c899f5ada3
* test(#3065): build the load-bearing contract gate ADR-1671 promised Epic #1671 Phase 7. A post-merge audit of every promise in ADR-1671 against the merged tree found one mitigation asserted-but-absent and two stale records. ADR-1671 names exactly one correctness risk — trimming a load-bearing fragment, with the recorded history of a paraphrased META.RULE causing agent violations — and #2931 amended its mitigation to a deterministic contract gate that proves no load-bearing fragment was omitted or shrunk, treats a floored fragment as a success, and asserts the isolate prefix survives byte-identical, with an explicit anti-vacuity rule. That gate did not exist. What existed was tests/context-composer.test.cjs: synthetic unit tests of the composeWithinBudget primitive over invented fragments, asserting nothing about real declared strategies. The ADR asserted a mitigation that was never built, which is the promised-but-not-built shape the epic's own coverage discipline exists to catch. The gate derives its load-bearing set from declared verbatim strategies rather than a hand-maintained list, so it cannot go stale as upstream changes. It sweeps budgets from 4x total down to a quarter of total and asserts at every step that no load-bearing id appears in omitted or shrunk, that isolatePrefix is byte-identical, and that hardFailed is surfaced rather than silently passed. Both anti-vacuity guards are EXECUTABLE, not comments. One proves the empty load-bearing set guard actually throws. The other proves a sweep that never applies pressure is rejected — because a gate that only ever runs unpressured is exactly how the original mitigation went missing without anyone noticing. Measured: underPressure true at 6 of 7 budgets, false only at 4x total. Three ADR records corrected in the same change, all doc-vs-reality drift: - Decision item 2 describes a composer that trims by priority to fit a measured per-runtime cap. composeWorkflow in fact passes MAX_SAFE_INTEGER with every fragment verbatim (both verified in source), so no trimming happens there; the emitted-byte cap is a separate measure-and-fail gate and Windsurf's limit a bespoke truncation. The wording described an option as shipped behavior. - flag:--converge never reached a terminal state. #2992 withheld six atoms; five were resolved explicitly. This one was resolved in code by reusing state:plan-strategy-converge but recorded nowhere — the same gap #2995 closed for flag:--verify-only, and I closed five of six. - The open-questions list enumerated three questions while two Resolved-by blocks resolved an unlisted Question 4. It is now listed. Refs #3065 * fix(#3065): make the gate assert over production, not a copy of it The isolated review found a blocker, and it was fatal to the gate's purpose: it hand-copied applyBudget's fragment array into the test, so flipping a strategy in src/prompt-budget.cts — say roadmap from verbatim to drop — would leave the gate computing from its own untouched copy and still passing. A guard built as an instance of the very divergence class it exists to prevent (DEFECT.GENERATIVE-FIX) is worse than no guard, because it reports green. Fixed by eliminating the duplicate rather than adding a parity assertion, the same resolution used for the FAMILIES table in #2996. applyBudget's inline construction is extracted to an exported buildBudgetFragments(), which both applyBudget and the gate now call; the 1024 plan floor is exported as PLAN_FLOOR_CHARS instead of being re-declared in the test. The extraction is pure — verified behavior-preserving at budget=2000: hardFailed false, omitted ['context'], projectMd shrunk, plan truncation ~27.8%, all headers present. There is no longer a second copy to diverge from. Also fixed a vacuous assertion the same review caught: isolatePrefix was pinned across the sweep, but no production fragment sets isolate:true, so the value is always '' and the check could never fail. The pinning assertion stays, with an honest comment that nothing in production sets it today, and a second test now constructs an isolate:true fragment set and proves the prefix is non-empty and byte-identical across a roomy and a severely tight budget — which is what makes the first assertion capable of detecting a real change. Refs #3065 * chore(#3065): backfill changeset pr number to 3068 --------- 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.