* test(#3034): failing-first coverage for opt-in parallel reviewer lanes Executes the real invoke_reviewers dispatch block from review.md against a stubbed gsd_run seam rather than pattern-matching the workflow text, so the two properties that actually carry risk are observable: that every lane is joined before aggregation, and that concurrent lanes cannot tear a line in gsd-review-lane-results.jsonl. Concurrency is proven by a barrier fixture, not by elapsed time -- each stub lane blocks until all lanes have checked in, which can only complete if they overlap. Red against the current sequential dispatch, by design. Refs #3034 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> * feat(#3034): add opt-in parallel reviewer lanes Reviewer lanes within one review pass inspect the same immutable plan snapshot and have no dependency on one another, but were dispatched strictly one at a time, so a multi-reviewer pass cost roughly the sum of its lanes. The serialization is a deliberate protection against provider rate limits, so it stays the default; review.parallel_lanes opts a project out of it. The loop body is hoisted into run_review_lane so the sequential and concurrent paths share one body -- two hand-synced dispatch bodies is the divergence class ADR-2782 spent a phase deleting. Each lane writes a slug-scoped result file, concatenated in selection order after the join: concurrent O_APPEND is atomic only below PIPE_BUF, and write_reviews parses that JSONL to render the models:/model_sources: frontmatter, so a torn line is a broken REVIEWS.md rather than a cosmetic log defect. Aggregating in selection order also keeps the artifact byte-identical between the two paths. The guard is strict equality on "true" and falls back to sequential when config-get fails -- the opposite polarity from the commit_docs guard, because failing open here fires the very requests the default prevents. Also corrects docs/COMMANDS.md and its four locale mirrors, which described --all as running every configured reviewer in parallel when dispatch was in fact sequential. Closes #3034 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> * fix(#3034): de-duplicate dispatch slugs and scope lane locals Review finding (Standards axis): a slug repeated in SELECTED_REVIEWERS would put two concurrent background jobs on the same > -truncated per-lane result file. The shared-append form this replaced could not corrupt itself that way, so de-duplicating is what keeps the concurrent path no worse than the sequential one. Selection de-dupes today -- the roster is a Set and review.default_reviewers normalizes lowercase-unique -- but reachability analysis is not a contract, which is the same reason the roster derivation itself is guarded. Splitting once into DISPATCH_SLUGS also removes the duplicated tr-split the same review flagged: the dispatch and aggregation loops now share one list, which is what guarantees they walk the same slugs in the same order. A plain string accumulator rather than an array, because zsh and bash disagree on array indexing and this block runs under both. Also scopes run_review_lane's locals. Not a live fix -- each dispatched call already forks its own subshell -- but it makes the isolation a property of the function rather than of the dispatch mechanism happening to fork. Refs #3034 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> * test(#3034): acknowledge review.md growth, drop spent 2295 ack The differential attribution gate reported review.md growing 4173 bytes (30712 -> 34885) with no live acknowledgment. Adds the per-PR fragment it asks for, naming only the one path it reported. Deleting tests/emitted-drift-acks/2295-resolved-model.json is required, not opportunistic. That fragment declared review.md and nothing else, and its ripple is already absorbed into the base, so it is spent -- it can no longer clear anything, which is why the gate still reported review.md as unacknowledged. It could not simply be left alone either: two ack sources may never name the same path, so it blocked this PR's fragment outright. CONTRIBUTING is explicit that a fragment whose last entry is removed gets deleted with it, because an empty fragment signals nothing while its presence reads as a live alarm. Refs #3034 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> * chore(#3034): backfill changeset PR number Refs #3034 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: sim <sim@local> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
GSD Core 文档
文档按四个象限组织:教程通过实践帮助你学习,操作指南解决具体任务,参考文档提供权威信息,概念说明探讨设计理念与决策。
语言版本:English · Português (pt-BR) · 日本語 · 简体中文
Tutorials
How-to guides
- 在你的运行时上安装 — 适用于全部 16 个受支持运行时的安装步骤
- 讨论一个阶段 — 在规划开始前记录实现决策
- 规划一个阶段 — 执行调研、分解工作并验证计划质量
- 执行一个阶段 — 使用全新上下文的子代理以并行波次运行计划
- 验证并交付 — 审查已完成的工作、诊断失败并创建 PR
- 自主运行阶段 — 使用自主模式进行无人值守的阶段执行
- 处理快速临时任务 — 使用
/gsd-quick和/gsd-fast处理阶段循环之外的临时工作 - 配置模型配置文件 — 在高质量、均衡和经济模型层级之间切换
- 设置跨 AI 审查 — 配置第二个 AI 对主代理生成的代码进行审查
- 使用工作流并行工作 — 使用工作流同时运行独立的工作线
- 使用工作空间隔离工作 — 使用工作空间对实验性或高风险变更进行沙箱隔离
- 调试失败的执行 — 诊断并从中断或不完整的阶段执行中恢复
- 探索与草图 — 在提交计划之前,使用
/gsd-spike和/gsd-sketch进行探索性工作 - 设计 UI 阶段 — 使用 UI 阶段循环处理前端和视觉工作
- 从追踪器 Issue 驱动 GSD — 从 GitHub、Linear 或 Jira issue 启动一个阶段
- 从 GSD 2 迁移 — 将现有的 GSD 2 项目升级到 GSD Core
- 更新 GSD — 重新运行安装程序以获取最新版本
- 恢复与故障排查 — 修复常见问题、重建上下文并卸载
Reference
- 命令 — 每个命令的标志和示例
- 配置 — 完整配置模式、模型配置文件、Git 分支策略
- CLI 工具 —
gsd-tools.cjs用于工作流和代理的编程式 API - 功能特性 — 完整功能索引
- 清单 — 已安装的技能与界面映射
- STATE.md 模式 —
.planning/STATE.md的逐字段参考 - CONTEXT.md 模式 —
.planning/phases/<N>/CONTEXT.md的逐字段参考 - PLAN.md 模式 —
.planning/phases/<N>/PLAN.md的逐字段参考 - 规划产物 — 所有
.planning/文件及其作用
Explanation
- 上下文工程 — 上下文腐化如何形成,以及 GSD Core 如何防止它
- 阶段循环 — 讨论 → 规划 → 执行 → 验证 → 交付循环的设计原理
- 多代理编排 — 子代理的生成、范围界定和协调方式
- 安全模型 — 信任边界、权限和安全自动化
- 架构 — 系统架构、代理模型和数据流
- 讨论模式 —
/gsd-discuss-phase的假设模式与访谈模式 - 上下文监控 — 上下文窗口监控钩子架构
- Issue 驱动编排 — 使用现有原语从追踪器 issue 驱动 GSD 的方案
Related
- 根目录 README — 首页、快速开始和文档概览
- 变更日志 — 发布历史