Files

Tom Boucher 41dc475c46 refactor(workflows): extract discuss-phase modes/templates/advisor for progressive disclosure (closes #2551 ) (#2607 )

* refactor(workflows): extract discuss-phase modes/templates/advisor for progressive disclosure (closes #2551)

Splits 1,347-line workflows/discuss-phase.md into a 495-line dispatcher plus
per-mode files in workflows/discuss-phase/modes/ and templates in
workflows/discuss-phase/templates/. Mirrors the progressive-disclosure
pattern that #2361 enforced for agents.

- Per-mode files: power, all, auto, chain, text, batch, analyze, default, advisor
- Templates lazy-loaded at the step that produces the artifact (CONTEXT.md
  template at write_context, DISCUSSION-LOG.md template at git_commit,
  checkpoint.json schema when checkpointing)
- Advisor mode gated behind `[ -f $HOME/.claude/get-shit-done/USER-PROFILE.md ]`
  — inverse of #2174's --advisor flag (don't pay the cost when unused)
- scout_codebase phase-type→map selection table extracted to
  references/scout-codebase.md
- New tests/workflow-size-budget.test.cjs enforces tiered budgets across
  all workflows/*.md (XL=1700 / LARGE=1500 / DEFAULT=1000) plus the
  explicit <500 ceiling for discuss-phase.md per #2551
- Existing tests updated to read from the new file locations after the
  split (functional equivalence preserved — content moved, not removed)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(#2607): align modes/auto.md check_existing with parent (Update it, not Skip)

CodeRabbit flagged drift between the parent step (which auto-selects "Update
it") and modes/auto.md (which documented "Skip"). The pre-refactor file had
both — line 182 said "Skip" in the overview, line 250 said "Update it" in the
actual step. The step is authoritative. Fix the new mode file to match.

Refs: PR #2607 review comment 3127783430

* test(#2607): harden discuss-phase regression tests after #2551 split

CodeRabbit identified four test smells where the split weakened coverage:

- workflow-size-budget: assertion was unreachable (entered if-block on match,
  then asserted occurrences === 0 — always failed). Now unconditional.
- bug-2549-2550-2552: bounded-read assertion checked concatenated source, so
  src.includes('3') was satisfied by unrelated content in scout-codebase.md
  (e.g., "3-5 most relevant files"). Now reads parent only with a stricter
  regex. Also asserts SCOUT_REF exists.
- chain-flag-plan-phase: filter(existsSync) silently skipped a missing
  modes/chain.md. Now fails loudly via explicit asserts.
- discuss-checkpoint: same silent-filter pattern across three sources. Now
  asserts each required path before reading.

Refs: PR #2607 review comments 3127783457, 3127783452, plus nitpicks for
chain-flag-plan-phase.test.cjs:21-24 and discuss-checkpoint.test.cjs:22-27

* docs(#2607): fix INVENTORY count, context.md placeholders, scout grep portability

- INVENTORY.md: subdirectory note said "50 top-level references" but the
  section header now says 51. Updated to 51.
- templates/context.md: footer hardcoded XX-name instead of declared
  placeholders [X]/[Name], which would leak sample text into generated
  CONTEXT.md files. Now uses the declared placeholders.
- references/scout-codebase.md: no-maps fallback used grep -rl with
  "\\|" alternation (GNU grep only — silent on BSD/macOS grep). Switched
  to grep -rlE with extended regex for portability.

Refs: PR #2607 review comments 3127783404, 3127783448, plus nitpick for
scout-codebase.md:32-40

* docs(#2607): label fenced examples + clarify overlay/advisor precedence

- analyze.md / text.md / default.md: add language tags (markdown/text) to
  fenced example blocks to silence markdownlint MD040 warnings flagged by
  CodeRabbit (one fence in analyze.md, two in text.md, five in default.md).
- discuss-phase.md: document overlay stacking rules in discuss_areas — fixed
  outer→inner order --analyze → --batch → --text, with a pointer to each
  overlay file for mode-specific precedence.
- advisor.md: add tie-breaker rules for NON_TECHNICAL_OWNER signals — explicit
  technical_background overrides inferred signals; otherwise OR-aggregate;
  contradictory explanation_depth values resolve by most-recent-wins.

Refs: PR #2607 review comments 3127783415, 3127783437, plus nitpicks for
default.md:24, discuss-phase.md:345-365, and advisor.md:51-56

* fix(#2607): extract codebase_drift_gate body to keep execute-phase under XL budget

PR #2605 added 80 lines to execute-phase.md (1622 -> 1702), pushing it over
the XL_BUDGET=1700 line cap enforced by tests/workflow-size-budget.test.cjs
(introduced by this PR). Per the test's own remediation hint and #2551's
progressive-disclosure pattern, extract the codebase_drift_gate step body to
get-shit-done/workflows/execute-phase/steps/codebase-drift-gate.md and leave
a brief pointer in the workflow. execute-phase.md is now 1633 lines.

Budget is NOT relaxed; the offending workflow is tightened.

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

2026-04-22 21:57:24 -04:00

2.0 KiB

Raw Blame History

--batch mode — grouped question batches

Lazy-loaded overlay. Read this file from workflows/discuss-phase.md when --batch is present in $ARGUMENTS. Combinable with default, --all, --chain, --text, --analyze.

Argument parsing

Parse optional --batch from $ARGUMENTS:

Accept --batch, --batch=N, or --batch N
Default to 4 questions per batch when no number is provided
Clamp explicit sizes to 2–5 so a batch stays answerable
If --batch is absent, keep the existing one-question-at-a-time flow (default mode).

Effect on discuss_areas

--batch mode: ask 2–5 numbered questions in one plain-text turn per area, instead of the default 4 single-question AskUserQuestion turns.

Group closely related questions for the current area into a single message
Keep each question concrete and answerable in one reply
When options are helpful, include short inline choices per question rather than a separate AskUserQuestion for every item
After the user replies, reflect back the captured decisions, note any unanswered items, and ask only the minimum follow-up needed before moving on
Preserve adaptiveness between batches: use the full set of answers to decide the next batch or whether the area is sufficiently clear

Philosophy

Stay adaptive, but let the user choose the pacing.

Default mode: 4 single-question turns, then check whether to continue
--batch mode: 1 grouped turn with 2–5 numbered questions, then check whether to continue

Each answer set should reveal the next question or next batch.

Example batch

Authentication — please answer 1–4:

1. Which auth strategy?  (a) Session cookies  (b) JWT  (c) OAuth 2.0 + PKCE
2. Where do tokens live?  (a) httpOnly cookie  (b) localStorage  (c) memory only
3. Session lifetime?       (a) 1h  (b) 24h  (c) 30d  (d) configurable
4. Account recovery?       (a) email reset  (b) magic link  (c) both

Reply with your choices (e.g. "1c, 2a, 3b, 4c") or describe in your own words.

2.0 KiB Raw Blame History Unescape Escape