Decisions in CONTEXT.md are now numbered (D-01, D-02, etc.) so
downstream agents can reference them and the plan-checker can verify
100% coverage.
Changes:
- templates/context.md: Decisions use **D-XX:** prefix format
- workflows/discuss-phase.md: write_context step numbers decisions
- agents/gsd-planner.md: Self-check verifies decision ID references
in task actions; tasks reference D-XX IDs for traceability
- agents/gsd-plan-checker.md: Dimension 7 (Context Compliance)
extracts D-XX IDs and verifies every decision has a task
* fix: add mandatory canonical_refs section to CONTEXT.md
CONTEXT.md is the bridge between user decisions and downstream agents
(researcher, planner). When projects have external specs, ADRs, or
design docs, these references were being silently dropped — mentioned
inline as "see ADR-019" but never collected into a section that agents
could find and read. This caused agents to plan and implement without
reading the specs they were supposed to follow.
Changes:
- templates/context.md: Add <canonical_refs> section to file template,
all 3 examples, and guidelines (marked MANDATORY)
- workflows/discuss-phase.md: Add step 1b (extract canonical refs),
add section to write_context template, add to success criteria
- workflows/plan-phase.md: Add canonical ref extraction to PRD express
path and its CONTEXT.md template
- workflows/quick.md: Add lightweight canonical_refs to --discuss mode
The section is mandatory but gracefully handles projects without external
docs ("No external specs — requirements fully captured in decisions above").
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
* fix: make canonical refs an accumulator across entire discussion
Refs come from 4 sources, not just ROADMAP.md:
1. ROADMAP.md Canonical refs line (initial seed)
2. REQUIREMENTS.md/PROJECT.md referenced specs
3. Codebase scout (code comments citing ADRs)
4. User during discussion ("read adr-014", "check the MCP spec")
Source 4 is often the MOST important — these are docs the user
specifically wants downstream agents to follow. The previous
version only handled source 1 and silently dropped the rest.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 <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>
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>
Trim redundant documentation while preserving actionable instructions.
-173 lines of prose that restated what templates already show.
Kept: size constraints, mandatory fields, security guidance.
Removed: "when to create/read/update" lifecycle prose, section
descriptions that duplicate template structure.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
- 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>
- 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>
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>
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>
