Files
msd-core/gsd-core/workflows/inbox.md
Tom Boucher 463cffd894 chore(#604): rename get-shit-done/ runtime directory to gsd-core/ (#615)
* chore(#604): rename get-shit-done/ runtime directory to gsd-core/

Renames the installed runtime directory `get-shit-done/` to `gsd-core/` so the
on-disk name matches the package (`@opengsd/gsd-core`), repo, and binary
(`gsd-tools`). The npm package name and binary are unchanged; npx/npm consumers
are unaffected.

Mechanical (bulk, ~90% of the diff):
- `git mv get-shit-done gsd-core`
- Swept path/identifier references across the repo via
  `perl -pe 's/get-shit-done(?!-\w)/gsd-core/g'`. The negative lookahead
  preserves the five legitimate slug variants that are NOT the directory:
  get-shit-done-{OLD,cc,classic,cli,redux} (old package/repo names).
- Build/manifest wiring: package.json (bin, files, coverage globs),
  tsconfig.build.json (outDir), ~86 .gitignore build-output entries,
  stryker.config.mjs, scan-ignore files, install.js path strings.
- Frozen (not rewritten): CHANGELOG.md history; translated docs
  (README.<locale>.md and docs/{ja-JP,ko-KR,pt-BR,zh-CN}/).

New logic (review here):
- src/installer-migrations/003-rename-get-shit-done-to-gsd-core.cts: a proper
  ADR-0008 installer migration. On upgrade it walks the legacy
  `~/.claude/get-shit-done/` tree, classifies each file via the prior install
  manifest, and emits remove-managed / backup-and-remove for managed files
  while PRESERVING unknown user-added files. Symlink-safe (skips a symlinked
  root and symlinked entries; bounds-checks every path under configDir). The
  framework rolls back on install failure. Emptied dirs may remain (framework
  has no recursive dir-removal primitive) — documented.
- scripts/lint-legacy-dir-name.cjs: CI regression guard forbidding the bare
  `get-shit-done` directory token (split token to avoid self-match; case-
  insensitive; `(?!-\w)` lookahead allows the slug variants; allowlists
  CHANGELOG, translated docs, and `gsd-allow-legacy-name` marker lines).
  Wired into the lint-tests CI job.
- Restored scripts/lint-package-identity-drift.cjs detection regexes (the
  mechanical sweep had wrongly rewritten the old-name patterns it exists to
  detect) and marked them as intentional legacy references.
- TDD tests for the migration and the guard; do.md slash-command guard regex
  tightened so a `/gsd-core/bin` path segment is not mistaken for a command;
  changeset + docs/installer-migrations.md row added.

Breaking: the installed runtime path moves `~/.claude/get-shit-done/` ->
`~/.claude/gsd-core/`. Migration 003 removes the stale legacy dir's managed
files (preserving user files) on upgrade. Users with custom hooks/configs
hardcoding the old path must update them.

Closes #604

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(#604): unsweep pending changesets + allowlist injection-example docs

CI fixes for the rename PR:
- Do not sweep pending .changeset/*.md (ephemeral release-note fragments,
  like CHANGELOG); reverted those body edits so 5 pre-existing malformed
  fragments (missing type/pr) no longer enter the PR diff and trip docs-lint.
  Allowlisted .changeset/ in the legacy-name guard accordingly.
- Allowlisted TEST-EXAMPLES.md and docs/explanation/security-model.md in
  prompt-injection-scan.sh: they contain intentional injection examples /
  security-model prose; the path-reference rewrites are kept.

CodeQL alerts on this PR are pre-existing (alert lines unchanged by this PR;
none in the new migration/guard) and are out of scope for the rename.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(#604): resolve CodeQL alerts surfaced on this PR

The rename diff touched files carrying pre-existing CodeQL findings; per the
no-pre-existing-dismissal rule, fixing every surfaced alert rather than waving
them off. All behavior-preserving:

- scripts/ci-test-scope.cjs: build the config-path match from string
  .includes() instead of a RegExp over an arg-derived value (js/regex-injection).
- src/profile-output.cts: escape backslashes before pipe-escaping desc/safeName
  so the table-cell escape is complete (js/incomplete-sanitization).
- tests/{bug-2643,bug-2808,docs-parity-live-registry}: two-pass HTML-comment
  strip so a bare/unclosed `<!--` cannot survive (js/incomplete-multi-character-sanitization).
- tests/inline-plan-threshold: drop the no-op `\s`->`\s` identity replace,
  keep the meaningful POSIX-class conversion (js/identity-replacement).

Verified: build:lib green; the touched test files + ci-test-scope + profile-output
suites pass; lint:legacy-name clean.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(#604): correctly resolve remaining CodeQL alerts (regex-injection + sanitization)

The prior commit's fixes for two alerts were ineffective:
- ci-test-scope.cjs js/regex-injection: the alert is the CLI-arg-derived `file`
  reaching static regex `.test(file)` calls (not the config rule). Removed ALL
  regex over file/t — startsWith/includes/=== string checks + an isWindowsHint
  helper — so there is no regex sink for the tainted value.
- js/incomplete-multi-character-sanitization (3 test files): a single
  `.replace(/<!--...-->/g,'')` can let `<!--` re-form. Replaced with a fixpoint
  loop (replace until stable) plus a final bare-opener strip.

Verified: no regex over file/t remains; ci-test-scope + the 3 test suites pass;
lint:legacy-name clean.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(#604): make ci-test-scope + comment-strippers regex-free to clear CodeQL

CodeQL flags the regex PATTERNS syntactically (regex-injection on the
--files arg split; incomplete-multi-character-sanitization on the <!--...-->
replace), so loop fixes do not satisfy it. Made these paths regex-free:
- ci-test-scope.cjs splitFiles: char-by-char separator tokenizer (no /[,\\s]+/).
- 3 test files: indexOf/slice HTML-comment stripper (no .replace(/<!--/)).
Behavior preserved; ci-test-scope + the 3 suites pass; guard clean.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(#604): unblock security base64 scan on the large rename diff

The security job hit its 10m timeout: base64-scan.sh choked on the binary
test fixture tests/feat-3594-parser-property-style.test.cjs (embedded NUL/
non-UTF8 bytes -> thousands of bogus blobs + "ignored null byte" warnings),
and the ~800-file rename diff is slow to scan regardless.

- scripts/base64-scan.sh: skip binary-by-content files (grep -Iq .) — they
  can't carry base64-obfuscated *text* and feeding NUL bytes through the
  per-line scanner is pathologically slow. collect_files already filtered
  binary *extensions*; this catches binary *content* in text extensions.
- .github/workflows/security-scan.yml: raise the security job timeout 10m->30m
  to accommodate very large diffs (the scan itself is unchanged).

Verified locally: scan skips the fixture, 0 "ignored null byte" warnings,
0 findings, exit 0.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(#604): sweep get-shit-done refs introduced by merging next

The branch was updated with next (#614/#384/#618 etc.), which reference the
get-shit-done/ dir (still named that on next). Swept the stale references in
the merged files to gsd-core so the rename stays consistent and lint:legacy-name
passes:
- commands/gsd/discuss-phase.md (runtime-launcher shim paths)
- src/core.cts (getAgentsDir layout comments)
- tests/bug-384-agents-runtime-aware.test.cjs (require path to runtime lib)

Verified: guard 0 violations; build green.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(#604): exclude gsd-core/ path segments from bug-3683 command cross-ref invariant

The #614 runtime-launcher shim added to discuss-phase.md references
`${_GSD_RUNTIME_ROOT}/gsd-core/bin/...`. bug-3683's REF_PATTERN excluded path-y
refs only via lookbehind, but `}` precedes `/gsd-core/` in the shim, so it
mis-read the directory path as a dangling `/gsd-core` command ref (same class as
the #604 bug-2954 fix). Added a trailing `(?![\w-]*\/)` so `/gsd-<x>/...` path
segments are not treated as slash-command references.

Verified locally on BOTH platforms before pushing:
- mac (node 26) full suite: 0 failures
- gsd-test-runner (linux, node22 image) full suite: 0 failures
- bug-3683 + bug-2954 pass.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(#604): lazily resolve findProjectRoot in gsd-tools (harden flaky CI)

CI intermittently failed state.test's gsd-tools subprocess with
"findProjectRoot is not a function" (flip-flopping across legs; not reproducible
on mac full suite, gsd-test linux full suite, test:unit, or state.test x8).
findProjectRoot is a re-export from core.cjs (sourced from project-root.cjs);
binding it via destructure at module-load can be undefined under a load-ordering
edge. Resolve it lazily at call time via a small wrapper so the lookup happens
after core.cjs is fully initialized.

Verified green on BOTH platforms before pushing:
- mac (node 26) full suite: 0 failures
- gsd-test-runner (linux, node22) full suite: 0 failures
- state.test.cjs: 106/106; gsd-tools loads cleanly.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(#604): allowlist verification-patterns.md placeholder examples in secret scan

The rename git-mv'd references/verification-patterns.md into gsd-core/, pulling
it into the secret-scan diff. It documents stub/placeholder RED-FLAG env-var
examples (illustrative Stripe test-key / database-URL / API-key placeholders) —
not real credentials. Added it to .secretscanignore with the strict annotation,
mirroring the existing gsd-core/workflows/plan-phase.md exception.

Verified locally: secret-scan-lint --strict OK; secret-scan --diff origin/next
exits 0 with 0 findings.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-06-02 18:35:29 -04:00

14 KiB

Triage and review all open GitHub issues and PRs against project contribution templates. Produces a structured report showing compliance status for each item, flags missing required fields, identifies label gaps, and optionally takes action (label, comment, close).

<required_reading> Before starting, read these project files to understand the review criteria:

  • .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml — required fields for feature issues
  • .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/enhancement.yml — required fields for enhancement issues
  • .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/chore.yml — required fields for chore issues
  • .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml — required fields for bug reports
  • .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/feature.md — required checklist for feature PRs
  • .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/enhancement.md — required checklist for enhancement PRs
  • .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE/fix.md — required checklist for fix PRs
  • CONTRIBUTING.md — the issue-first rule and approval gates </required_reading>
Verify prerequisites:
  1. gh CLI available and authenticated?

    which gh && gh auth status 2>&1
    

    If not available: print setup instructions and exit.

  2. Detect repository: If --repo flag provided, use that. Otherwise:

    gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q '.nameWithOwner' 2>/dev/null
    

    If no repo detected: error — must be in a git repo with a GitHub remote.

  3. Parse flags:

    • --issues → set REVIEW_ISSUES=true, REVIEW_PRS=false
    • --prs → set REVIEW_ISSUES=false, REVIEW_PRS=true
    • --label → set AUTO_LABEL=true
    • --close-incomplete → set AUTO_CLOSE=true
    • Default (no flags): review both issues and PRs, report only (no auto-actions)
Skip if REVIEW_ISSUES=false.

Fetch all open issues:

gh issue list --state open --json number,title,labels,body,author,createdAt,updatedAt --limit 100

For each issue, classify by labels and body content:

Label/Pattern Type Template
feature-request Feature feature_request.yml
enhancement Enhancement enhancement.yml
bug Bug bug_report.yml
type: chore Chore chore.yml
No matching label Unknown Flag for manual triage

If an issue has no type label, attempt to classify from the body content:

  • Contains "### Feature name" → likely Feature
  • Contains "### What existing feature" → likely Enhancement
  • Contains "### What happened?" → likely Bug
  • Contains "### What is the maintenance task?" → likely Chore
  • Cannot determine → mark as needs-triage
Skip if REVIEW_ISSUES=false.

For each classified issue, review against its template requirements.

Feature Request Review Checklist:

  • Pre-submission checklist present (4 checkboxes)
  • Feature name provided
  • Type of addition selected
  • Problem statement filled (not placeholder text)
  • What is being added described with examples
  • Full scope of changes listed (files created/modified/systems)
  • User stories present (minimum 2)
  • Acceptance criteria present (testable conditions)
  • Applicable runtimes selected
  • Breaking changes assessment present
  • Maintenance burden described
  • Alternatives considered (not empty)
  • Label check: Has needs-review label? Has approved-feature label?
  • Gate check: If PR exists linking this issue, does issue have approved-feature?

Enhancement Review Checklist:

  • Pre-submission checklist present (4 checkboxes)
  • What is being improved identified
  • Current behavior described with examples
  • Proposed behavior described with examples
  • Reason and benefit articulated (not vague)
  • Scope of changes listed
  • Breaking changes assessed
  • Alternatives considered
  • Area affected selected
  • Label check: Has needs-review label? Has approved-enhancement label?
  • Gate check: If PR exists linking this issue, does issue have approved-enhancement?

Bug Report Review Checklist:

  • GSD Version provided
  • Runtime selected
  • OS selected
  • Node.js version provided
  • Description of what happened
  • Expected behavior described
  • Steps to reproduce provided
  • Frequency selected
  • Severity/impact selected
  • PII checklist confirmed
  • Label check: Has needs-triage or confirmed-bug label?

Chore Review Checklist:

  • Pre-submission checklist confirmed (no user-facing changes)
  • Maintenance task described
  • Type of maintenance selected
  • Current state described with specifics
  • Proposed work listed
  • Acceptance criteria present
  • Area affected selected
  • Label check: Has needs-triage label?

Scoring: For each issue, calculate a completeness percentage:

  • Count required fields present vs. total required fields
  • Score = (present / total) * 100
  • Status: COMPLETE (100%), MOSTLY COMPLETE (75-99%), INCOMPLETE (50-74%), REJECT (<50%)
Skip if REVIEW_PRS=false.

Fetch all open PRs:

gh pr list --state open --json number,title,labels,body,author,headRefName,baseRefName,isDraft,createdAt,reviewDecision,statusCheckRollup --limit 100

For each PR, classify by body content and linked issue:

Body Pattern Type Template
Contains "## Feature PR" or "## Feature summary" Feature PR feature.md
Contains "## Enhancement PR" or "## What this enhancement improves" Enhancement PR enhancement.md
Contains "## Fix PR" or "## What was broken" Fix PR fix.md
Uses default template Wrong Template Flag — must use typed template
Cannot determine Unknown Flag for manual review

Also check for linked issues:

gh pr view {number} --json body -q '.body' | grep -oE '(Closes|Fixes|Resolves) #[0-9]+'
Skip if REVIEW_PRS=false.

For each classified PR, review against its template requirements.

Feature PR Review Checklist:

  • Uses feature PR template (not default)
  • Issue linked with Closes #NNN
  • Linked issue exists and has approved-feature label
  • Feature summary present
  • New files table filled
  • Modified files table filled
  • Implementation notes present
  • Spec compliance checklist present (acceptance criteria from issue)
  • Test coverage described
  • Platforms tested checked (macOS, Windows, Linux)
  • Runtimes tested checked
  • Scope confirmation checked
  • Full checklist completed
  • Breaking changes section filled
  • CI check: All status checks passing?
  • Review check: Has review approval?

Enhancement PR Review Checklist:

  • Uses enhancement PR template (not default)
  • Issue linked with Closes #NNN
  • Linked issue exists and has approved-enhancement label
  • What is improved described
  • Before/after provided
  • Implementation approach described
  • Verification method described
  • Platforms tested checked
  • Runtimes tested checked
  • Scope confirmation checked
  • Full checklist completed
  • Breaking changes section filled
  • CI check: All status checks passing?

Fix PR Review Checklist:

  • Uses fix PR template (not default)
  • Issue linked with Fixes #NNN
  • Linked issue exists and has confirmed-bug label
  • What was broken described
  • What the fix does described
  • Root cause explained
  • Verification method described
  • Regression test added (or explained why not)
  • Platforms tested checked
  • Runtimes tested checked
  • Full checklist completed
  • Breaking changes section filled
  • CI check: All status checks passing?

Cross-cutting PR Checks (all types):

  • PR title is descriptive (not just "fix" or "update")
  • One concern per PR (not mixing fix + enhancement)
  • No unrelated formatting changes visible in diff
  • .changeset/*.md fragment added for user-facing changes (or no-changelog label applied)
  • Not using --no-verify or skipping hooks

Scoring: Same as issues — completeness percentage per PR.

Cross-reference issues and PRs to enforce the issue-first rule:

For each open PR:

  1. Extract linked issue number from body
  2. If no linked issue: GATE VIOLATION — PR has no issue
  3. If linked issue exists, check its labels:
    • Feature PR → issue must have approved-feature
    • Enhancement PR → issue must have approved-enhancement
    • Fix PR → issue must have confirmed-bug
  4. If label is missing: GATE VIOLATION — PR opened before approval

Report gate violations prominently — these are the most important findings because the project auto-closes PRs without proper approval gates.

Produce a structured triage report:
===================================================================
  GSD INBOX TRIAGE — {repo} — {date}
===================================================================

SUMMARY
-------
Open issues: {count}    Open PRs: {count}
  Features:    {n}        Feature PRs:      {n}
  Enhancements:{n}        Enhancement PRs:  {n}
  Bugs:        {n}        Fix PRs:          {n}
  Chores:      {n}        Wrong template:   {n}
  Unclassified:{n}        No linked issue:  {n}

GATE VIOLATIONS (action required)
---------------------------------
{For each violation:}
  PR #{number}: {title}
    Problem: {description — e.g., "No approved-feature label on linked issue #45"}
    Action:  {what to do — e.g., "Close PR or approve issue #45 first"}

ISSUES NEEDING ATTENTION
------------------------
{For each issue sorted by completeness score, lowest first:}
  #{number} [{type}] {title}
    Score: {percentage}% complete
    Missing: {list of missing required fields}
    Labels: {current labels} → Suggested: {recommended labels}
    Age: {days since created}

PRS NEEDING ATTENTION
---------------------
{For each PR sorted by completeness score, lowest first:}
  #{number} [{type}] {title}
    Score: {percentage}% complete
    Missing: {list of missing checklist items}
    CI: {passing/failing/pending}
    Review: {approved/changes_requested/none}
    Linked issue: #{issue_number} ({issue_status})
    Age: {days since created}

READY TO MERGE
--------------
{PRs that are 100% complete, CI passing, approved:}
  #{number} {title} — ready

STALE ITEMS (>30 days, no activity)
------------------------------------
{Issues and PRs with no updates in 30+ days}

===================================================================

Write this report to .planning/INBOX-TRIAGE.md if a .planning/ directory exists, otherwise print to console only.

Only execute if `--label` or `--close-incomplete` flags were set.

If --label: For each issue/PR where labels are missing or incorrect:

gh issue edit {number} --add-label "{label}"

Or:

gh pr edit {number} --add-label "{label}"

Label recommendations:

  • Unclassified issues → add needs-triage
  • Feature issues without review → add needs-review
  • Enhancement issues without review → add needs-review
  • Bug reports without triage → add needs-triage
  • PRs with gate violations → add gate-violation

If --close-incomplete: For issues scoring below 50% completeness:

gh issue close {number} --comment "Closed by GSD inbox triage: this issue is missing required fields per the issue template. Missing: {list}. Please reopen with a complete submission. See CONTRIBUTING.md for requirements."

For PRs with gate violations:

gh pr close {number} --comment "Closed by GSD inbox triage: this PR does not meet the issue-first requirement. {specific violation}. See CONTRIBUTING.md for the correct process."

Always confirm with the user before closing anything:

Text mode (workflow.text_mode: true in config or --text flag): Set TEXT_MODE=true if --text is present in $ARGUMENTS OR text_mode from init JSON is true. When TEXT_MODE is active, replace every AskUserQuestion call with a plain-text numbered list and ask the user to type their choice number. This is required for non-Claude runtimes (OpenAI Codex, Gemini CLI, etc.) where AskUserQuestion is not available.

AskUserQuestion:
  question: "Found {N} items to close. Review the list above — proceed with closing?"
  options:
    - label: "Close all"
      description: "Close all {N} non-compliant items with explanation comments"
    - label: "Let me pick"
      description: "I'll choose which ones to close"
    - label: "Skip"
      description: "Don't close anything — report only"
``` ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Inbox Triage Complete

Reviewed: {issue_count} issues, {pr_count} PRs Gate violations: {violation_count} Ready to merge: {ready_count} Needing attention: {attention_count} Stale (30+ days): {stale_count} {If report saved: "Report saved to .planning/INBOX-TRIAGE.md"}

Next steps:

  • Review gate violations first — these block the contribution pipeline
  • Address incomplete submissions (comment or close)
  • Merge ready PRs
  • Triage unclassified issues

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

</step>

</process>

<offer_next>
After triage:

- /gsd:review — Run cross-AI peer review on a specific phase plan
- /gsd:ship — Create a PR from completed work
- /gsd:progress — See overall project state
- /gsd:inbox --label — Re-run with auto-labeling enabled
</offer_next>

<success_criteria>
- [ ] All open issues fetched and classified by type
- [ ] Each issue reviewed against its template requirements
- [ ] All open PRs fetched and classified by type
- [ ] Each PR reviewed against its template checklist
- [ ] Issue-first gate violations identified
- [ ] Structured report generated with scores and action items
- [ ] Auto-actions executed only when flagged and user-confirmed
</success_criteria>