aad04f4e9a
* docs(#4400): ADR-4139 — the compact-content seam Phase 0 of epic #4139. Locks the design before any code lands. #4139's stated mechanism cannot reach the stream it exists for: 58 of 72 shipped commands deliver their whole workflow file through an eager @-include, which the host expands before any project config is in context. An in-content gate is evaluated after those bytes are already paid. The ADR declines the obvious fix (convert the 58 execution_context blocks to runtime Reads) because that removes the host guarantee for every user, not only opted-in ones — a global install shares one skill tree, so an @-include cannot be conditional. It instead keeps every @-include exactly where it is and splits what sits behind them: the canonical path becomes a runnable spine, elaborations move to a sibling detail file read at runtime. A missed Read then degrades to "runs correctly with fewer tokens", never to "runs with no instructions". Also records: the rename to workflow.compact_content, the re-pitch onto ADR-1610's context-rot argument rather than the cost argument ADR-1610 discounts, partition-not-duplication (which dissolves the dual-maintenance cost the Feature Review called disqualifying), the guard-scope and NEW_FILE_CAP mapping for the new subtree, and an argued reconciliation of the acceptance criteria this design does not meet literally. Corrects ADR-3646 §Context: it cites #3647 as open; #3647 closed 2026-09-01 as a duplicate of #3606. ADR-3646's Decision is unaffected — it explicitly disclaimed any dependence on #3647's state. The residual prose-dispatch variance named in #3647's own closure thread is unresolved, and this ADR routes around it rather than assuming it away. Refs #4139 Closes #4400 * docs(#4400): fold the two orthogonal review findings into ADR-4139 Code review (isolated context) and security review (isolated context) both returned findings. Fixed here rather than carried. Critical, from code review: the ADR repeated earlier research's claim that discuss-phase, manager and pause-work all reach a workflow by runtime Read. manager and pause-work carry plain eager @-includes and are inside the 58, not outside. discuss-phase is the only precedent, and it is one file. The Open Questions section is corrected with it. The NEW_FILE_CAP mapping was wrong in a way that changes the layout. It lives at tests/helpers/emitted-diff.cjs:96, not in workflow-size-budget, and its own doc comment records that it is a hard cap, not ack-able, and NOT tier-exemptible -- the pre-#2724 test-file version was. So a single detail.md holding plan-phase.md's elaborations is blocked outright with no exemption path. Detail content is now one or more parts under workflows/<name>/detail/, each below the cap, named by the spine in the dispatch-table shape discuss-phase.md already uses. commit-files-pathspec is in scope and earlier research called it irrelevant. Per CONTRIBUTING.md:1164-1170 it sweeps every .md under gsd-core/workflows/ for unscoped commit-seam invocations. Added to the guard table. Two byte figures were inherited rather than measured, against this ADR's own evidence note. Templates and agents re-measured; the table now carries the method and the exact numbers. From security review: "a spine that has shed a protected-content marker fails" never defined what a marker was, leaving the strongest check in the set resting on a prose-category judgment. Protection is now a literal greppable sentinel in the existing gsd: comment namespace, and the guard rule has no discretion in it. Also added: an explicit statement that the detail path is never user- or project-supplied and cannot be shadowed by a project-local file, and an exact-version pin commitment for gpt-tokenizer. Code review also found a real hole in the central fail-safe argument: spine sufficiency is verified once at split time and never again, so load-bearing procedural text carrying no sentinel could later drift into a detail part with every check green. Sufficiency is not machine-decidable, so a fifth ongoing check is added -- a spine that loses lines which reappear in its parts fails unless the PR declares the boundary move. The ADR now states plainly that this is authoring discipline with a forced checkpoint, not a structural invariant, and that the partition relocates the Feature Review's cost rather than fully eliminating it. Refs #4139 Refs #4400 --------- 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.