* docs(#2782): how-to for declaring a reviewer lane in a capability
ADR-2782 shipped the Reviewer Lane capability surface in 1.9.0, but the
only documentation was reference (capability-manifest.md) and rationale
(ADR-2782). A capability author had no task-oriented path from "I have a
review CLI" to "/gsd:review invokes it".
Adds docs/how-to/ship-a-reviewer-lane.md: role selection, the spawn and
openai-http worked examples, federated config ownership, the
review-lane query surface as the verification step, what the install
disclosure and egress-host re-verification mean for the author, and the
data-only boundary with the two named CLIs that do not fit today.
Also corrects the manifest reference's `invoke` row, which understated
three enums against the shipped validator: promptChannel omitted `argv`,
effortChannel omitted `env`, and the openai-http sub-shape plus the
required-with-file-arg `outputArg` were undocumented entirely.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
* docs(#2782): correct four claims found by the two orthogonal reviews
Security review (1 major, 2 minor):
- "a reserved slug" implied the gsd-/anthropic- namespace rule, which
guards the capability id, not reviewer.slug. The slug guard is
isReservedName (__proto__/constructor/prototype), a prototype-pollution
barrier. Both rules are now stated and kept apart.
- Added ADR-2782 D5's own caveat verbatim: disclosure and host pinning
make the channel visible, pinned and revocable, not safe, and
consent-at-install is a weaker gate for a standing egress channel than
for a hook.
- Named integrity/SHA pinning and engines.gsd as the controls that make
the disclosure tamper-evident and the version range enforceable.
Correctness review (1 major, 1 minor):
- Claimed a name collision is "a hard failure at install". It is not.
installCapability never runs validateCrossCapability; the check runs in
loadRegistry, and a colliding overlay is dropped from acceptedMap with a
warning while the install reports success. Documented as the quiet
failure mode it is, with the symptom to look for.
- The feature-only field list omitted hooks and activationKey, both of
which FEATURE_FIELDS_FORBIDDEN_ON_REVIEWER rejects.
Both worked examples re-validated against validateCapability() -> [].
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
* docs(#2782): restore Kimi Code to the cross-AI reviewer list
set-up-cross-ai-review.md named eleven reviewers; twelve lanes ship. The
kimi-code lane (added by #2718, declared as manifest data by #2798) was
never added here — the same roster-drift class as #2781, which #2800's
parity gate covers for COMMANDS.md and FEATURES.md but not for how-to
prose.
Also points readers at the declared-lane model rather than a static list:
the roster is now generated, a capability can ship its own lane, and
`gsd-tools review-lane sections` answers "what do I actually have".
Verified against the twelve declared bodies in capabilities/*/capability.json.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
* docs(#2782): use the invocation form the runtime descriptors actually declare
The new guide used /gsd:review. Nothing in this repo produces that form.
- capability-validator VALID_COMMAND_STYLES is {slash-hyphen, shell-var};
there is no colon/namespaced style in the vocabulary at all.
- 18 of 19 runtime capabilities declare commandStyle "slash-hyphen",
claude included; codex is "shell-var". Every artifactLayout prefix is
"gsd-".
- A plain-file command install never namespaces, so .claude/commands/
gsd-review.md is typed /gsd-review.
- The Claude Code plugin surface would namespace on plugin.json "name",
which is "gsd-core" -- so the plugin form would be /gsd-core:review.
The commands/gsd/ subdirectory is cosmetic and contributes nothing to
the invoked name.
So /gsd:review is neither the installed form nor the plugin form. Uses
/gsd-review, matching set-up-cross-ai-review.md and the 18 descriptors.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
* docs(#2782): state that lane listing is not wired yet
The guide could describe authoring, validating, and installing a lane but
implied a publishing path that does not exist. Neither discoverability
catalog can accept one: a Community Capability Registry entry requires a
non-empty loopExtensionPoints plus hookKinds, and a role:"reviewer"
capability is forbidden from declaring steps/contributions/gates, so both
fields are unsatisfiable rather than merely unset. The EoS Registry is
ADR-1239 host integrations, which a lane is not.
The registry schema predates the reviewer role by 17 days (#2182 Jul 11,
ADR-2782 Jul 28) and registry-schema.cjs has zero occurrences of
"reviewer". Tracked for a 1.9.x point release by #2904.
Says so explicitly, and tells authors NOT to file a loop extension point
they do not use to get past validation -- a schema satisfiable only by
lying is one that will be lied to.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
* chore(#2782): backfill PR number and fix the changeset invocation form
pr: 0 -> 2906.
Also corrects /gsd:review -> /gsd-review in the fragment body. The
fragment renders into CHANGELOG.md, which is a reader-facing docs surface
and is never passed through the install-time converter -- so the colon
form would ship the #2903 drift into a permanent release artifact.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
* docs(#2907): propagate the invocation-form fix and restore lane order
Two findings from an isolated review of the post-review delta.
- docs/README.md and develop-a-capability.md still said /gsd:review in
the cross-links added for the new guide. The form was corrected in the
guide itself but not in the two entries pointing at it, leaving three
docs making the same claim in two different forms.
- set-up-cross-ai-review.md inserted Kimi Code between Antigravity and
Ollama. REVIEWER_LANES is ordered by write_reviews order and kimi-code
is 12th, appended after llama_cpp; the prose list mirrored declaration
order before this change and now does again.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
---------
Co-authored-by: Test <test@example.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
(cherry picked from commit 557d46984e)
12 KiB
Develop a Capability for GSD 1.5+
This guide shows you how to add or change a first-party GSD Capability after the ADR-857 cutover. In GSD terms, the extension unit is a Capability. A plugin is a packaging or host-runtime term, for example a Claude Code plugin, not the unit that owns a GSD feature.
A Capability is right when the feature can be toggled as one unit and owns its own skills, agents, hooks, config keys, or command family. Keep verifier predicate contracts, the five-step loop spine, and shared infrastructure in core unless the ADRs explicitly move that boundary.
Start from the boundary
Before writing a manifest, decide whether the work is core or a Capability.
Use a Capability when the feature:
- Can be enabled or disabled without changing the meaning of the base loop.
- Owns a stable feature name such as
research,ui,graphify,ai-integration, orpattern-mapper. - Adds a step, gate, or contribution at a Loop Extension Point.
- Owns one or more feature config keys.
- Owns a command family that can route through the capability registry.
Keep the work in core when the feature:
- Defines the reliability substrate of the loop, such as the verifier predicate contract described by ADR-550 and ADR-857.
- Is required for every installation profile.
- Mutates shared host workflow state rather than adding a declared hook contribution.
Create the folder
Create one folder per Capability:
capabilities/<id>/
capability.json
fragments/
plan-pre.md
The manifest path is capabilities/<id>/capability.json.
The <id> must match the id field in capability.json. Co-locate prompt fragments, owned skills, owned agents, and other owned artefacts under the Capability folder when the schema allows it. Shared host artefacts can be referenced by name, but ownership should remain clear in the manifest.
Write capability.json
Use the existing manifests as the source of truth while the schema is still first-party:
capabilities/research/capability.jsoncapabilities/ai-integration/capability.jsoncapabilities/pattern-mapper/capability.jsoncapabilities/ui/capability.jsoncapabilities/graphify/capability.json
At minimum, a feature Capability declares:
{
"id": "example",
"role": "feature",
"version": "0.1.0",
"title": "Example",
"description": "Adds an example planning step.",
"tier": "standard",
"requires": [],
"runtimeCompat": { "supported": ["*"], "unsupported": [] },
"skills": [],
"agents": ["gsd-example-agent"],
"hooks": [],
"config": {},
"steps": [
{
"point": "plan:pre",
"ref": { "agent": "gsd-example-agent" },
"fragment": { "path": "fragments/plan-pre.md" },
"produces": ["EXAMPLE.md"],
"consumes": ["CONTEXT.md"],
"onError": "skip"
}
],
"contributions": [],
"gates": []
}
The registry generator validates the shape, ownership, and cross-capability contracts. ref.skill must name a skill declared by the same Capability. ref.agent must name an agent declared by the same Capability.
Declare runtime compatibility
Every feature Capability must declare runtimeCompat. This is part of the GSD 1.5+ developer contract: a Capability says which runtime descriptors it can surface through, and the generator validates that declaration before the central registry is written.
Use the wildcard when the Capability is runtime-agnostic:
"runtimeCompat": {
"supported": ["*"],
"unsupported": []
}
Use explicit runtime ids when the Capability is intentionally narrower:
"runtimeCompat": {
"supported": ["claude", "codex"],
"unsupported": ["kilo"],
"notes": {
"kilo": "Requires a hook surface Kilo does not expose yet."
}
}
supported is required and must be non-empty. "*" means every descriptor-backed runtime, including future first-party runtime descriptors, is compatible unless it is listed in unsupported. Explicit runtime ids and notes keys must match runtime Capability ids such as claude, codex, opencode, or kilo; typos fail node scripts/gen-capability-registry.cjs --check.
Add hooks
Loop Extension Points are the stable sites where Capabilities attach to the host loop. Phase 6 planning-time features use plan:pre so the core planner can ask the registry for active planning hooks instead of reading feature config directly.
Choose the hook kind that matches the behaviour:
stepsadd a sequenced unit of work, such as runninggsd-phase-researcherorgsd-pattern-mapper.contributionsadd labelled context to a host prompt.gatescheck a condition and may block whenblockingis true.
Declare file artefact flow with produces and consumes. The registry uses those arrays to order hooks and to reject unsatisfied dependencies.
Use prompt fragments
Use fragment.path for prompt text longer than a short sentence:
"fragment": { "path": "fragments/plan-pre.md" }
The generator materialises that file into fragment.inline in the generated registry. Paths must be relative to the Capability folder, must not be absolute, and must not contain ...
Use fragment.inline only for short, stable text:
"fragment": { "inline": "Add the generated example context to the planner input." }
Generate and verify the registry
After editing any Capability manifest or fragment, regenerate the committed registry:
node scripts/gen-capability-registry.cjs --write
Then run the drift check:
node scripts/gen-capability-registry.cjs --check
For a planning hook, verify the rendered output:
node gsd-core/bin/gsd-tools.cjs loop render-hooks plan:pre --raw
In installed workflow prose, the same resolver surface appears as gsd-tools loop render-hooks plan:pre.
The rendered JSON should include the active hook, the declared ref, and the materialised fragment.inline.
To verify a runtime-specific surface, pass the same config directory that the runtime installation uses:
node gsd-core/bin/gsd-tools.cjs loop render-hooks plan:pre --config-dir ~/.claude --raw
node gsd-core/bin/gsd-tools.cjs capability state --config-dir ~/.claude --raw
capability state is the diagnostic view for the same state that workflow dispatch consumes. For each Capability, enabled is true only when the Capability is both installed by the active profile and surfaced by the runtime surface. A hook's configured field reflects the when config key; active is true only when the Capability is enabled and the hook is configured on.
Add or change a runtime descriptor
Runtime-specific facts belong in the runtime Capability declaration, not in a parallel allowlist or runtime-name branch. When adding a first-party runtime under capabilities/<runtime>/capability.json, declare these fields in the runtime object:
configHome: the global config root resolver, including env overrides and probes.configHome.skillsHome: optional separate base home for runtimes whose global skills root differs from the config root.artifactLayout.globalandartifactLayout.local: command, agent, skill, and Kimi-agent destinations.hooksSurface,hookEvents, andextendedHookEvents: hook registration surface and event dialect.installSurface,writesSharedSettings, andpermissionWriter: install-time config mutation behavior.
The runtime homes, artifact layout, and install-plan resolvers read those descriptor fields directly. Adding a descriptor-backed runtime should not require editing a second list in runtime-artifact-layout or a fallback branch in runtime-config-adapter-registry.
Own config in the Capability
Declare feature config keys in the Capability manifest:
"config": {
"workflow.example_enabled": {
"type": "boolean",
"default": true,
"description": "Enable the example planning step."
}
}
Do not add migrated Capability keys to gsd-core/bin/shared/config-schema.manifest.json. The central schema remains for host/core keys; Capability-owned keys validate through the generated registry and are merged into loadConfig by the federated config overlay. Existing nested .planning/config.json values such as { "workflow": { "example_enabled": false } } continue to override the Capability default.
Wire the workflow through the registry
Host workflows should ask the resolver for active hooks and then dispatch from the resolved data. Do not add new direct config-get workflow.<feature> checks to a host workflow for a migrated feature.
The Phase 6 migrations follow this pattern:
researchregisters aplan:prestep that invokesgsd-phase-researcher.ai-integrationowns the AI-SPEC planning activation and config key.pattern-mapperregisters aplan:prestep that invokesgsd-pattern-mapper.plan-phase.mdreads the resolvedPLAN_PRE_HOOKS_JSONand dispatchesref.agentorref.skillfrom that data.code-reviewregisters anexecute:poststep and review workflows dispatch from the active hook'sref.skill.securityregisters aplan:precontribution, averify:poststep, and a blockingship:pregate.nyquistregisters averify:poststep for validation coverage auditing.
This keeps "off means off" enforceable by construction: disabled Capabilities are absent from the active hook set, so the host workflow has nothing feature-specific to run.
Test the Capability
Add focused tests before changing behaviour:
- Registry tests for manifest validation, ordering, config ownership, command family dispatch, or fragment materialisation.
- Workflow text tests for host workflow cutovers when a workflow stops reading direct feature config.
- Behavioural command tests when a command family moves behind
dispatchCapabilityCommand. - Documentation tests when the feature changes developer-facing behaviour.
Run the smallest affected tests first, then the full suite before opening a ready PR:
node --test tests/capability-registry.test.cjs
node --test tests/phase6-planning-capabilities.test.cjs
node --test tests/phase6-capstone-conformance.test.cjs
npm test
Run the Phase 6 capstone test whenever a Capability adds a when key or moves activation logic in a host workflow. It checks that migrated activation keys are resolved through Capability hooks or state, and that Capability-owned config keys stay out of the central schema. If a host workflow must keep core behaviour behind a workflow.* key, document why it is core rather than Capability-owned before adding it.
Keep the docs with the slice
Every Phase 6 slice that changes capability behaviour must update the relevant docs in the same PR. Use this manual for developer-facing Capability authoring facts, use how-to guides for task flows, and use ADRs only for decisions and trade-offs.
The capability ecosystem (1.6.0)
From GSD 1.6.0, capabilities are versioned (the version field is required in capability.json) and can be installed directly from a URL, a git ref, an npm package, or a local path — without modifying the core repo.
- Tutorial — Build your first capability: scaffold and install a declarative capability end-to-end in under ten minutes.
- How-to — Publish a capability: package and distribute a capability via a URL or registry.
- How-to — Import a capability from a URL: install a third-party capability from a git URL, tarball, or npm package.
- How-to — Version and update a capability: manage
version,engines.gsd, andcompatVersions; usegsd capability update. - How-to — Remove a capability: uninstall cleanly with
gsd capability remove, including the--purge-dataoption. - How-to — Ship a reviewer lane in your capability: declare a
reviewerbody (GSD 1.9.0+) so/gsd-reviewdiscovers and invokes your external review CLI or model endpoint. - Reference — Capability manifest: all fields and validation rules for
capability.json. - Reference — Capability matrix: which first-party capabilities exist, their extension points, and their compatibility matrix.
- Explanation — Capability trust model: how declarative and executable capabilities are treated differently at install time.
- ADR-1244 —
docs/adr/1244-capability-ecosystem.md: the architectural decision that introduced the installable capability ecosystem.