* feat(plan-phase): --research-phase flag absorbs deleted /gsd-research-phase + scrub stale refs (#3042, #3044) #3042 (orphaned research-phase): /gsd-research-phase had a workflow file but no slash-command stub. Rather than restore the orphan, the research- only capability is now a flag on /gsd-plan-phase: /gsd-plan-phase --research-phase <N> When set, the workflow scopes to phase N, runs the research step (Section 5 of the existing plan-phase workflow), then early-exits before the planner/plan-checker/verifier chain. Per RCA against the deleted standalone, the flag adds two modifiers to fully cover the original surface (Option B from the RCA discussion): - --view : print existing RESEARCH.md to stdout, no spawn. Cheapest mode for the correction-without-replanning loop the issue reporter explicitly called out. Errors with a clear hint if RESEARCH.md is missing. - --research : reuse the existing "force re-research" semantics. In research-only mode this skips the existing-RESEARCH.md prompt and re-spawns unconditionally. - Neither flag, RESEARCH.md exists : prompt update/view/skip. Mirrors the deleted standalone's existing-artifact menu (#3042 RCA). #3044 (stale slash-command refs): scrubbed five deleted commands from all user-facing surfaces, including English docs, 4 localized doc sets (ja-JP, ko-KR, zh-CN, pt-BR), workflows, templates, and references. /gsd-check-todos → /gsd-capture --list /gsd-new-workspace → /gsd-workspace --new /gsd-status → /gsd-progress /gsd-plan-milestone-gaps → table rows / orphan sections removed (PR #3038 only scrubbed workflows/agent; missed the docs surfaces this PR covers) /gsd-research-phase → /gsd-plan-phase --research-phase Includes a fix to docs/issue-driven-orchestration.md (PR #3036) which itself referenced /gsd-new-workspace 4 times — self-correction. Removed: - get-shit-done/workflows/research-phase.md (orphan, capability absorbed into --research-phase flag) Tests: - tests/bug-3042-3044-research-flag-and-stale-refs.test.cjs — 46 structural-IR tests across both bugs: - argument-hint advertises --research-phase + --view - workflow parses --research-phase, sets RESEARCH_ONLY, early-exits before planner - --view prints RESEARCH.md without spawning - --research forces refresh in research-only mode - existing-RESEARCH.md prompt path with update/view/skip - workflows/research-phase.md is removed - 5 deleted slash-commands absent from 17 English user-facing surfaces + 16 localized doc surfaces (4 locales × 4 docs each) - replacement command tokens present where deleted ones lived 6950/6950 full suite pass. Lints clean. Closes #3042 Closes #3044 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> * fix: address all 8 CR findings on PR #3045 Major (3): - get-shit-done/workflows/plan-phase.md:344 — added explicit early-exit guard at Section 5.1: "Skip if RESEARCH_ONLY=true". Without it, an LLM could fall through "use existing, skip to step 6" → planner spawn, violating the research-only contract. The guard makes the early-exit unreachable from any non-research-only branch. - get-shit-done/references/continuation-format.md (3 examples) + zh-CN/.../continuation-format.md (3 examples) — pointed to `/gsd-plan-phase --research-phase` but docs/COMMANDS.md didn't document the flag. Added a full --research-phase + --view + --research modifier section to the /gsd-plan-phase flag table in COMMANDS.md so the canonical reference matches the continuation examples. Minor (5): - docs/FEATURES.md:1632 — `/gsd-plan-phase --research-phase` → `/gsd-plan-phase --research-phase <N>` (include required arg). - get-shit-done/templates/README.md:46 — NN-VALIDATION.md producer reverted from `/gsd-plan-phase --research-phase` (Nyquist) to plain `/gsd-plan-phase` (Nyquist). VALIDATION.md is created during normal Nyquist flow, not research-only mode — the bulk replacement was wrong for that line. - get-shit-done/workflows/help.md:89 — signature line was missing `--research`; added it alongside `--research-phase` and `--view`. - tests/bug-3042-3044-...:197 — promptHasView/promptHasSkip were tautological (matched anywhere in 1700-line workflow). Tightened to a proximity check anchored on "RESEARCH.md already exists" prompt header within a 600-char window. Updated workflow to emit that literal phrase. - tests/feat-2840-...:95 — workspace assertion used `/gsd-workspace` but the documented replacement is `/gsd-workspace --new`. Tightened to require both tokens (in 3 places: requiredCommands list, regex in conceptPairs, error message). 6950/6950 full suite pass. Lint clean. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
147 lines
4.0 KiB
Markdown
147 lines
4.0 KiB
Markdown
# Discovery Template
|
|
|
|
Template for `.planning/phases/XX-name/DISCOVERY.md` - shallow research for library/option decisions.
|
|
|
|
**Purpose:** Answer "which library/option should we use" questions during mandatory discovery in plan-phase.
|
|
|
|
For deep ecosystem research ("how do experts build this"), use `/gsd-plan-phase --research-phase` which produces RESEARCH.md.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## File Template
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
---
|
|
phase: XX-name
|
|
type: discovery
|
|
topic: [discovery-topic]
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
<session_initialization>
|
|
Before beginning discovery, verify today's date:
|
|
!`date +%Y-%m-%d`
|
|
|
|
Use this date when searching for "current" or "latest" information.
|
|
Example: If today is 2025-11-22, search for "2025" not "2024".
|
|
</session_initialization>
|
|
|
|
<discovery_objective>
|
|
Discover [topic] to inform [phase name] implementation.
|
|
|
|
Purpose: [What decision/implementation this enables]
|
|
Scope: [Boundaries]
|
|
Output: DISCOVERY.md with recommendation
|
|
</discovery_objective>
|
|
|
|
<discovery_scope>
|
|
<include>
|
|
- [Question to answer]
|
|
- [Area to investigate]
|
|
- [Specific comparison if needed]
|
|
</include>
|
|
|
|
<exclude>
|
|
- [Out of scope for this discovery]
|
|
- [Defer to implementation phase]
|
|
</exclude>
|
|
</discovery_scope>
|
|
|
|
<discovery_protocol>
|
|
|
|
**Source Priority:**
|
|
1. **Context7 MCP** - For library/framework documentation (current, authoritative)
|
|
2. **Official Docs** - For platform-specific or non-indexed libraries
|
|
3. **WebSearch** - For comparisons, trends, community patterns (verify all findings)
|
|
|
|
**Quality Checklist:**
|
|
Before completing discovery, verify:
|
|
- [ ] All claims have authoritative sources (Context7 or official docs)
|
|
- [ ] Negative claims ("X is not possible") verified with official documentation
|
|
- [ ] API syntax/configuration from Context7 or official docs (never WebSearch alone)
|
|
- [ ] WebSearch findings cross-checked with authoritative sources
|
|
- [ ] Recent updates/changelogs checked for breaking changes
|
|
- [ ] Alternative approaches considered (not just first solution found)
|
|
|
|
**Confidence Levels:**
|
|
- HIGH: Context7 or official docs confirm
|
|
- MEDIUM: WebSearch + Context7/official docs confirm
|
|
- LOW: WebSearch only or training knowledge only (mark for validation)
|
|
|
|
</discovery_protocol>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<output_structure>
|
|
Create `.planning/phases/XX-name/DISCOVERY.md`:
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
# [Topic] Discovery
|
|
|
|
## Summary
|
|
[2-3 paragraph executive summary - what was researched, what was found, what's recommended]
|
|
|
|
## Primary Recommendation
|
|
[What to do and why - be specific and actionable]
|
|
|
|
## Alternatives Considered
|
|
[What else was evaluated and why not chosen]
|
|
|
|
## Key Findings
|
|
|
|
### [Category 1]
|
|
- [Finding with source URL and relevance to our case]
|
|
|
|
### [Category 2]
|
|
- [Finding with source URL and relevance]
|
|
|
|
## Code Examples
|
|
[Relevant implementation patterns, if applicable]
|
|
|
|
## Metadata
|
|
|
|
<metadata>
|
|
<confidence level="high|medium|low">
|
|
[Why this confidence level - based on source quality and verification]
|
|
</confidence>
|
|
|
|
<sources>
|
|
- [Primary authoritative sources used]
|
|
</sources>
|
|
|
|
<open_questions>
|
|
[What couldn't be determined or needs validation during implementation]
|
|
</open_questions>
|
|
|
|
<validation_checkpoints>
|
|
[If confidence is LOW or MEDIUM, list specific things to verify during implementation]
|
|
</validation_checkpoints>
|
|
</metadata>
|
|
```
|
|
</output_structure>
|
|
|
|
<success_criteria>
|
|
- All scope questions answered with authoritative sources
|
|
- Quality checklist items completed
|
|
- Clear primary recommendation
|
|
- Low-confidence findings marked with validation checkpoints
|
|
- Ready to inform PLAN.md creation
|
|
</success_criteria>
|
|
|
|
<guidelines>
|
|
**When to use discovery:**
|
|
- Technology choice unclear (library A vs B)
|
|
- Best practices needed for unfamiliar integration
|
|
- API/library investigation required
|
|
- Single decision pending
|
|
|
|
**When NOT to use:**
|
|
- Established patterns (CRUD, auth with known library)
|
|
- Implementation details (defer to execution)
|
|
- Questions answerable from existing project context
|
|
|
|
**When to use RESEARCH.md instead:**
|
|
- Niche/complex domains (3D, games, audio, shaders)
|
|
- Need ecosystem knowledge, not just library choice
|
|
- "How do experts build this" questions
|
|
- Use `/gsd-plan-phase --research-phase` for these
|
|
</guidelines>
|