Files
msd-core/commands/gsd/research-phase.md
Quang Do d4767ac2e0 fix: replace /gsd: slash command format with /gsd- skill format in all user-facing content (#1579)
* fix: replace /gsd: command format with /gsd- skill format in all suggestions

All next-step suggestions shown to users were still using the old colon
format (/gsd:xxx) which cannot be copy-pasted as skills. Migrated all
occurrences across agents/, commands/, get-shit-done/, docs/, README files,
bin/install.js (hardcoded defaults for claude runtime), and
get-shit-done/bin/lib/*.cjs (generate-claude-md templates and error messages).
Updated tests to assert new hyphen format instead of old colon format.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix: migrate remaining /gsd: format to /gsd- in hooks, workflows, and sdk

Addresses remaining user-facing occurrences missed in the initial migration:

- hooks/: fix 4 user-facing messages (pause-work, update, fast, quick)
  and 2 comments in gsd-workflow-guard.js
- get-shit-done/workflows/: fix 21 Skill() literal calls that Claude
  executes directly (installer does not transform workflow content)
- sdk/prompt-sanitizer.ts: update regex to strip /gsd- format in addition
  to legacy /gsd: format; update JSDoc comment
- tests/: update autonomous-ui-steps, prompt-sanitizer to assert new format

Note: commands/gsd/*.md frontmatter (name: gsd:xxx) intentionally unchanged
— installer derives skillName from directory path, not the name field.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(plan-phase): preserve --chain flag in auto-advance sync and handle ui-phase gate in chain mode

Bug 1: step 15 sync-flag check only guarded against --auto, causing
_auto_chain_active to be cleared when plan-phase is invoked without
--auto in ARGUMENTS even though a --chain pipeline was active. Added
--chain to the guard condition, matching discuss-phase behaviour.

Bug 2: UI Design Contract gate (step 5.6) always exited the workflow
when UI-SPEC was missing, breaking the discuss --chain pipeline
silently. When _auto_chain_active is true, the gate now auto-invokes
gsd-ui-phase --auto via Skill() and continues to step 6 without
prompting. Manual invocations retain the existing AskUserQuestion flow.

* fix: remove <sub>/clear</sub> pattern and duplicate old-format command in discuss-phase.md

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-04-04 07:24:31 -04:00

5.6 KiB

name, description, argument-hint, allowed-tools
name description argument-hint allowed-tools
gsd:research-phase Research how to implement a phase (standalone - usually use /gsd-plan-phase instead) [phase]
Read
Bash
Task
Research how to implement a phase. Spawns gsd-phase-researcher agent with phase context.

Note: This is a standalone research command. For most workflows, use /gsd-plan-phase which integrates research automatically.

Use this command when:

  • You want to research without planning yet
  • You want to re-research after planning is complete
  • You need to investigate before deciding if a phase is feasible

Orchestrator role: Parse phase, validate against roadmap, check existing research, gather context, spawn researcher agent, present results.

Why subagent: Research burns context fast (WebSearch, Context7 queries, source verification). Fresh 200k context for investigation. Main context stays lean for user interaction.

<available_agent_types> Valid GSD subagent types (use exact names — do not fall back to 'general-purpose'):

  • gsd-phase-researcher — Researches technical approaches for a phase </available_agent_types>
Phase number: $ARGUMENTS (required)

Normalize phase input in step 1 before any directory lookups.

0. Initialize Context

INIT=$(node "$HOME/.claude/get-shit-done/bin/gsd-tools.cjs" init phase-op "$ARGUMENTS")
if [[ "$INIT" == @file:* ]]; then INIT=$(cat "${INIT#@file:}"); fi

Extract from init JSON: phase_dir, phase_number, phase_name, phase_found, commit_docs, has_research, state_path, requirements_path, context_path, research_path.

Resolve researcher model:

RESEARCHER_MODEL=$(node "$HOME/.claude/get-shit-done/bin/gsd-tools.cjs" resolve-model gsd-phase-researcher --raw)

1. Validate Phase

PHASE_INFO=$(node "$HOME/.claude/get-shit-done/bin/gsd-tools.cjs" roadmap get-phase "${phase_number}")

If found is false: Error and exit. If found is true: Extract phase_number, phase_name, goal from JSON.

2. Check Existing Research

ls .planning/phases/${PHASE}-*/RESEARCH.md 2>/dev/null

If exists: Offer: 1) Update research, 2) View existing, 3) Skip. Wait for response.

If doesn't exist: Continue.

3. Gather Phase Context

Use paths from INIT (do not inline file contents in orchestrator context):

  • requirements_path
  • context_path
  • state_path

Present summary with phase description and what files the researcher will load.

4. Spawn gsd-phase-researcher Agent

Research modes: ecosystem (default), feasibility, implementation, comparison.

<research_type>
Phase Research — investigating HOW to implement a specific phase well.
</research_type>

<key_insight>
The question is NOT "which library should I use?"

The question is: "What do I not know that I don't know?"

For this phase, discover:
- What's the established architecture pattern?
- What libraries form the standard stack?
- What problems do people commonly hit?
- What's SOTA vs what Claude's training thinks is SOTA?
- What should NOT be hand-rolled?
</key_insight>

<objective>
Research implementation approach for Phase {phase_number}: {phase_name}
Mode: ecosystem
</objective>

<files_to_read>
- {requirements_path} (Requirements)
- {context_path} (Phase context from discuss-phase, if exists)
- {state_path} (Prior project decisions and blockers)
</files_to_read>

<additional_context>
**Phase description:** {phase_description}
</additional_context>

<downstream_consumer>
Your RESEARCH.md will be loaded by `/gsd-plan-phase` which uses specific sections:
- `## Standard Stack` → Plans use these libraries
- `## Architecture Patterns` → Task structure follows these
- `## Don't Hand-Roll` → Tasks NEVER build custom solutions for listed problems
- `## Common Pitfalls` → Verification steps check for these
- `## Code Examples` → Task actions reference these patterns

Be prescriptive, not exploratory. "Use X" not "Consider X or Y."
</downstream_consumer>

<quality_gate>
Before declaring complete, verify:
- [ ] All domains investigated (not just some)
- [ ] Negative claims verified with official docs
- [ ] Multiple sources for critical claims
- [ ] Confidence levels assigned honestly
- [ ] Section names match what plan-phase expects
</quality_gate>

<output>
Write to: .planning/phases/${PHASE}-{slug}/${PHASE}-RESEARCH.md
</output>
Task(
  prompt=filled_prompt,
  subagent_type="gsd-phase-researcher",
  model="{researcher_model}",
  description="Research Phase {phase}"
)

5. Handle Agent Return

## RESEARCH COMPLETE: Display summary, offer: Plan phase, Dig deeper, Review full, Done.

## CHECKPOINT REACHED: Present to user, get response, spawn continuation.

## RESEARCH INCONCLUSIVE: Show what was attempted, offer: Add context, Try different mode, Manual.

6. Spawn Continuation Agent

<objective>
Continue research for Phase {phase_number}: {phase_name}
</objective>

<prior_state>
<files_to_read>
- .planning/phases/${PHASE}-{slug}/${PHASE}-RESEARCH.md (Existing research)
</files_to_read>
</prior_state>

<checkpoint_response>
**Type:** {checkpoint_type}
**Response:** {user_response}
</checkpoint_response>
Task(
  prompt=continuation_prompt,
  subagent_type="gsd-phase-researcher",
  model="{researcher_model}",
  description="Continue research Phase {phase}"
)

<success_criteria>

  • Phase validated against roadmap
  • Existing research checked
  • gsd-phase-researcher spawned with context
  • Checkpoints handled correctly
  • User knows next steps </success_criteria>