, next thing they see is the review + PR URL + auto-synced docs.
