Files
msd-core/get-shit-done/templates/discovery.md
Tom Boucher 1e6737cd8e feat(plan-phase): --research-phase flag + scrub stale slash-command refs (#3042, #3044) (#3045)
* feat(plan-phase): --research-phase flag absorbs deleted /gsd-research-phase + scrub stale refs (#3042, #3044)

#3042 (orphaned research-phase): /gsd-research-phase had a workflow file
but no slash-command stub. Rather than restore the orphan, the research-
only capability is now a flag on /gsd-plan-phase:

  /gsd-plan-phase --research-phase <N>

When set, the workflow scopes to phase N, runs the research step (Section
5 of the existing plan-phase workflow), then early-exits before the
planner/plan-checker/verifier chain.

Per RCA against the deleted standalone, the flag adds two modifiers to
fully cover the original surface (Option B from the RCA discussion):

- --view : print existing RESEARCH.md to stdout, no spawn. Cheapest mode
  for the correction-without-replanning loop the issue reporter
  explicitly called out. Errors with a clear hint if RESEARCH.md is
  missing.
- --research : reuse the existing "force re-research" semantics. In
  research-only mode this skips the existing-RESEARCH.md prompt and
  re-spawns unconditionally.
- Neither flag, RESEARCH.md exists : prompt update/view/skip. Mirrors
  the deleted standalone's existing-artifact menu (#3042 RCA).

#3044 (stale slash-command refs): scrubbed five deleted commands from
all user-facing surfaces, including English docs, 4 localized doc sets
(ja-JP, ko-KR, zh-CN, pt-BR), workflows, templates, and references.

  /gsd-check-todos          → /gsd-capture --list
  /gsd-new-workspace        → /gsd-workspace --new
  /gsd-status               → /gsd-progress
  /gsd-plan-milestone-gaps  → table rows / orphan sections removed
                              (PR #3038 only scrubbed workflows/agent;
                              missed the docs surfaces this PR covers)
  /gsd-research-phase       → /gsd-plan-phase --research-phase

Includes a fix to docs/issue-driven-orchestration.md (PR #3036)
which itself referenced /gsd-new-workspace 4 times — self-correction.

Removed:
- get-shit-done/workflows/research-phase.md (orphan, capability
  absorbed into --research-phase flag)

Tests:
- tests/bug-3042-3044-research-flag-and-stale-refs.test.cjs — 46
  structural-IR tests across both bugs:
  - argument-hint advertises --research-phase + --view
  - workflow parses --research-phase, sets RESEARCH_ONLY,
    early-exits before planner
  - --view prints RESEARCH.md without spawning
  - --research forces refresh in research-only mode
  - existing-RESEARCH.md prompt path with update/view/skip
  - workflows/research-phase.md is removed
  - 5 deleted slash-commands absent from 17 English user-facing
    surfaces + 16 localized doc surfaces (4 locales × 4 docs each)
  - replacement command tokens present where deleted ones lived

6950/6950 full suite pass. Lints clean.

Closes #3042
Closes #3044

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix: address all 8 CR findings on PR #3045

Major (3):
- get-shit-done/workflows/plan-phase.md:344 — added explicit early-exit
  guard at Section 5.1: "Skip if RESEARCH_ONLY=true". Without it, an LLM
  could fall through "use existing, skip to step 6" → planner spawn,
  violating the research-only contract. The guard makes the early-exit
  unreachable from any non-research-only branch.
- get-shit-done/references/continuation-format.md (3 examples) +
  zh-CN/.../continuation-format.md (3 examples) — pointed to
  `/gsd-plan-phase --research-phase` but docs/COMMANDS.md didn't
  document the flag. Added a full --research-phase + --view + --research
  modifier section to the /gsd-plan-phase flag table in COMMANDS.md so
  the canonical reference matches the continuation examples.

Minor (5):
- docs/FEATURES.md:1632 — `/gsd-plan-phase --research-phase` →
  `/gsd-plan-phase --research-phase <N>` (include required arg).
- get-shit-done/templates/README.md:46 — NN-VALIDATION.md producer
  reverted from `/gsd-plan-phase --research-phase` (Nyquist) to plain
  `/gsd-plan-phase` (Nyquist). VALIDATION.md is created during normal
  Nyquist flow, not research-only mode — the bulk replacement was
  wrong for that line.
- get-shit-done/workflows/help.md:89 — signature line was missing
  `--research`; added it alongside `--research-phase` and `--view`.
- tests/bug-3042-3044-...:197 — promptHasView/promptHasSkip were
  tautological (matched anywhere in 1700-line workflow). Tightened
  to a proximity check anchored on "RESEARCH.md already exists" prompt
  header within a 600-char window. Updated workflow to emit that
  literal phrase.
- tests/feat-2840-...:95 — workspace assertion used `/gsd-workspace`
  but the documented replacement is `/gsd-workspace --new`. Tightened
  to require both tokens (in 3 places: requiredCommands list, regex
  in conceptPairs, error message).

6950/6950 full suite pass. Lint clean.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-05-02 23:12:50 -04:00

4.0 KiB

Discovery Template

Template for .planning/phases/XX-name/DISCOVERY.md - shallow research for library/option decisions.

Purpose: Answer "which library/option should we use" questions during mandatory discovery in plan-phase.

For deep ecosystem research ("how do experts build this"), use /gsd-plan-phase --research-phase which produces RESEARCH.md.


File Template

---
phase: XX-name
type: discovery
topic: [discovery-topic]
---

<session_initialization>
Before beginning discovery, verify today's date:
!`date +%Y-%m-%d`

Use this date when searching for "current" or "latest" information.
Example: If today is 2025-11-22, search for "2025" not "2024".
</session_initialization>

<discovery_objective>
Discover [topic] to inform [phase name] implementation.

Purpose: [What decision/implementation this enables]
Scope: [Boundaries]
Output: DISCOVERY.md with recommendation
</discovery_objective>

<discovery_scope>
<include>
- [Question to answer]
- [Area to investigate]
- [Specific comparison if needed]
</include>

<exclude>
- [Out of scope for this discovery]
- [Defer to implementation phase]
</exclude>
</discovery_scope>

<discovery_protocol>

**Source Priority:**
1. **Context7 MCP** - For library/framework documentation (current, authoritative)
2. **Official Docs** - For platform-specific or non-indexed libraries
3. **WebSearch** - For comparisons, trends, community patterns (verify all findings)

**Quality Checklist:**
Before completing discovery, verify:
- [ ] All claims have authoritative sources (Context7 or official docs)
- [ ] Negative claims ("X is not possible") verified with official documentation
- [ ] API syntax/configuration from Context7 or official docs (never WebSearch alone)
- [ ] WebSearch findings cross-checked with authoritative sources
- [ ] Recent updates/changelogs checked for breaking changes
- [ ] Alternative approaches considered (not just first solution found)

**Confidence Levels:**
- HIGH: Context7 or official docs confirm
- MEDIUM: WebSearch + Context7/official docs confirm
- LOW: WebSearch only or training knowledge only (mark for validation)

</discovery_protocol>


<output_structure>
Create `.planning/phases/XX-name/DISCOVERY.md`:

```markdown
# [Topic] Discovery

## Summary
[2-3 paragraph executive summary - what was researched, what was found, what's recommended]

## Primary Recommendation
[What to do and why - be specific and actionable]

## Alternatives Considered
[What else was evaluated and why not chosen]

## Key Findings

### [Category 1]
- [Finding with source URL and relevance to our case]

### [Category 2]
- [Finding with source URL and relevance]

## Code Examples
[Relevant implementation patterns, if applicable]

## Metadata

<metadata>
<confidence level="high|medium|low">
[Why this confidence level - based on source quality and verification]
</confidence>

<sources>
- [Primary authoritative sources used]
</sources>

<open_questions>
[What couldn't be determined or needs validation during implementation]
</open_questions>

<validation_checkpoints>
[If confidence is LOW or MEDIUM, list specific things to verify during implementation]
</validation_checkpoints>
</metadata>

</output_structure>

<success_criteria>

  • All scope questions answered with authoritative sources
  • Quality checklist items completed
  • Clear primary recommendation
  • Low-confidence findings marked with validation checkpoints
  • Ready to inform PLAN.md creation </success_criteria>
**When to use discovery:** - Technology choice unclear (library A vs B) - Best practices needed for unfamiliar integration - API/library investigation required - Single decision pending

When NOT to use:

  • Established patterns (CRUD, auth with known library)
  • Implementation details (defer to execution)
  • Questions answerable from existing project context

When to use RESEARCH.md instead:

  • Niche/complex domains (3D, games, audio, shaders)
  • Need ecosystem knowledge, not just library choice
  • "How do experts build this" questions
  • Use /gsd-plan-phase --research-phase for these