Adds --chain flag to /gsd:discuss-phase that provides the middle ground
between fully manual and fully automatic workflows:
/gsd:discuss-phase 5 --chain
- Discussion is fully interactive (user answers questions)
- After context is captured, auto-advances to plan → execute
- Same pipeline as --auto, but without auto-answering
This addresses the community request for per-phase automation where
users want to control discuss decisions but skip manual advancement
between plan and execute steps.
Workflow: discuss (interactive) → plan (auto) → execute (auto)
Changes:
- Workflow: --chain flag triggers auto_advance without auto-answering
- Workflow: chain flag synced alongside --auto in ephemeral config
- Workflow: next-phase suggestion preserves --chain vs --auto
- Command: argument-hint and description updated
- Success criteria updated
Closes#1327
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
The discuss-phase command file contained a 93-line detailed <process>
block that competed with the actual workflow file. The agent treated
this summary as complete instructions and never read the execution_context
files (discuss-phase.md, discuss-phase-assumptions.md, context.md template).
Root cause: Unlike execute-phase and plan-phase commands (which have short
2-line process blocks deferring to the workflow file), discuss-phase had
inline step-by-step instructions detailed enough to act on without reading
the referenced workflow files.
Changes:
- Replace discuss-phase command's <process> block with a short directive
that forces reading the workflow file, matching execute-phase/plan-phase
pattern
- Add MANDATORY instruction that execution_context files ARE the
instructions, not optional reading
- Register workflow.research_before_questions and workflow.discuss_mode
as valid config keys (were missing from VALID_CONFIG_KEYS)
- Fix config key mismatch: workflows referenced "research_questions"
but documented key is "workflow.research_before_questions"
- Move research_before_questions from hooks section to workflow section
in settings workflow
- Add research_before_questions default to config template and builder
- Add suggestion mapping for deprecated hooks.research_questions key
- Add 6 regression tests covering config keys and process block guard
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Add codebase-first assumption-driven alternative to the interview-style
discuss-phase. New `workflow.discuss_mode: "assumptions"` config routes
to a separate workflow that spawns a gsd-assumptions-analyzer agent to
read 5-15 codebase files, surface assumptions with evidence, and ask
only for corrections (~2-4 interactions vs ~15-20).
- New gsd-assumptions-analyzer agent for deep codebase analysis
- New discuss-phase-assumptions.md workflow (15 steps)
- Command-level routing via dual @reference + process gate
- Identical CONTEXT.md output — downstream agents unaffected
- Existing discuss-phase.md workflow untouched (zero diff)
- Mode-aware plan-phase gate and progress display
- User documentation and integration tests
- Update agent count and list in copilot-install tests (17 → 18)
Closes#637
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Adds --analyze flag to /gsd:discuss-phase that provides a trade-off
analysis before each question (or question group in --batch mode).
When active, each question is preceded by:
- 2-3 options with pros/cons based on codebase context
- A recommended approach with reasoning
- Known pitfalls or constraints from prior phases
Composable with existing flags: --batch --analyze gives grouped
questions each with trade-off tables.
Closes#833
When the discuss-phase workflow asks 'More questions about [area], or
move to next?', it now also lists the remaining unvisited areas so the
user can see what's still ahead and make an informed decision about
whether to go deeper or move on.
Example: 'More questions about Layout, or move to next?
(Remaining: Loading behavior, Content ordering)'
Fixes#992
Prevents re-asking questions already decided in earlier phases by reading
PROJECT.md, REQUIREMENTS.md, STATE.md, and all prior CONTEXT.md files
before generating gray areas. Prior decisions annotate options and skip
already-decided areas.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Add lightweight codebase scanning before gray area identification:
- New scout_codebase step checks for existing maps or does targeted grep
- Gray areas annotated with code context (existing components, patterns)
- Discussion options informed by what already exists in the codebase
- Context7 integration for library-specific questions
- CONTEXT.md template includes code_context section
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Add opt-in mechanism to chain discuss → plan → execute automatically
via Task() subagents, eliminating manual /clear + paste overhead.
- Add `--auto` flag to discuss-phase and plan-phase commands
- Add `workflow.auto_advance` config toggle (default: false)
- Add auto_advance step to discuss-phase workflow (spawns plan-phase)
- Add step 14 to plan-phase workflow (spawns execute-phase)
- Add auto_advance toggle to /gsd:settings
Chain stops gracefully on INCONCLUSIVE, CHECKPOINT, or verification
failures. No work lost — artifacts persist at each step.
Closes#541
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The verifier agent interpreted {phase} as the full directory slug
(e.g., 01-foundation-target-system) instead of just the padded phase
number (01), producing wrong filenames like
01-foundation-target-system-VERIFICATION.md.
Changed all {phase}-*.md references to {phase_num}-*.md to match the
convention used in gsd-tools.js (${padded}-VERIFICATION.md).
Files: VERIFICATION.md, RESEARCH.md, CONTEXT.md, UAT.md patterns.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Convert inline array format to list format in discuss-phase.md
to match all other command files in the codebase.
Before: allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Bash, ...]
After: allowed-tools:
- Read
- Write
- Bash
...
- Remove useless "None — you decide" skip option
- Generate phase-specific gray areas based on domain analysis
(UI features, CLI tools, APIs, organization tasks, etc.)
- Increase probing depth: 4 questions per area before check
- Make context.md categories flexible (emerge from discussion)
- Add CLI and organization examples to context template
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Commands load agent expertise directly via Task tool spawning.
Thin orchestrator pattern — agents have methodology baked in.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
- Analyze phase to identify gray areas by category (UI, UX, Behavior, etc.)
- Present multi-select for user to choose which areas to discuss
- Deep-dive each selected area with focused questioning loop
- Explicit scope guardrail: clarify HOW, never expand WHAT
- Capture deferred ideas without acting on them
- Downstream awareness: CONTEXT.md feeds researcher and planner agents
- Template restructured for decisions (domain, decisions, discretion, deferred)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Reduce principles.md from 158 to 73 lines:
- Remove duplicates (atomic_commits, tdd, deviation_rules)
- Remove version drag from claude_automates
- Keep core orientation: solo dev model, plans are prompts,
scope control, ship fast, anti-enterprise
Add principles.md to 9 core commands so Claude always
understands what GSD is.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Scope boundaries are implicit from the roadmap. Asking about them
creates the sensation of scope creep and interrogates the user about
constraints they didn't mention.
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
All questioning workflows now require AskUserQuestion tool for every
question, not just decision gates. Inline text questions are prohibited.
Updated: questioning.md, new-project.md, discuss-phase.md,
discuss-milestone.md, and their workflow files.
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Show slash commands inline so users can copy them to fresh context,
matching pattern used by other GSD commands.
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Add explicit guardrails to ensure context gathering questions clarify
HOW to implement roadmap scope rather than suggesting WHAT to add.
Questions must never expand scope - if user adds scope, direct them
to update ROADMAP first instead.
Changes:
- Template: Replace "Secondary goals" with "Clarifications" (HOW, not WHAT ELSE)
- Workflow: Add CRITICAL block forbidding scope-expanding questions
- Workflow: Update decision gate to emphasize clarification over expansion
- Command: Add NO SCOPE CREEP rules
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
