f96cb44f85
* test(#3248): failing-first suite for instruction-surface disclosure 28 matrix rows from 50-test-matrix.md. Rows requiring the new Disclosure.instructionSurfaces field fail today; rows 18-20/23-25 (the ADR-2363 D4 signature invariants) pass today by construction because the current code never reads skills/agents at all, and stand as regression guards for the implementation commit. Refs #3248 * feat(#3248): disclose capability skills and agents as an instruction surface ADR-2363 D5. A capability whose only contribution was skills disclosed nothing at install: summarizeDisclosure early-returned "ships no executable surfaces (declarative only)" because hasExecutable was false, while each SKILL.md body landed verbatim in the agent's instruction context. discloseExecutableSurfaces gains a fifth, NON-executable class, instructionSurfaces, collecting declared skills/agents stems through the same safeCollect wrapper as the four existing collectors, so a hostile value degrades only this class and the function stays total for any manifest shape. Nothing existing is edited: the collectors, hasExecutable, disclosureSignature and missingArtifacts are untouched. get_impact rates the symbol CRITICAL at 196 affected, which is why the design is strictly additive. D4 is implemented by omission and pinned rather than left incidental: adding, changing or removing skills/agents leaves disclosureSignature byte-identical, so no stored consent record is perturbed and no spurious re-consent fires. ADR-2782's conditional-append trick is deliberately NOT reused - it worked because no manifest could declare a reviewer body before that class existed, whereas skills predate this one, so a conditional append would re-sign every already-consented skill-bearing capability. The renderer is extracted as summarizeInstructionSurfaces and called from BOTH branches of summarizeDisclosure. Appending only at the end would never render for skill-only capabilities - the ones that need it - since those take the early return. That branch's "declarative only" claim is now conditional on there being no instruction surface either. The renderer iterates rather than spreading into push, so an unbounded stem count cannot throw RangeError, and tolerates the bare {} the CLI edge passes via `res.disclosure || {}`. Scope note: #3248's prose says "skill stems"; ADR-2363 D3 classifies instruction surfaces as "skills, agents". Shipping skills alone would leave an ADR deliverable owned by no phase, and the epic has no Phase 2. Agents are the same shape at no extra cost. Narrowing back is a two-line change. Ratifies ADR-2363 (Proposed -> Accepted) and adds the owed ADR-1244 back-link. Closes #3248 * fix(#3248): escape consent-prompt values and narrow disclosure to skills Two review findings, both of which made the previous commit wrong. BLOCKER (isolated adversarial review). Every manifest-supplied value interpolated into a consent-prompt line was rendered unescaped. Those lines are joined with \n and written RAW to stderr on the needs-consent path (capability-command-router -> cli-exit runMain), so a stem carrying a newline forged additional lines indistinguishable from genuine GSD disclosure text, and an ANSI escape could clear or rewrite lines already printed. That defeats the informed-consent guarantee this change exists to provide, and is a prompt-injection vector against any agent that reads the stderr text to decide whether to retry with --yes. The hole was not unique to the new class - hook event/script, command family/module/router, every MCP field, and every reviewer-lane field were equally unescaped. Fixing only the new one would have created the generative-fix divergence this repo tracks, so renderValueForPrompt is applied to all five classes through one helper, guarded by a parity test that fails if a future class skips it. Escaping is identity for ordinary names, so no well-formed manifest's output changes. The disclosure OBJECT stays verbatim - only the rendered LINE is escaped - because the signature and every consumer reasoning about identity depend on the declared value. NARROWED to skills only. The previous commit also collected agents, arguing ADR-2363 D3 classifies instruction surfaces as "skills, agents". Verified against staging: stageSkillsForRuntimeAsSkills takes a registry and unions third-party skills in via readInstalledCapabilitySkill, while stageAgentsForRuntimeWithConverter takes only a source directory and has no registry-aware path. Third-party agents are never staged into the instruction context, so disclosing them would have put a false claim in a security prompt - worse than the scope creep two reviewers flagged it as. D3's classification stands; D5 now records that Phase 1 implements the skills half and that whether agents should be staged at all is an open maintainer question. Also reverts the premature ADR-2363 ratification. The previous commit flipped it to Accepted and asserted "#3248 merged" while this branch IS #3248 and is unmerged. Status returns to Proposed, and the ADR-1244 back-link - owed only on ratification - is withdrawn. Adds the fast-check property suite CLAUDE.md requires and the direct precedent (reviewer-trust-disclosure) already had: totality, D4 signature invariance, D3 hasExecutable invariance, and renderer totality over adversarial manifests. Refs #3248 * chore(#3248): correct changeset scope claim and backfill pr number The fragment was written against the pre-narrowing commit and still advertised 'skills and agents'. 4d26887e narrowed disclosure to skills only - third-party agents are never staged into the instruction context - but did not touch the fragment, so the release notes would have carried a claim the code does not implement. Also backfills pr:0 -> 3253 and names the prompt-escaping fix, which is user-visible and was absent from the original body. Changeset-only; no code or test changed, so the gsd-test pass recorded for 4d26887e still describes this tree's behavior. Refs #3248 --------- 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.