b12d4df03b
* test(#2694): CRLF frontmatter boundary regression for code-review workflows The code-review / code-review-fix workflows embed inline node -e one-liners whose frontmatter boundary regex used a literal \n, silently returning null on CRLF-saved SUMMARY.md / REVIEW.md / REVIEW-FIX.md artifacts and dropping every file in that summary (acceptance: per-artifact, no warning when the phase aggregate stays non-zero). Adds: - behavioral CRLF==LF boundary extraction tests (replica of the shipped one-liner's boundary step), proving the buggy literal-\n returns null on CRLF while the fixed normalize-then-match yields a byte-identical body; - a structural-regression-guard (allow-test-rule: structural-regression-guard) that reads the two shipped workflow files and asserts every boundary site normalizes \r\n -> \n before matching, so a revert of the fix is caught. * fix(#2694): normalize CRLF before frontmatter-boundary match in code-review workflows The code-review and code-review-fix workflows embed nine inline node -e one-liners that extract YAML frontmatter via a boundary regex content.match(/^---\n([\s\S]*?)\n---/) The literal \n defeated any CRLF-saved artifact (\r between --- and the line terminator), so SUMMARY.md / REVIEW.md / REVIEW-FIX.md saved with CRLF endings silently contributed zero files (or 'unknown' status / 'invalid') with no per-artifact warning. The Tier-3 git-diff fallback only fires when the aggregate across all summaries is zero, so a single CRLF summary among LF summaries produced no signal at all. Normalize \r\n -> \n once before the existing boundary match at all nine sites (code-review.md x3, code-review-fix.md x6). Byte-identical to the LF path; mirrors the canonical src/frontmatter.cts extractFrontmatter intent (CRLF == LF at the boundary); zero risk of \r leaking into field values consumed by the inner JS or the shell grep/cut pipeline. RED @ 94d0213 (3 failures, structural guard caught the shipped-text bug, both linux-node22+24 lanes).GREEN pending. * chore(#2694): acknowledge code-review workflow growth + changeset fragment emitted-attribution (ADR-2719) reports the byte growth from the CRLF-normalize insertion in code-review.md (+69) and code-review-fix.md (+138); both are the intended #2694 fix. Adds the .changeset Fixed fragment (pr:0, backfilled post-PR). * test(#2694): mixed CRLF/LF phase yields the union of both artifacts (criterion 2) The spec-axis review flagged that acceptance criterion 2 (a phase with a mix of CRLF-affected and unaffected artifacts no longer silently drops the CRLF artifact's contribution) was only transitively satisfied. Adds an explicit mixed-phase test replicating the full shipped Tier-2 extractor (boundary + inner key_files parse) across one LF and one CRLF SUMMARY.md, asserting the union of both — plus a RED proof showing the buggy boundary drops the CRLF artifact silently (aggregate non-zero, so the Tier-3 eq-zero fallback never fired). Locks the silent-partial-masking behavior the triage named as the more serious half of the defect. * docs(changeset): backfill #2694 PR number to 2839 * fix(#2694): make the CRLF regression test itself CRLF-lint-clean CI lint-tests caught that the new test tripped local/no-crlf-fragile-split: - the frontmatter boundary regex replicas (fixed + buggy) were RegExpLiterals with a bare \n; the rule flags frontmatter-shape regexes unconditionally. Build them via new RegExp(...) (byte-identical .source to the shipped literal) so the faithful replica is not a lint violation — the buggy replica MUST keep the literal \n, that is the bug it demonstrates. - the structural guard's src.split('\n') on the readFileSync'd workflow file was genuinely CRLF-fragile; use /\r?\n/ per the rule's canonical fix. - the allow-test-rule annotation gains its (#2694) tracking ref per ADR-456. lint:ci now exit 0 (incl. lint-allow-test-rule-refs, lint-emitted-drift-ack, lint-fix-has-regression-test: PASS).
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.