ac7587287b
* docs(#3812): say that Current Position is single-valued, and pin the behavior that makes it true #3812 shipped CLOSED with half its acceptance unmet. #3873 delivered cardinality for FRONTMATTER keys - current_phase/current_plan render as optional at docs/reference/state-md.md:89,91, covered by tests/gen-state-md-docs.test.cjs:374. The issue's actual ask was the ## Current Position BODY section, and that never landed. Surfaced by an /adr-phase-coverage audit of epic #3473; the issue was reopened rather than noted. The section now states three things: every field is single-valued, the section is overwritten rather than appended to, and a duplicate resolves to the FIRST occurrence with no warning - so a line appended in good faith is silently ignored rather than winning. Progress history belongs in ## Performance Metrics, two headings down, and the text now points there. The third claim is a behavioral promise about the reader, so it was VERIFIED BY EXECUTION before being written rather than inferred from the issue title: stateExtractField(<"Phase: 1 of 5 (First)" ... "Phase: 9 of 9 (Appended later)">, "Phase") -> "1 of 5 (First)" The mechanism is state-document.cjs:405 - the plain-line pattern ^<field>:[ \t]*(.+) carries flags im with NO g, so String.match returns the first hit. Writing "first wins" without running it would have repeated the exact error I had to retract twice in this epic already. A test pins the reader, not the prose. Three rows in tests/state.test.cjs: T1 (load-bearing) asserts the duplicated case resolves first; T2 asserts the ordinary single-field case still works, so a fix that only functions when duplicated cannot pass; T3 puts a Plan: line BETWEEN the two Phase: lines and asserts it resolves independently - negative space, because a reader returning the first line of the SECTION rather than the first matching FIELD would satisfy T1 alone. Proven to discriminate: a last-match variant returns "9 of 9 (Appended later)" and T1 reds. No assertion checks that the document contains a sentence. That is what local/no-source-grep exists to stop, and it would pin wording that is allowed to improve. The point of the test is that if that regex ever gains g and a last-match walk, the test fails - instead of the documentation quietly becoming a lie with nothing to notice. Prose only, no new heading. docs-state-md-locale-parity compares heading-level sequences by LCS rather than text, so added paragraphs cannot fail it while an added HEADING would fail all four locales. The constraint is structural, not stylistic - confirmed by running that comparison after the edit. The four locale copies are translated rather than left stale. They are not gate-enforced for prose, so "nothing fails" was available and is not the same as correct: leaving four documents asserting something the English one now contradicts is a correctness problem. Code spans and the anchor link stay untranslated - they name real tokens. The whole approach rests on one fact, checked first: ## Current Position at :196-208 sits OUTSIDE every generated marker region (:81-104, :138-151), so a hand edit survives --write. Re-confirmed after all five edits - gen-state-md-docs --check reports all 6 targets up to date. Had that been false the fix would have belonged in the generator, and a hand edit would have been silently reverted. One real gate failure fixed inline rather than reported: the new test's comments referenced docs/reference/state-md.md, which was not in that file's registered exempt-docs paths, and lint-docs-guard-registration failed lint:ci correctly. Registered. Known limit, named rather than folded in: gsd-tools validate/health still do NOT warn on a duplicated Phase:. #3812 records that as a "consider", not a requirement, and confirms none of the nine rules in src/health-diagnostic-rules/{state-consistency,phase-structure}.cts counts occurrences. Documenting the silent first-match is the delivered scope; making it loud is new scope and stays unclaimed. Closes #3812 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> * docs(#3812): the rule I documented was false — replace it with the measured one An isolated review returned two blockers. Both mine, and the first is the worse kind: I wrote a falsifiable rule into a reference page and got it wrong. 1. "A duplicate resolves to the FIRST occurrence" is FALSE. stateExtractField (src/state-document.cts:401-419) tries BOLD `**F:**` across the whole input, THEN plain `^F:`, THEN a pipe-table row. Form precedence beats document order. Measured against the built reader, all intra-section: Phase: A (plain) / **Phase:** B (bold, later) -> B LATER WINS Phase: A (indented) / Phase: B (plain, later) -> B LATER WINS Phase: A (plain) / | Phase | T (table) | -> A first wins My original verification tested plain-versus-plain, saw first-wins, and generalized to all forms. Measuring one case and claiming the general rule is the same error I have had to retract twice already in this epic. It is also worse than silence. The sentence told authors an appended line is safely ignored; a bold line appended "for emphasis" silently overrides the original. Someone trusting the doc would have corrupted their own state file. And #3812 never asked for a resolution rule - it asked for single-valued, overwrite-not-append, and where history goes. The rule was my unrequested addition. Replaced with the measured truth: resolution is by FORM (bold anywhere, then plain at line-start, then table row), and only WITHIN the winning form does the first occurrence win. Both consequences stated plainly - a higher-ranked form wins regardless of position, and an indented `Phase:` is invisible to the plain form. All five claims in the new paragraph verified by execution before being written, including the two I had wrong. 2. The tests tested the wrong case and passed for the wrong reason. T1/T3 put the second `Phase:` under `## Somewhere else` - the INTER-section case, which #2956 already fixed by scoping. #3812 says verbatim that #2956 "fixed the inter-section case and never addressed intra-section duplication", so the case the new prose describes was untested, and the fixtures passed because of section scoping rather than field resolution. They also called bare stateExtractField rather than the production chain, T2 could not discriminate first from last at all, and no fixture mixed forms - which is precisely why the false claim survived to review. Rewritten as four rows, all intra-section, all through the real stateCurrentPositionSlice -> stateExtractField path: plain-then-plain (first wins within a form), plain-then-bold (the bold LATER value wins - the row whose absence let the false claim ship), indented-then-plain (indented invisible), and sibling-field independence. Each proven to fail against a reader that disagrees. 3. Two dead anchors. pt-BR and zh-CN linked `#performance-metrics` while their own headings are `### Métricas de Desempenho` and `### 性能指标`. Both fixed to the anchor their own heading generates. ja-JP/ko-KR kept the English heading, so theirs already resolved. 4. A ja/ko sentence inverted its own meaning. Both rendered "which is the section designed to grow" with a bare demonstrative whose nearest referent read as Current Position - saying the opposite of the point. Rewritten so the clause attaches unambiguously to `## Performance Metrics`. 5. Cross-locale drift, flagged by the implementing agent rather than by me: after fixing EN, the four locales still stated the OLD false rule. Four documents asserting something measured to be wrong is worse than four saying nothing. All four now carry a faithful translation of the corrected paragraph, with code spans, each file's own anchor, and the ja/ko referent fix preserved. Verified: all five claims executed against the built reader; every rewritten test row proven to discriminate; gen-state-md-docs --check reports all 6 targets up to date, so the edits stay outside the generated marker regions; locale heading parity unaffected (prose only, no headings added); build:lib, lint and lint:ci all exit 0. Refs #3812 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> * docs(#3812): second false rule on the same page — scope the ranking to the section A second isolated review found a second false falsifiable claim, and the failure mode is the same one twice in a row: attempt 1: verified plain-vs-plain, wrote a claim about ALL FORMS attempt 2: verified bare stateExtractField, wrote a claim about THE DOCUMENT Both times the claim covered a wider surface than what was actually executed. The fix each time was not a better sentence, it was executing the surface the sentence describes. BLOCKER — "bold `**Phase:**` anywhere in the DOCUMENT wins" is false. ## Current Position / Phase: 1 of 5 + ## Archive / **Phase:** 88 bare stateExtractField(whole doc) -> "88 (other section)" PRODUCTION (slice then extract) -> "1 of 5 (in section)" #2956's section slice means production never hands another section to the matcher; a bold line in `## Archive`, or in the YAML frontmatter, is simply not seen. The ranking is real but scoped: it applies WITHIN `## Current Position`. I verified against the bare function and wrote a claim about the system. Every existing test placed its bold line inside the section, which is exactly why nothing contradicted the claim. T5 now puts a bold `**Phase:**` in `## Archive` and asserts production returns the in-section plain value, with the unscoped reader asserted to DISAGREE so the row proves the scoping rather than assuming it. BLOCKER — the changeset still shipped the ORIGINAL retracted claim. I corrected the page and left the release note saying "resolves to the first occurrence ... a second entry added in good faith is silently ignored". The note contradicted the page it announces, and the release note is what most people actually read. Rewritten to the corrected rule. MEDIUM — the concession was inverted. It read "wins even if it comes FIRST in the file", which is the vacuous direction; the surprising case, and the one the very next clause illustrates with an APPENDED bold line, is "even if it comes LAST". All four locales reproduced the inversion faithfully, so it was an EN-source defect rather than translation drift. Two sharp edges now named, both measured: a bold `**Phase:**` followed only by trailing spaces resolves to an EMPTY STRING and does not fall through to a valid plain line below (T6 pins it); and `| **Phase:** | 3 of 4 |` short-circuits to the bold form and returns the literal `"| 3 of 4 |"`. A page that teaches form ranking has to say where the ranking bites. Also fixed: all five files labelled the link `## Performance Metrics` while the heading is `### Performance Metrics`. Anchors resolved correctly everywhere; only the label's level was wrong. Every clause in the final paragraph re-verified through the PRODUCTION chain (stateCurrentPositionSlice -> stateExtractField), clause by clause, before being written: bold in another section does not win; bold in frontmatter does not win; bold appended last does win; first wins within one form; trailing-space bold yields empty. All four locales carry the same corrected rule. gen-state-md-docs --check reports all 6 targets up to date; heading counts unchanged at 20/20 across all five files, so locale heading-parity is untouched; build:lib, lint and lint:ci all exit 0. Refs #3812 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> * chore(#3812): backfill changeset pr number Refs #3812 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: sim <sim@local> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Documentação do GSD Core
A documentação está organizada em quatro quadrantes: tutoriais ajudam você a aprender na prática, guias de instruções resolvem tarefas específicas, referência apresenta fatos autorizados, e explicação explora conceitos e decisões de design.
Versões por idioma: English · Português (pt-BR) · 日本語 · 简体中文
Tutorials
- Seu primeiro projeto — da instalação à primeira fase entregue, um caminho garantido
- Integrando uma base de código existente — leve o GSD Core a um repositório já existente
How-to guides
- Instalar no seu ambiente de execução — passos de instalação específicos para cada um dos 15 ambientes de execução suportados
- Discutir uma fase — registrar decisões de implementação antes do início do planejamento
- Planejar uma fase — executar pesquisa, decompor o trabalho e verificar a qualidade do plano
- Executar uma fase — rodar planos em ondas paralelas com subagentes com contexto renovado
- Verificar e entregar — revisar o trabalho concluído, diagnosticar falhas e criar o PR
- Rodar fases de forma autônoma — usar o modo autônomo para execução de fases sem supervisão
- Lidar com tarefas rápidas e ágeis — usar
/gsd-quicke/gsd-fastpara trabalho avulso fora do ciclo de fases - Configurar perfis de modelo — alternar entre níveis de modelo: qualidade, equilibrado e econômico
- Configurar revisão entre IAs — configurar uma segunda IA para revisar o código produzido pelo agente principal
- Trabalhar em paralelo com workstreams — executar linhas de trabalho independentes simultaneamente usando workstreams
- Isolar trabalho com workspaces — usar workspaces para isolar mudanças experimentais ou arriscadas
- Depurar uma execução com falha — diagnosticar e recuperar de execuções de fase quebradas ou incompletas
- Explorar e esboçar — usar
/gsd-spikee/gsd-sketchpara trabalho exploratório antes de comprometer com um plano - Projetar uma fase de UI — usar o ciclo de fase de UI para trabalho de frontend e visual
- Conduzir o GSD a partir de uma issue do rastreador — iniciar uma fase a partir de uma issue do GitHub, Linear ou Jira
- Migrar do GSD 2 — atualizar um projeto GSD 2 existente para o GSD Core
- Atualizar o GSD — executar novamente o instalador para obter a versão mais recente
- Recuperar e solucionar problemas — corrigir problemas comuns, reconstruir contexto e desinstalar
Referência
- Comandos — todos os comandos com flags e exemplos
- Configuração — schema completo de configuração, perfis de modelo, estratégias de branching git
- Ferramentas CLI — API programática
gsd-tools.cjspara workflows e agentes - Funcionalidades — índice completo de funcionalidades
- Inventário — skills instaladas e mapa de superfície
- Schema do STATE.md — referência campo a campo para
.planning/STATE.md - Schema do CONTEXT.md — referência campo a campo para
.planning/phases/<N>/CONTEXT.md - Schema do PLAN.md — referência campo a campo para
.planning/phases/<N>/PLAN.md - Artefatos de planejamento — todos os arquivos
.planning/e seus papéis
Explicação
- Engenharia de contexto — como a degradação de contexto se forma e como o GSD Core a previne
- O ciclo de fase — racional de design para o ciclo Discuss → Plan → Execute → Verify → Ship
- Orquestração multi-agente — como os subagentes são criados, delimitados e coordenados
- Modelo de segurança — limites de confiança, permissões e automação segura
- Arquitetura — arquitetura do sistema, modelo de agentes e fluxo de dados
- Modos de discussão — modo de suposições vs. modo de entrevista para
/gsd-discuss-phase - Monitoramento de contexto — arquitetura do hook de monitoramento da janela de contexto
- Orquestração orientada por issues — receita para conduzir o GSD a partir de uma issue do rastreador usando primitivos existentes
Relacionados
- README raiz — página inicial, início rápido e visão geral da documentação
- Changelog — histórico de versões