8df5cb36c2
* test(#2951): pin the absent-evidence provenance contract (failing first) 17 tests / 22 anchors on the deployed agent text. Measured against the parent commit: 20 anchors fail, 2 pass. The two that pass are the sibling-integrity guards on the package-name and in-repo-value rules -- green before and after is their intended signature. Refs #2951 * enhance(#2951): refuse [VERIFIED] for a compatibility claim resting on absent metadata A claim of the form "X does not support Y" drawn from MISSING metadata -- no python_requires, no engines field, no per-version classifier, no changelog entry, no matching support-matrix row -- no longer earns [VERIFIED] however authoritative the source consulted. An absence is silence about every value, so the same evidence would "prove" both the version being ruled out and the version being standardized on. The only route from an absence to [VERIFIED] is a positive falsification attempt with its failing output pasted; everything short of that is [ASSUMED], which the file already routes to "needs user confirmation before becoming a locked decision". Third member of the family beside the package-name and in-repo-value provenance rules, mirroring PR #2768's shape. A present declared constraint and an affirmatively documented incompatibility are untouched. Closes #2951 * fix(#2951): close the allow-list ambiguity and the mutation gap review found Findings from the isolated adversarial pass and the two-axis review, all fixed: MAJOR (x2, one root cause) -- the absence clause and the present-constraint carve-out gave opposite verdicts on the same evidence for the commonest real case: a classifier list enumerating :: 3.9 through :: 3.13 with no :: 3.14. A researcher could read the enumerated list as a "declared" positive constraint and re-earn [VERIFIED], which is also the evasion vector. The rule now states the decision procedure -- does the declaration bound EVERY value or only the ones it names -- and closes the positive-reframing restatement explicitly. New contract test pins all four clauses. MAJOR -- 'licenses a positive falsification attempt as the route to [VERIFIED]' asserted two independent substrings and never that the route lands on [VERIFIED]. A mutant swapping the tag for [CITED] or [ASSUMED] inverted the rule and survived all 17 tests. Now pinned as one joined sentence. MINOR -- the attributable-failure test regex-matched illustrative examples ("a missing certificate, a wrong host"), so a copy-edit would break it for no reason; relaxed to the substantive clause. The no-paraphrase guard counted only the heading, missing the drift mode in its own name; it now also pins the core proposition to one occurrence, and the test name matches what it checks. An off-by-one in the new allow-list regex bound (141 actual vs 140) is fixed. MINOR -- docs/AGENTS.md listed four of the five governed absence forms while the agent prose, docs/COMMANDS.md and the changeset listed five; three copies disagreeing on list membership is the drift this repo treats as a defect. SCOPE -- removed docs/how-to/verify-a-dependency-compatibility-claim.md and its docs/README.md index line. Both reviewers flagged them as a seventh and eighth surface beyond the six the requester capped, and CONTRIBUTING's "Agent or skill change" row requires only docs/AGENTS.md. The actionable four-case guidance is retained in docs/COMMANDS.md, which is inside the approved scope. Ack byte figures corrected for the final size: 44250 -> 46602 (+2352), 2550 bytes headroom under the LARGE cap of 49152. Refs #2951 * docs(#2951): restore the how-to the phase gate requires Reverses the removal in 6404b43d3. Both /code-review axes had flagged docs/how-to/verify-a-dependency-compatibility-claim.md and its docs/README.md index line as a seventh and eighth surface beyond the six the requester capped, and CONTRIBUTING.md's required-docs row for an "Agent or skill change" names only docs/AGENTS.md, so they were dropped. gsd-phase-gate.cjs then denied gh pr create: it refuses when the recorded enablement sequence has more than one step and the how-to quadrant is empty. The sequence here is genuinely four steps -- run plan-phase, read the [ASSUMED] claim, probe or cite or accept it unlocked, then answer discuss-phase's checkpoint -- and the last step lands on a different capability's surface, so a reference table cannot carry it. Compressing the sequence to one step to unlock howToSkipReason would be gaming the gate, which is the same Goodhart failure this whole change exists to close. A machine-enforced repo gate outranks two reviewers' scope preference and my own reading, so the page is restored and the PR body discloses the two extra surfaces instead of hiding them. Reverting is a one-file change if a maintainer prefers the tighter scope. Refs #2951 * chore(#2951): backfill the changeset PR number pr: 0 -> 3718 now that the real PR exists. The placeholder fails scripts/changeset/lint.cjs with fail_invalid_fragment, which also blocks lint-docs-required from consuming the fragment. Refs #2951 --------- Co-authored-by: sim <sim@local>
GSD Core
Git. Ship. Done.
English · Português · 简体中文 · 日本語 · 한국어
A light-weight meta-prompting, context engineering, and spec-driven development system for Claude Code, OpenCode, Antigravity CLI, Kimi CLI, Kilo, Codex, Copilot, Cursor, Windsurf, and more.
What is GSD Core
GSD Core is a context-engineering and spec-driven development framework that drives AI coding agents (Claude Code, Codex, Antigravity CLI, Kimi CLI, Copilot, Cursor, and more) through a disciplined phase loop. It solves context rot — the quality degradation that accumulates as an AI fills its context window — by running all heavy research, planning, and execution work in fresh-context subagents while keeping your main session lean.
How it works
Each milestone repeats the same five-step loop, one phase at a time:
- Discuss — capture implementation decisions before anything is planned
- Plan — research, decompose, and verify the plan fits a fresh context window
- Execute — run plans in parallel waves; each executor starts with a clean 200k-token context
- Verify — walk through what was built; diagnose and fix before declaring done
- Ship — create the PR, archive the phase, repeat for the next one
Quickstart
npx @opengsd/gsd-core@latest
The installer prompts for your runtime (Claude Code, OpenCode, Antigravity CLI, Kimi CLI, Kilo, Codex, Copilot, Cursor, Windsurf, and more) and whether to install globally or locally. The installer is required for cross-runtime compatibility — do not copy files from agents/ or commands/ directly.
On another runtime or without Node.js? See Install on your runtime.
Once installed, start a new project or onboard an existing repo:
/gsd-new-project # greenfield project
/gsd-onboard # existing codebase
New here? Follow Your first project for a guided walkthrough from install to first shipped phase, or Onboarding an existing codebase for brownfield setup.
Documentation
What's new in 1.7.0 → docs/whats-new-1.7.0.md
Tutorials — learning by doing:
How-to guides — task-focused recipes:
Reference — authoritative facts:
Explanation — concepts and design decisions:
Full index: docs/README.md. Other languages: 日本語 · 한국어 · Português · 简体中文.
Why it works
Most AI-coding setups fail at scale because context bloat silently degrades output quality, there is no shared memory between sessions, and nothing verifies that code actually works. GSD Core solves all three: heavy work runs in fresh subagents, structured artifacts like STATE.md and CONTEXT.md survive session boundaries, and the verify step walks through what was built and generates fix plans before a phase is declared done. See docs/explanation/context-engineering.md for the full reasoning.
Troubleshooting? See docs/how-to/recover-and-troubleshoot.md.
Community
| Project | Platform |
|---|---|
| gsd-opencode | Original OpenCode port |
| Discord | Community support |
Star History
License
MIT License. See LICENSE for details.
Claude Code is powerful. GSD Core makes it reliable.