Files
msd-core/get-shit-done/workflows/ui-review.md
forfrossen a72bebb379 fix(workflows): agent-skills query keys must match subagent_type (follow-up to #2555) (#2616)
* fix(workflows): agent-skills query keys must match subagent_type

Eight workflow files called `gsd-sdk query agent-skills <KEY>` with
a key that did not match any `subagent_type` Task() spawns in the
same workflow (or any existing `agents/<KEY>.md`):

- research-phase.md:45 — gsd-researcher    → gsd-phase-researcher
- plan-phase.md:36     — gsd-researcher    → gsd-phase-researcher
- plan-phase.md:38     — gsd-checker       → gsd-plan-checker
- quick.md:145         — gsd-checker       → gsd-plan-checker
- verify-work.md:36    — gsd-checker       → gsd-plan-checker
- new-milestone.md:207 — gsd-synthesizer   → gsd-research-synthesizer
- new-project.md:63    — gsd-synthesizer   → gsd-research-synthesizer
- ui-review.md:21      — gsd-ui-reviewer   → gsd-ui-auditor
- discuss-phase.md:114 — gsd-advisor       → gsd-advisor-researcher

Effect before this fix: users configuring `agent_skills.<correct-type>`
in .planning/config.json got no injection on these paths because the
workflow asked the SDK for a different (non-existent) key. The SDK
correctly returned "" for the unknown key, which then interpolated as
an empty string into the Task() prompt. Silent no-op.

The discuss-phase advisor case is a subtle variant — the spawn site
uses `subagent_type="general-purpose"` and loads the agent role via
`Read(~/.claude/agents/gsd-advisor-researcher.md)`. The injection key
must follow the agent identity (gsd-advisor-researcher), not the
technical spawn type.

This is a follow-up to #2555 — the SDK-side fix in that PR (#2587)
only becomes fully effective once the call sites use the right keys.

Adds `sdk/src/workflow-agent-skills-consistency.test.ts` as a
contract test: every `agent-skills <slug>` invocation in
`get-shit-done/workflows/**/*.md` must reference an existing
`agents/<slug>.md`. Fails loudly on future key typos.

Closes #2615

* test: harden workflow agent-skills regex per review feedback

Review (#2616): CodeRabbit flagged the `agent-skills <slug>` pattern
as too permissive (can match prose mentions of the string) and the
per-line scan as brittle (misses commands wrapped across lines).

- Require full `gsd-sdk query agent-skills` prefix before capture
  + `\b` around the pattern so prose references no longer match.
- Scan each file's full content (not line-by-line) so `\s+` can span
  newlines; resolve 1-based line number from match index.
- Add JSDoc on helpers and on QUERY_KEY_PATTERN.

Verified: RED against base (`f30da83`) produces the same 9 violations
as before; GREEN on fixed tree.

---------

Co-authored-by: forfrossen <forfrossensvart@gmail.com>
2026-04-23 12:40:56 -04:00

6.2 KiB

Retroactive 6-pillar visual audit of implemented frontend code. Standalone command that works on any project — GSD-managed or not. Produces scored UI-REVIEW.md with actionable findings.

<required_reading> @~/.claude/get-shit-done/references/ui-brand.md </required_reading>

<available_agent_types> Valid GSD subagent types (use exact names — do not fall back to 'general-purpose'):

  • gsd-ui-auditor — Audits UI against design requirements </available_agent_types>

0. Initialize

INIT=$(gsd-sdk query init.phase-op "${PHASE_ARG}")
if [[ "$INIT" == @file:* ]]; then INIT=$(cat "${INIT#@file:}"); fi
AGENT_SKILLS_UI_REVIEWER=$(gsd-sdk query agent-skills gsd-ui-auditor 2>/dev/null)

Parse: phase_dir, phase_number, phase_name, phase_slug, padded_phase, commit_docs.

UI_AUDITOR_MODEL=$(gsd-sdk query resolve-model gsd-ui-auditor --raw)

Display banner:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
 GSD ► UI AUDIT — PHASE {N}: {name}
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

1. Detect Input State

SUMMARY_FILES=$(ls "${PHASE_DIR}"/*-SUMMARY.md 2>/dev/null)
UI_SPEC_FILE=$(ls "${PHASE_DIR}"/*-UI-SPEC.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)
UI_REVIEW_FILE=$(ls "${PHASE_DIR}"/*-UI-REVIEW.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)

If SUMMARY_FILES empty: Exit — "Phase {N} not executed. Run /gsd:execute-phase {N} first."

Text mode (workflow.text_mode: true in config or --text flag): Set TEXT_MODE=true if --text is present in $ARGUMENTS OR text_mode from init JSON is true. When TEXT_MODE is active, replace every AskUserQuestion call with a plain-text numbered list and ask the user to type their choice number. This is required for non-Claude runtimes (OpenAI Codex, Gemini CLI, etc.) where AskUserQuestion is not available. If UI_REVIEW_FILE non-empty: Use AskUserQuestion:

  • header: "Existing UI Review"
  • question: "UI-REVIEW.md already exists for Phase {N}."
  • options:
    • "Re-audit — run fresh audit"
    • "View — display current review and exit"

If "View": display file, exit. If "Re-audit": continue.

2. Gather Context Paths

Build file list for auditor:

  • All SUMMARY.md files in phase dir
  • All PLAN.md files in phase dir
  • UI-SPEC.md (if exists — audit baseline)
  • CONTEXT.md (if exists — locked decisions)

3. Spawn gsd-ui-auditor

◆ Spawning UI auditor...

Build prompt:

Read ~/.claude/agents/gsd-ui-auditor.md for instructions.

<objective>
Conduct 6-pillar visual audit of Phase {phase_number}: {phase_name}
{If UI-SPEC exists: "Audit against UI-SPEC.md design contract."}
{If no UI-SPEC: "Audit against abstract 6-pillar standards."}
</objective>

<files_to_read>
- {summary_paths} (Execution summaries)
- {plan_paths} (Execution plans — what was intended)
- {ui_spec_path} (UI Design Contract — audit baseline, if exists)
- {context_path} (User decisions, if exists)
</files_to_read>

${AGENT_SKILLS_UI_REVIEWER}

<config>
phase_dir: {phase_dir}
padded_phase: {padded_phase}
</config>

Omit null file paths.

Task(
  prompt=ui_audit_prompt,
  subagent_type="gsd-ui-auditor",
  model="{UI_AUDITOR_MODEL}",
  description="UI Audit Phase {N}"
)

4. Handle Return

If ## UI REVIEW COMPLETE:

Display score summary:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
 GSD ► UI AUDIT COMPLETE ✓
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

**Phase {N}: {Name}** — Overall: {score}/24

| Pillar | Score |
|--------|-------|
| Copywriting | {N}/4 |
| Visuals | {N}/4 |
| Color | {N}/4 |
| Typography | {N}/4 |
| Spacing | {N}/4 |
| Experience Design | {N}/4 |

Top fixes:
1. {fix}
2. {fix}
3. {fix}

Full review: {path to UI-REVIEW.md}

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

## ▶ Next

`/clear` then one of:

- `/gsd:verify-work {N}` — UAT testing
- `/gsd:plan-phase {N+1}` — plan next phase

- `/gsd:verify-work {N}` — UAT testing
- `/gsd:plan-phase {N+1}` — plan next phase

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Automated UI Verification (when Playwright-MCP is available)

If mcp__playwright__* tools are accessible in this session:

  1. Navigate to each UI component described in the phase's UI-SPEC.md using mcp__playwright__navigate (or equivalent Playwright-MCP tool).
  2. Take a screenshot of each component using mcp__playwright__screenshot.
  3. Compare against the spec's visual requirements — dimensions, color palette, layout, spacing scale, and typography.
  4. Report any dimension, color, or layout discrepancies automatically as additional findings within the relevant pillar section of UI-REVIEW.md.
  5. Flag items that require human judgment (brand feel, content tone) as needs_human_review: true in the findings — these are surfaced to the user separately after the automated pass completes.

If Playwright-MCP is not available in this session, this section is skipped entirely. The audit falls back to the standard code-only review described above. No configuration change is required — the availability of mcp__playwright__* tools is detected at runtime.

5. Commit (if configured)

gsd-sdk query commit "docs(${padded_phase}): UI audit review" "${PHASE_DIR}/${PADDED_PHASE}-UI-REVIEW.md"

<success_criteria>

  • Phase validated
  • SUMMARY.md files found (execution completed)
  • Existing review handled (re-audit/view)
  • gsd-ui-auditor spawned with correct context
  • UI-REVIEW.md created in phase directory
  • Score summary displayed to user
  • Next steps presented </success_criteria>