a60e05c714
* fix(claude): restore namespaced /gsd:<command> references * test(claude): align slash-command expectations to /gsd: form * test(claude): align generated command references to /gsd: * test(claude): finish /gsd: namespace expectation updates
3.0 KiB
Thinking Partner Integration
Conditional extended thinking at workflow decision points. Activates when features.thinking_partner: true in .planning/config.json (default: false).
Tradeoff Detection Signals
The thinking partner activates when developer responses contain specific signals indicating competing priorities:
Keyword signals:
- "or" / "versus" / "vs" connecting two approaches
- "tradeoff" / "trade-off" / "tradeoffs"
- "on one hand" / "on the other hand"
- "pros and cons"
- "not sure between" / "torn between"
Structural signals:
- Developer lists 2+ competing options
- Developer asks "which is better" or "what would you recommend"
- Developer reverses a previous decision ("actually, maybe we should...")
When NOT to activate:
- Developer has already made a clear choice
- The "or" is rhetorical or trivial (e.g., "tabs or spaces" — use project convention)
- Simple yes/no questions
- Developer explicitly asks to move on
Integration Points
1. Discuss Phase — Tradeoff Deep-Dive
When: During discuss_areas step, after a developer answer reveals competing priorities.
What: Pause the normal question flow and offer a brief structured analysis:
I notice competing priorities here — {X} optimizes for {A} while {Y} optimizes for {B}.
Want me to think through the tradeoffs before we decide?
[Yes, analyze tradeoffs] / [No, I've decided]
If yes, provide a brief (3-5 bullet) analysis covering:
- What each approach optimizes for
- What each approach sacrifices
- Which aligns better with the project's stated goals (from PROJECT.md)
- A recommendation with reasoning
Then return to the normal discussion flow.
2. Plan Phase — Architectural Decision Analysis
When: During step 11 (Handle Checker Return), when the plan-checker flags issues containing architectural tradeoff keywords.
What: Before sending to the revision loop, analyze the architectural decision:
The plan-checker flagged an architectural tradeoff: {issue description}
Brief analysis:
- Option A: {approach} — {pros/cons}
- Option B: {approach} — {pros/cons}
- Recommendation: {choice} because {reasoning aligned with phase goals}
Apply this recommendation to the revision? [Yes] / [No, let me decide]
3. Explore — Approach Comparison (requires #1729)
When: During Socratic conversation, when multiple viable approaches emerge. Note: This integration point will be added when /gsd:explore (#1729) lands.
Configuration
{
"features": {
"thinking_partner": true
}
}
Default: false. The thinking partner is opt-in because it adds latency to interactive workflows.
Design Principles
- Lightweight — inline analysis, not a separate interactive session
- Opt-in — must be explicitly enabled, never activates by default
- Skippable — always offer "No, I've decided" to bypass
- Brief — 3-5 bullets max, not a full research report
- Aligned — recommendations reference PROJECT.md goals when available