| 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", or "merge and push".
Proactively suggest when the user says code is ready or asks about deploying.
|
| allowed-tools | ["Bash","Read","Write","Edit","Grep","Glob","Agent","AskUserQuestion","WebSearch"] |
Preamble (run first)
_UPD=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-update-check 2>/dev/null || .claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-update-check 2>/dev/null || true)
[ -n "$_UPD" ] && echo "$_UPD" || true
mkdir -p ~/.gstack/sessions
touch ~/.gstack/sessions/"$PPID"
_SESSIONS=$(find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin -120 -type f 2>/dev/null | wc -l | tr -d ' ')
find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin +120 -type f -delete 2>/dev/null || true
_CONTRIB=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get gstack_contributor 2>/dev/null || true)
_PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null || echo "true")
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
_LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
_TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
_TEL_PROMPTED=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.telemetry-prompted ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
_TEL_START=$(date +%s)
_SESSION_ID="$$-$(date +%s)"
echo "TELEMETRY: ${_TEL:-off}"
echo "TEL_PROMPTED: $_TEL_PROMPTED"
mkdir -p ~/.gstack/analytics
echo '{"skill":"ship","ts":"'$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)'","repo":"'$(basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null)" 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")'"}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/skill-usage.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
for _PF in $(find ~/.gstack/analytics -maxdepth 1 -name '.pending-*' 2>/dev/null); do [ -f "$_PF" ] && ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-telemetry-log --event-type skill_run --skill _pending_finalize --outcome unknown --session-id "$_SESSION_ID" 2>/dev/null || true; break; done
If PROACTIVE is "false", do not proactively suggest gstack skills — only invoke
them when the user explicitly asks. The user opted out of proactive suggestions.
If output shows UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>: read ~/.claude/skills/gstack/gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md and follow the "Inline upgrade flow" (auto-upgrade if configured, otherwise AskUserQuestion with 4 options, write snooze state if declined). If JUST_UPGRADED <from> <to>: tell user "Running gstack v{to} (just updated!)" and continue.
If LAKE_INTRO is no: Before continuing, introduce the Completeness Principle.
Tell the user: "gstack follows the Boil the Lake principle — always do the complete
thing when AI makes the marginal cost near-zero. Read more: https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean"
Then offer to open the essay in their default browser:
open https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean
touch ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen
Only run open if the user says yes. Always run touch to mark as seen. This only happens once.
If TEL_PROMPTED is no AND LAKE_INTRO is yes: After the lake intro is handled,
ask the user about telemetry. Use AskUserQuestion:
Help gstack get better! Community mode shares usage data (which skills you use, how long
they take, crash info) with a stable device ID so we can track trends and fix bugs faster.
No code, file paths, or repo names are ever sent.
Change anytime with gstack-config set telemetry off.
Options:
- A) Help gstack get better! (recommended)
- B) No thanks
If A: run ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set telemetry community
If B: ask a follow-up AskUserQuestion:
How about anonymous mode? We just learn that someone used gstack — no unique ID,
no way to connect sessions. Just a counter that helps us know if anyone's out there.
Options:
- A) Sure, anonymous is fine
- B) No thanks, fully off
If B→A: run ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set telemetry anonymous
If B→B: run ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set telemetry off
Always run:
touch ~/.gstack/.telemetry-prompted
This only happens once. If TEL_PROMPTED is yes, skip this entirely.
AskUserQuestion Format
ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:
- Re-ground: State the project, the current branch (use the
_BRANCH value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
- Simplify: Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
- Recommend:
RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason] — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include Completeness: X/10 for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
- Options: Lettered options:
A) ... B) ... C) ... — when an option involves effort, show both scales: (human: ~X / CC: ~Y)
- One decision per question: NEVER combine multiple independent decisions into a single AskUserQuestion. Each decision gets its own call with its own recommendation and focused options. Batching multiple AskUserQuestion calls in rapid succession is fine and often preferred. Only after all individual taste decisions are resolved should a final "Approve / Revise / Reject" gate be presented.
Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.
Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.
Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake
AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:
- If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — always recommend A. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
- Lake vs. ocean: A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
- When estimating effort, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:
| Task type | Human team | CC+gstack | Compression |
|---|
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
| Architecture / design | 2 days | 4 hours | ~5x |
| Research / exploration | 1 day | 3 hours | ~3x |
- This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:
- BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
- BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
REPO_MODE from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
solo — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), investigate and offer to fix proactively. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.collaborative — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, flag them via AskUserQuestion — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.unknown — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
See Something, Say Something: Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
Search Before Building
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — search first. Read ~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md for the full philosophy.
Three layers of knowledge:
- Layer 1 (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
- Layer 2 (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
- Layer 3 (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.
Eureka moment: When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it:
"EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."
Log eureka moments:
jq -n --arg ts "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)" --arg skill "SKILL_NAME" --arg branch "$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)" --arg insight "ONE_LINE_SUMMARY" '{ts:$ts,skill:$skill,branch:$branch,insight:$insight}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/eureka.jsonl 2>/dev/null || true
Replace SKILL_NAME and ONE_LINE_SUMMARY. Runs inline — don't stop the workflow.
WebSearch fallback: If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."
Contributor Mode
If _CONTRIB is true: you are in contributor mode. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.
At the end of each major workflow step (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!
Calibration — this is the bar: For example, $B js "await fetch(...)" used to fail with SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.
NOT worth filing: user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.
To file: write ~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md with all sections below (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):
# {Title}
Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:
**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}
## Steps to reproduce
1. {step}
## Raw output
{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}
## What would make this a 10
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}
**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}
Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. browse-js-no-await). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"
Completion Status Protocol
When completing a skill workflow, report status using one of:
- DONE — All steps completed successfully. Evidence provided for each claim.
- DONE_WITH_CONCERNS — Completed, but with issues the user should know about. List each concern.
- BLOCKED — Cannot proceed. State what is blocking and what was tried.
- NEEDS_CONTEXT — Missing information required to continue. State exactly what you need.
Escalation
It is always OK to stop and say "this is too hard for me" or "I'm not confident in this result."
Bad work is worse than no work. You will not be penalized for escalating.
- If you have attempted a task 3 times without success, STOP and escalate.
- If you are uncertain about a security-sensitive change, STOP and escalate.
- If the scope of work exceeds what you can verify, STOP and escalate.
Escalation format:
STATUS: BLOCKED | NEEDS_CONTEXT
REASON: [1-2 sentences]
ATTEMPTED: [what you tried]
RECOMMENDATION: [what the user should do next]
Telemetry (run last)
After the skill workflow completes (success, error, or abort), log the telemetry event.
Determine the skill name from the name: field in this file's YAML frontmatter.
Determine the outcome from the workflow result (success if completed normally, error
if it failed, abort if the user interrupted).
PLAN MODE EXCEPTION — ALWAYS RUN: This command writes telemetry to
~/.gstack/analytics/ (user config directory, not project files). The skill
preamble already writes to the same directory — this is the same pattern.
Skipping this command loses session duration and outcome data.
Run this bash:
_TEL_END=$(date +%s)
_TEL_DUR=$(( _TEL_END - _TEL_START ))
rm -f ~/.gstack/analytics/.pending-"$_SESSION_ID" 2>/dev/null || true
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-telemetry-log \
--skill "SKILL_NAME" --duration "$_TEL_DUR" --outcome "OUTCOME" \
--used-browse "USED_BROWSE" --session-id "$_SESSION_ID" 2>/dev/null &
Replace SKILL_NAME with the actual skill name from frontmatter, OUTCOME with
success/error/abort, and USED_BROWSE with true/false based on whether $B was used.
If you cannot determine the outcome, use "unknown". This runs in the background and
never blocks the user.
Plan Status Footer
When you are in plan mode and about to call ExitPlanMode:
- Check if the plan file already has a
## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT section.
- If it DOES — skip (a review skill already wrote a richer report).
- If it does NOT — run this command:
```bash
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-read
```
Then write a ## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT section to the end of the plan file:
- If the output contains review entries (JSONL lines before
---CONFIG---): format the
standard report table with runs/status/findings per skill, same format as the review
skills use.
- If the output is
NO_REVIEWS or empty: write this placeholder table:
```markdown
GSTACK REVIEW REPORT
| Review | Trigger | Why | Runs | Status | Findings |
|---|
| CEO Review | `/plan-ceo-review` | Scope & strategy | 0 | — | — |
| Codex Review | `/codex review` | Independent 2nd opinion | 0 | — | — |
| Eng Review | `/plan-eng-review` | Architecture & tests (required) | 0 | — | — |
| Design Review | `/plan-design-review` | UI/UX gaps | 0 | — | — |
VERDICT: NO REVIEWS YET — run `/autoplan` for full review pipeline, or individual reviews above.
```
PLAN MODE EXCEPTION — ALWAYS RUN: This writes to the plan file, which is the one
file you are allowed to edit in plan mode. The plan file review report is part of the
plan's living status.
Step 0: Detect base branch
Determine which branch this PR targets. Use the result as "the base branch" in all subsequent steps.
-
Check if a PR already exists for this branch:
gh pr view --json baseRefName -q .baseRefName
If this succeeds, use the printed branch name as the base branch.
-
If no PR exists (command fails), detect the repo's default branch:
gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef -q .defaultBranchRef.name
-
If both commands fail, fall back to main.
Print the detected base branch name. In every subsequent git diff, git log,
git fetch, git merge, and gh pr create command, substitute the detected
branch name wherever the instructions say "the base branch."
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)
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.
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-read
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, codex-review, codex-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 whichever is more recent between adversarial-review (new auto-scaled) and codex-review (legacy). 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. 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 `gstack-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 (automatic): Auto-scales by diff size. Small diffs (<50 lines) skip adversarial. Medium diffs (50–199) get cross-model adversarial. Large diffs (200+) get all 4 passes: Claude structured, Codex structured, Claude adversarial subagent, Codex adversarial. No configuration needed.
- Outside Voice (optional): Independent plan review from a different AI model. Offered after all review sections complete in /plan-ceo-review and /plan-eng-review. Falls back to Claude subagent if Codex is unavailable. 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 Codex 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":
-
Check for a prior override on this branch:
eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)"
grep '"skill":"ship-review-override"' ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/$BRANCH-reviews.jsonl 2>/dev/null || echo "NO_OVERRIDE"
If an override exists, display the dashboard and note "Review gate previously accepted — continuing." Do NOT ask again.
-
If no override exists, use AskUserQuestion:
- Show that Eng Review is missing or has open issues
- RECOMMENDATION: Choose C if the change is obviously trivial (< 20 lines, typo fix, config-only); Choose B for larger changes
- Options: A) Ship anyway B) Abort — run /review or /plan-eng-review first C) Change is too small to need eng review
- 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/gstack/bin/gstack-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.
-
If the user chooses A or C, persist the decision so future /ship runs on this branch skip the gate:
eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)"
echo '{"skill":"ship-review-override","timestamp":"'"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"'","decision":"USER_CHOICE"}' >> ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/$BRANCH-reviews.jsonl
Substitute USER_CHOICE with "ship_anyway" or "not_relevant".
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'
-
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 (GitHub Actions cross-platform build + GitHub Releases)
- 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:
[ -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 .gstack/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 .gstack/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 .gstack/no-test-bootstrap. Tell user: "If you change your mind later, delete .gstack/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:
bin/test-lane 2>&1 | tee /tmp/ship_tests.txt &
npm run test 2>&1 | tee /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):
- Find who likely broke it. Check BOTH the test file AND the production code it tests:
git log --format="%an (%ae)" -1 -- <failing-test-file>
git log --format="%an (%ae)" -1 -- <source-file-under-test>
If these are different people, prefer the production code author — they likely introduced the regression.
- Create a GitHub issue assigned to that person:
gh issue create \
--title "Pre-existing test failure: <test-name>" \
--body "Found failing on branch <current-branch>. Failure is pre-existing.\n\n**Error:**\n```\n<first 10 lines>\n```\n\n**Last modified by:** <author>\n**Noticed by:** gstack /ship on <date>" \
--assignee "<github-username>"
- If
gh is not available or --assignee fails (user not in org, etc.), create the issue without assignee and note who should look at it in the body.
- Continue with the workflow.
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).
EVAL_JUDGE_TIER=full EVAL_VERBOSE=1 bin/test-lane --eval test/evals/<suite>_eval_test.rb 2>&1 | tee /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:
[ -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.
Test Plan Artifact
After producing the coverage diagram, write a test plan artifact so /qa and /qa-only can consume it:
eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)" && mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG
USER=$(whoami)
DATETIME=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)
Write to ~/.gstack/projects/{slug}/{user}-{branch}-ship-test-plan-{datetime}.md:
# Test Plan
Generated by /ship on {date}
Branch: {branch}
Repo: {owner/repo}
## Affected Pages/Routes
- {URL path} — {what to test and why}
## Key Interactions to Verify
- {interaction description} on {page}
## Edge Cases
- {edge case} on {page}
## Critical Paths
- {end-to-end flow that must work}
Step 3.45: Plan Completion Audit
Plan File Discovery
-
Conversation context (primary): Check if there is an active plan file in this conversation — Claude Code system messages include plan file paths when in plan mode. Look for references like ~/.claude/plans/*.md in system messages. If found, use it directly — this is the most reliable signal.
-
Content-based search (fallback): If no plan file is referenced in conversation context, search by content:
BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null | tr '/' '-')
REPO=$(basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null)")
PLAN=$(ls -t ~/.claude/plans/*.md 2>/dev/null | xargs grep -l "$BRANCH" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
[ -z "$PLAN" ] && PLAN=$(ls -t ~/.claude/plans/*.md 2>/dev/null | xargs grep -l "$REPO" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
[ -z "$PLAN" ] && PLAN=$(find ~/.claude/plans -name '*.md' -mmin -1440 -maxdepth 1 2>/dev/null | xargs ls -t 2>/dev/null | head -1)
[ -n "$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 (
## GSTACK 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 3.5: 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
Design Review (conditional, diff-scoped)
Check if the diff touches frontend files using gstack-diff-scope:
source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-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:
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"design-review-lite","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","findings":N,"auto_fixed":M,"commit":"COMMIT"}'
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.
- Codex design voice (optional, automatic if available):
which codex 2>/dev/null && echo "CODEX_AVAILABLE" || echo "CODEX_NOT_AVAILABLE"
If Codex is available, run a lightweight design check on the diff:
TMPERR_DRL=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-drl-XXXXXXXX)
codex exec "Review the git diff on this branch. Run 7 litmus checks (YES/NO each): 1. Brand/product unmistakable in first screen? 2. One strong visual anchor present? 3. Page understandable by scanning headlines only? 4. Each section has one job? 5. Are cards actually necessary? 6. Does motion improve hierarchy or atmosphere? 7. Would design feel premium with all decorative shadows removed? Flag any hard rejections: 1. Generic SaaS card grid as first impression 2. Beautiful image with weak brand 3. Strong headline with no clear action 4. Busy imagery behind text 5. Sections repeating same mood statement 6. Carousel with no narrative purpose 7. App UI made of stacked cards instead of layout 5 most important design findings only. Reference file:line." -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_DRL"
Use a 5-minute timeout (timeout: 300000). After the command completes, read stderr:
cat "$TMPERR_DRL" && rm -f "$TMPERR_DRL"
Error handling: All errors are non-blocking. On auth failure, timeout, or empty response — skip with a brief note and continue.
Present Codex output under a CODEX (design): header, merged with the checklist findings above.
Include any design findings alongside the code review findings. They follow the same Fix-First flow below.
-
Classify each finding as AUTO-FIX or ASK per the Fix-First Heuristic in
checklist.md. Critical findings lean toward ASK; informational lean toward AUTO-FIX.
-
Auto-fix all AUTO-FIX items. Apply each fix. Output one line per fix:
[AUTO-FIXED] [file:line] Problem → what you did
-
If ASK items remain, present them in ONE AskUserQuestion:
- List each with number, severity, problem, recommended fix
- Per-item options: A) Fix B) Skip
- Overall RECOMMENDATION
- If 3 or fewer ASK items, you may use individual AskUserQuestion calls instead
-
After all fixes (auto + user-approved):
- If ANY fixes were applied: commit fixed files by name (
git add <fixed-files> && git commit -m "fix: pre-landing review fixes"), then STOP and tell the user to run /ship again to re-test.
- If no fixes applied (all ASK items skipped, or no issues found): continue to Step 4.
-
Output summary: Pre-Landing Review: N issues — M auto-fixed, K asked (J fixed, L skipped)
If no issues found: Pre-Landing Review: No issues found.
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: Adversarial review (auto-scaled)
Adversarial review thoroughness scales automatically based on diff size. No configuration needed.
Detect diff size and tool availability:
DIFF_INS=$(git diff origin/<base> --stat | tail -1 | grep -oE '[0-9]+ insertion' | grep -oE '[0-9]+' || echo "0")
DIFF_DEL=$(git diff origin/<base> --stat | tail -1 | grep -oE '[0-9]+ deletion' | grep -oE '[0-9]+' || echo "0")
DIFF_TOTAL=$((DIFF_INS + DIFF_DEL))
which codex 2>/dev/null && echo "CODEX_AVAILABLE" || echo "CODEX_NOT_AVAILABLE"
OLD_CFG=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get codex_reviews 2>/dev/null || true)
echo "DIFF_SIZE: $DIFF_TOTAL"
echo "OLD_CFG: ${OLD_CFG:-not_set}"
If OLD_CFG is disabled: skip this step silently. Continue to the next step.
User override: If the user explicitly requested a specific tier (e.g., "run all passes", "paranoid review", "full adversarial", "do all 4 passes", "thorough review"), honor that request regardless of diff size. Jump to the matching tier section.
Auto-select tier based on diff size:
- Small (< 50 lines changed): Skip adversarial review entirely. Print: "Small diff ($DIFF_TOTAL lines) — adversarial review skipped." Continue to the next step.
- Medium (50–199 lines changed): Run Codex adversarial challenge (or Claude adversarial subagent if Codex unavailable). Jump to the "Medium tier" section.
- Large (200+ lines changed): Run all remaining passes — Codex structured review + Claude adversarial subagent + Codex adversarial. Jump to the "Large tier" section.
Medium tier (50–199 lines)
Claude's structured review already ran. Now add a cross-model adversarial challenge.
If Codex is available: run the Codex adversarial challenge. If Codex is NOT available: fall back to the Claude adversarial subagent instead.
Codex adversarial:
TMPERR_ADV=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-adv-XXXXXXXX)
codex exec "Review the changes on this branch against the base branch. Run git diff origin/<base> to see the diff. Your job is to find ways this code will fail in production. Think like an attacker and a chaos engineer. Find edge cases, race conditions, security holes, resource leaks, failure modes, and silent data corruption paths. Be adversarial. Be thorough. No compliments — just the problems." -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="xhigh"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_ADV"
Set the Bash tool's timeout parameter to 300000 (5 minutes). Do NOT use the timeout shell command — it doesn't exist on macOS. After the command completes, read stderr:
cat "$TMPERR_ADV"
Present the full output verbatim. This is informational — it never blocks shipping.
Error handling: All errors are non-blocking — adversarial review is a quality enhancement, not a prerequisite.
- Auth failure: If stderr contains "auth", "login", "unauthorized", or "API key": "Codex authentication failed. Run `codex login` to authenticate."
- Timeout: "Codex timed out after 5 minutes."
- Empty response: "Codex returned no response. Stderr: ."
On any Codex error, fall back to the Claude adversarial subagent automatically.
Claude adversarial subagent (fallback when Codex unavailable or errored):
Dispatch via the Agent tool. The subagent has fresh context — no checklist bias from the structured review. This genuine independence catches things the primary reviewer is blind to.
Subagent prompt:
"Read the diff for this branch with git diff origin/<base>. Think like an attacker and a chaos engineer. Your job is to find ways this code will fail in production. Look for: edge cases, race conditions, security holes, resource leaks, failure modes, silent data corruption, logic errors that produce wrong results silently, error handling that swallows failures, and trust boundary violations. Be adversarial. Be thorough. No compliments — just the problems. For each finding, classify as FIXABLE (you know how to fix it) or INVESTIGATE (needs human judgment)."
Present findings under an ADVERSARIAL REVIEW (Claude subagent): header. FIXABLE findings flow into the same Fix-First pipeline as the structured review. INVESTIGATE findings are presented as informational.
If the subagent fails or times out: "Claude adversarial subagent unavailable. Continuing without adversarial review."
Persist the review result:
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"adversarial-review","timestamp":"'"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","tier":"medium","commit":"'"$(git rev-parse --short HEAD)"'"}'
Substitute STATUS: "clean" if no findings, "issues_found" if findings exist. SOURCE: "codex" if Codex ran, "claude" if subagent ran. If both failed, do NOT persist.
Cleanup: Run rm -f "$TMPERR_ADV" after processing (if Codex was used).
Large tier (200+ lines)
Claude's structured review already ran. Now run all three remaining passes for maximum coverage:
1. Codex structured review (if available):
TMPERR=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-review-XXXXXXXX)
codex review --base <base> -c 'model_reasoning_effort="xhigh"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR"
Set the Bash tool's timeout parameter to 300000 (5 minutes). Do NOT use the timeout shell command — it doesn't exist on macOS. Present output under CODEX SAYS (code review): header.
Check for [P1] markers: found → GATE: FAIL, not found → GATE: PASS.
If GATE is FAIL, use AskUserQuestion:
Codex found N critical issues in the diff.
A) Investigate and fix now (recommended)
B) Continue — review will still complete
If A: address the findings. After fixing, re-run tests (Step 3) since code has changed. Re-run codex review to verify.
Read stderr for errors (same error handling as medium tier).
After stderr: rm -f "$TMPERR"
2. Claude adversarial subagent: Dispatch a subagent with the adversarial prompt (same prompt as medium tier). This always runs regardless of Codex availability.
3. Codex adversarial challenge (if available): Run codex exec with the adversarial prompt (same as medium tier).
If Codex is not available for steps 1 and 3, note to the user: "Codex CLI not found — large-diff review ran Claude structured + Claude adversarial (2 of 4 passes). Install Codex for full 4-pass coverage: npm install -g @openai/codex"
Persist the review result AFTER all passes complete (not after each sub-step):
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"adversarial-review","timestamp":"'"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","tier":"large","gate":"GATE","commit":"'"$(git rev-parse --short HEAD)"'"}'
Substitute: STATUS = "clean" if no findings across ALL passes, "issues_found" if any pass found issues. SOURCE = "both" if Codex ran, "claude" if only Claude subagent ran. GATE = the Codex structured review gate result ("pass"/"fail"), or "informational" if Codex was unavailable. If all passes failed, do NOT persist.
Cross-model synthesis (medium and large tiers)
After all passes complete, synthesize findings across all sources:
ADVERSARIAL REVIEW SYNTHESIS (auto: TIER, N lines):
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
High confidence (found by multiple sources): [findings agreed on by >1 pass]
Unique to Claude structured review: [from earlier step]
Unique to Claude adversarial: [from subagent, if ran]
Unique to Codex: [from codex adversarial or code review, if ran]
Models used: Claude structured ✓ Claude adversarial ✓/✗ Codex ✓/✗
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
High-confidence findings (agreed on by multiple sources) should be prioritized for fixes.
Step 4: Version bump (auto-decide)
-
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)
- MICRO (4th digit): < 50 lines changed, trivial tweaks, typos, config
- PATCH (3rd digit): 50+ lines changed, bug fixes, small-medium features
- MINOR (2nd digit): ASK the user — only for major features or significant architectural changes
- 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.
Step 5: CHANGELOG (auto-generate)
-
Read CHANGELOG.md header to know the format.
-
Auto-generate the entry from ALL commits on the branch (not just recent ones):
- Use
git log <base>..HEAD --oneline to see every commit being shipped
- Use
git diff <base>...HEAD to see the full diff against the base branch
- The CHANGELOG entry must be comprehensive of ALL changes going into the PR
- 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
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: "GStack 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
