Files
msd-core/gsd-core/workflows/discovery-phase.md
Tom Boucher 463cffd894 chore(#604): rename get-shit-done/ runtime directory to gsd-core/ (#615)
* chore(#604): rename get-shit-done/ runtime directory to gsd-core/

Renames the installed runtime directory `get-shit-done/` to `gsd-core/` so the
on-disk name matches the package (`@opengsd/gsd-core`), repo, and binary
(`gsd-tools`). The npm package name and binary are unchanged; npx/npm consumers
are unaffected.

Mechanical (bulk, ~90% of the diff):
- `git mv get-shit-done gsd-core`
- Swept path/identifier references across the repo via
  `perl -pe 's/get-shit-done(?!-\w)/gsd-core/g'`. The negative lookahead
  preserves the five legitimate slug variants that are NOT the directory:
  get-shit-done-{OLD,cc,classic,cli,redux} (old package/repo names).
- Build/manifest wiring: package.json (bin, files, coverage globs),
  tsconfig.build.json (outDir), ~86 .gitignore build-output entries,
  stryker.config.mjs, scan-ignore files, install.js path strings.
- Frozen (not rewritten): CHANGELOG.md history; translated docs
  (README.<locale>.md and docs/{ja-JP,ko-KR,pt-BR,zh-CN}/).

New logic (review here):
- src/installer-migrations/003-rename-get-shit-done-to-gsd-core.cts: a proper
  ADR-0008 installer migration. On upgrade it walks the legacy
  `~/.claude/get-shit-done/` tree, classifies each file via the prior install
  manifest, and emits remove-managed / backup-and-remove for managed files
  while PRESERVING unknown user-added files. Symlink-safe (skips a symlinked
  root and symlinked entries; bounds-checks every path under configDir). The
  framework rolls back on install failure. Emptied dirs may remain (framework
  has no recursive dir-removal primitive) — documented.
- scripts/lint-legacy-dir-name.cjs: CI regression guard forbidding the bare
  `get-shit-done` directory token (split token to avoid self-match; case-
  insensitive; `(?!-\w)` lookahead allows the slug variants; allowlists
  CHANGELOG, translated docs, and `gsd-allow-legacy-name` marker lines).
  Wired into the lint-tests CI job.
- Restored scripts/lint-package-identity-drift.cjs detection regexes (the
  mechanical sweep had wrongly rewritten the old-name patterns it exists to
  detect) and marked them as intentional legacy references.
- TDD tests for the migration and the guard; do.md slash-command guard regex
  tightened so a `/gsd-core/bin` path segment is not mistaken for a command;
  changeset + docs/installer-migrations.md row added.

Breaking: the installed runtime path moves `~/.claude/get-shit-done/` ->
`~/.claude/gsd-core/`. Migration 003 removes the stale legacy dir's managed
files (preserving user files) on upgrade. Users with custom hooks/configs
hardcoding the old path must update them.

Closes #604

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(#604): unsweep pending changesets + allowlist injection-example docs

CI fixes for the rename PR:
- Do not sweep pending .changeset/*.md (ephemeral release-note fragments,
  like CHANGELOG); reverted those body edits so 5 pre-existing malformed
  fragments (missing type/pr) no longer enter the PR diff and trip docs-lint.
  Allowlisted .changeset/ in the legacy-name guard accordingly.
- Allowlisted TEST-EXAMPLES.md and docs/explanation/security-model.md in
  prompt-injection-scan.sh: they contain intentional injection examples /
  security-model prose; the path-reference rewrites are kept.

CodeQL alerts on this PR are pre-existing (alert lines unchanged by this PR;
none in the new migration/guard) and are out of scope for the rename.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(#604): resolve CodeQL alerts surfaced on this PR

The rename diff touched files carrying pre-existing CodeQL findings; per the
no-pre-existing-dismissal rule, fixing every surfaced alert rather than waving
them off. All behavior-preserving:

- scripts/ci-test-scope.cjs: build the config-path match from string
  .includes() instead of a RegExp over an arg-derived value (js/regex-injection).
- src/profile-output.cts: escape backslashes before pipe-escaping desc/safeName
  so the table-cell escape is complete (js/incomplete-sanitization).
- tests/{bug-2643,bug-2808,docs-parity-live-registry}: two-pass HTML-comment
  strip so a bare/unclosed `<!--` cannot survive (js/incomplete-multi-character-sanitization).
- tests/inline-plan-threshold: drop the no-op `\s`->`\s` identity replace,
  keep the meaningful POSIX-class conversion (js/identity-replacement).

Verified: build:lib green; the touched test files + ci-test-scope + profile-output
suites pass; lint:legacy-name clean.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(#604): correctly resolve remaining CodeQL alerts (regex-injection + sanitization)

The prior commit's fixes for two alerts were ineffective:
- ci-test-scope.cjs js/regex-injection: the alert is the CLI-arg-derived `file`
  reaching static regex `.test(file)` calls (not the config rule). Removed ALL
  regex over file/t — startsWith/includes/=== string checks + an isWindowsHint
  helper — so there is no regex sink for the tainted value.
- js/incomplete-multi-character-sanitization (3 test files): a single
  `.replace(/<!--...-->/g,'')` can let `<!--` re-form. Replaced with a fixpoint
  loop (replace until stable) plus a final bare-opener strip.

Verified: no regex over file/t remains; ci-test-scope + the 3 test suites pass;
lint:legacy-name clean.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(#604): make ci-test-scope + comment-strippers regex-free to clear CodeQL

CodeQL flags the regex PATTERNS syntactically (regex-injection on the
--files arg split; incomplete-multi-character-sanitization on the <!--...-->
replace), so loop fixes do not satisfy it. Made these paths regex-free:
- ci-test-scope.cjs splitFiles: char-by-char separator tokenizer (no /[,\\s]+/).
- 3 test files: indexOf/slice HTML-comment stripper (no .replace(/<!--/)).
Behavior preserved; ci-test-scope + the 3 suites pass; guard clean.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(#604): unblock security base64 scan on the large rename diff

The security job hit its 10m timeout: base64-scan.sh choked on the binary
test fixture tests/feat-3594-parser-property-style.test.cjs (embedded NUL/
non-UTF8 bytes -> thousands of bogus blobs + "ignored null byte" warnings),
and the ~800-file rename diff is slow to scan regardless.

- scripts/base64-scan.sh: skip binary-by-content files (grep -Iq .) — they
  can't carry base64-obfuscated *text* and feeding NUL bytes through the
  per-line scanner is pathologically slow. collect_files already filtered
  binary *extensions*; this catches binary *content* in text extensions.
- .github/workflows/security-scan.yml: raise the security job timeout 10m->30m
  to accommodate very large diffs (the scan itself is unchanged).

Verified locally: scan skips the fixture, 0 "ignored null byte" warnings,
0 findings, exit 0.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(#604): sweep get-shit-done refs introduced by merging next

The branch was updated with next (#614/#384/#618 etc.), which reference the
get-shit-done/ dir (still named that on next). Swept the stale references in
the merged files to gsd-core so the rename stays consistent and lint:legacy-name
passes:
- commands/gsd/discuss-phase.md (runtime-launcher shim paths)
- src/core.cts (getAgentsDir layout comments)
- tests/bug-384-agents-runtime-aware.test.cjs (require path to runtime lib)

Verified: guard 0 violations; build green.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(#604): exclude gsd-core/ path segments from bug-3683 command cross-ref invariant

The #614 runtime-launcher shim added to discuss-phase.md references
`${_GSD_RUNTIME_ROOT}/gsd-core/bin/...`. bug-3683's REF_PATTERN excluded path-y
refs only via lookbehind, but `}` precedes `/gsd-core/` in the shim, so it
mis-read the directory path as a dangling `/gsd-core` command ref (same class as
the #604 bug-2954 fix). Added a trailing `(?![\w-]*\/)` so `/gsd-<x>/...` path
segments are not treated as slash-command references.

Verified locally on BOTH platforms before pushing:
- mac (node 26) full suite: 0 failures
- gsd-test-runner (linux, node22 image) full suite: 0 failures
- bug-3683 + bug-2954 pass.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(#604): lazily resolve findProjectRoot in gsd-tools (harden flaky CI)

CI intermittently failed state.test's gsd-tools subprocess with
"findProjectRoot is not a function" (flip-flopping across legs; not reproducible
on mac full suite, gsd-test linux full suite, test:unit, or state.test x8).
findProjectRoot is a re-export from core.cjs (sourced from project-root.cjs);
binding it via destructure at module-load can be undefined under a load-ordering
edge. Resolve it lazily at call time via a small wrapper so the lookup happens
after core.cjs is fully initialized.

Verified green on BOTH platforms before pushing:
- mac (node 26) full suite: 0 failures
- gsd-test-runner (linux, node22) full suite: 0 failures
- state.test.cjs: 106/106; gsd-tools loads cleanly.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(#604): allowlist verification-patterns.md placeholder examples in secret scan

The rename git-mv'd references/verification-patterns.md into gsd-core/, pulling
it into the secret-scan diff. It documents stub/placeholder RED-FLAG env-var
examples (illustrative Stripe test-key / database-URL / API-key placeholders) —
not real credentials. Added it to .secretscanignore with the strict annotation,
mirroring the existing gsd-core/workflows/plan-phase.md exception.

Verified locally: secret-scan-lint --strict OK; secret-scan --diff origin/next
exits 0 with 0 findings.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-06-02 18:35:29 -04:00

8.4 KiB

Execute discovery at the appropriate depth level. Produces DISCOVERY.md (for Level 2-3) that informs PLAN.md creation.

Called from plan-phase.md's mandatory_discovery step with a depth parameter.

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

<depth_levels> This workflow supports three depth levels:

Level Name Time Output When
1 Quick Verify 2-5 min No file, proceed with verified knowledge Single library, confirming current syntax
2 Standard 15-30 min DISCOVERY.md Choosing between options, new integration
3 Deep Dive 1+ hour Detailed DISCOVERY.md with validation gates Architectural decisions, novel problems

Depth is determined by plan-phase.md before routing here. </depth_levels>

<source_hierarchy> MANDATORY: Context7 BEFORE WebSearch

Claude's training data is 6-18 months stale. Always verify.

  1. Context7 MCP FIRST - Current docs, no hallucination
  2. Official docs - When Context7 lacks coverage
  3. WebSearch LAST - For comparisons and trends only

See ~/.claude/gsd-core/templates/discovery.md <discovery_protocol> for full protocol. </source_hierarchy>

Check the depth parameter passed from plan-phase.md: - `depth=verify` → Level 1 (Quick Verification) - `depth=standard` → Level 2 (Standard Discovery) - `depth=deep` → Level 3 (Deep Dive)

Route to appropriate level workflow below.

**Level 1: Quick Verification (2-5 minutes)**

For: Single known library, confirming syntax/version still correct.

Process:

  1. Resolve library in Context7:

    mcp__context7__resolve-library-id with libraryName: "[library]"
    
  2. Fetch relevant docs:

    mcp__context7__get-library-docs with:
    - context7CompatibleLibraryID: [from step 1]
    - topic: [specific concern]
    
  3. Verify:

    • Current version matches expectations
    • API syntax unchanged
    • No breaking changes in recent versions
  4. If verified: Return to plan-phase.md with confirmation. No DISCOVERY.md needed.

  5. If concerns found: Escalate to Level 2.

Output: Verbal confirmation to proceed, or escalation to Level 2.

**Level 2: Standard Discovery (15-30 minutes)**

For: Choosing between options, new external integration.

Process:

  1. Identify what to discover:

    • What options exist?
    • What are the key comparison criteria?
    • What's our specific use case?
  2. Context7 for each option:

    For each library/framework:
    - mcp__context7__resolve-library-id
    - mcp__context7__get-library-docs (mode: "code" for API, "info" for concepts)
    
  3. Official docs for anything Context7 lacks.

  4. WebSearch for comparisons:

    • "[option A] vs [option B] {current_year}"
    • "[option] known issues"
    • "[option] with [our stack]"
  5. Cross-verify: Any WebSearch finding → confirm with Context7/official docs.

  6. Create DISCOVERY.md using ~/.claude/gsd-core/templates/discovery.md structure:

    • Summary with recommendation
    • Key findings per option
    • Code examples from Context7
    • Confidence level (should be MEDIUM-HIGH for Level 2)
  7. Return to plan-phase.md.

Output: .planning/phases/XX-name/DISCOVERY.md

**Level 3: Deep Dive (1+ hour)**

For: Architectural decisions, novel problems, high-risk choices.

Process:

  1. Scope the discovery using ~/.claude/gsd-core/templates/discovery.md:

    • Define clear scope
    • Define include/exclude boundaries
    • List specific questions to answer
  2. Exhaustive Context7 research:

    • All relevant libraries
    • Related patterns and concepts
    • Multiple topics per library if needed
  3. Official documentation deep read:

    • Architecture guides
    • Best practices sections
    • Migration/upgrade guides
    • Known limitations
  4. WebSearch for ecosystem context:

    • How others solved similar problems
    • Production experiences
    • Gotchas and anti-patterns
    • Recent changes/announcements
  5. Cross-verify ALL findings:

    • Every WebSearch claim → verify with authoritative source
    • Mark what's verified vs assumed
    • Flag contradictions
  6. Create comprehensive DISCOVERY.md:

    • Full structure from ~/.claude/gsd-core/templates/discovery.md
    • Quality report with source attribution
    • Confidence by finding
    • If LOW confidence on any critical finding → add validation checkpoints
  7. Confidence gate: If overall confidence is LOW, present options before proceeding.

  8. Return to plan-phase.md.

Output: .planning/phases/XX-name/DISCOVERY.md (comprehensive)

**For Level 2-3:** Define what we need to learn.

Ask: What do we need to learn before we can plan this phase?

  • Technology choices?
  • Best practices?
  • API patterns?
  • Architecture approach?
Use ~/.claude/gsd-core/templates/discovery.md.

Include:

  • Clear discovery objective
  • Scoped include/exclude lists
  • Source preferences (official docs, Context7, current year)
  • Output structure for DISCOVERY.md
Run the discovery: - Use web search for current info - Use Context7 MCP for library docs - Prefer current year sources - Structure findings per template Write `.planning/phases/XX-name/DISCOVERY.md`: - Summary with recommendation - Key findings with sources - Code examples if applicable - Metadata (confidence, dependencies, open questions, assumptions) After creating DISCOVERY.md, check confidence level.

If confidence is LOW:

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. Use AskUserQuestion:

  • header: "Low Conf."
  • question: "Discovery confidence is LOW: [reason]. How would you like to proceed?"
  • options:
    • "Dig deeper" - Do more research before planning
    • "Proceed anyway" - Accept uncertainty, plan with caveats
    • "Pause" - I need to think about this

If confidence is MEDIUM: Inline: "Discovery complete (medium confidence). [brief reason]. Proceed to planning?"

If confidence is HIGH: Proceed directly, just note: "Discovery complete (high confidence)."

If DISCOVERY.md has open_questions:

Present them inline: "Open questions from discovery:

  • [Question 1]
  • [Question 2]

These may affect implementation. Acknowledge and proceed? (yes / address first)"

If "address first": Gather user input on questions, update discovery.

``` Discovery complete: .planning/phases/XX-name/DISCOVERY.md Recommendation: [one-liner] Confidence: [level]

What's next?

  1. Discuss phase context (/gsd:discuss-phase [current-phase])
  2. Create phase plan (/gsd:plan-phase [current-phase])
  3. Refine discovery (dig deeper)
  4. Review discovery

NOTE: DISCOVERY.md is NOT committed separately. It will be committed with phase completion.
</step>

</process>

<success_criteria>
**Level 1 (Quick Verify):**
- Context7 consulted for library/topic
- Current state verified or concerns escalated
- Verbal confirmation to proceed (no files)

**Level 2 (Standard):**
- Context7 consulted for all options
- WebSearch findings cross-verified
- DISCOVERY.md created with recommendation
- Confidence level MEDIUM or higher
- Ready to inform PLAN.md creation

**Level 3 (Deep Dive):**
- Discovery scope defined
- Context7 exhaustively consulted
- All WebSearch findings verified against authoritative sources
- DISCOVERY.md created with comprehensive analysis
- Quality report with source attribution
- If LOW confidence findings → validation checkpoints defined
- Confidence gate passed
- Ready to inform PLAN.md creation
</success_criteria>