fac0e9de86
* docs(#4906): ADR-4910 amendment — a write refuses on a document with any unreadable node §5 scoped the parse error to the node. That is correct for reads and was never examined for writes. §5 was reasoned entirely from #4899, a read bug. Node-scoping is right there: a ragged Progress table must not make phase list and init.progress fail, because those are the commands a user needs to see what to repair. But the rule was stated unqualified, and it licensed something never considered — phase.complete mutating a ROADMAP.md whose Progress table it could not read. A partial-view write persists a wrong answer rather than merely returning one. Amendment: reads stay node-scoped; a write refuses when ANY node in the document carries a parse error, whether or not the mutation targets it. A reader answers a bounded question from a bounded region; a writer asserts that the document it emits is the document it read, and cannot make that assertion about a region it could not parse. §3's byte-stability does not rescue it — splicing untouched bytes faithfully is not the same as knowing they were consistent with the change. Rejected: refusing only when the mutation's own target node is unreadable. It is the appealing middle and it does not hold — phase.complete writes **Plans:** while deriving that value from plan/summary counts in a different region. The regions a write depends on are not statically the regions it touches. Downstream: Phase 1 ships both scopes plus a hasUnreadableNodes predicate the serializer consults; Phase 2 gains a new acceptance criterion (a refused write leaves the file byte-identical on disk); Phase 4's census gains a second axis and must publish both counts. Appended as a dated section per docs/contributor-standards.md pattern 1 — the original Decision body is unchanged. Refs #4906 Refs #4910 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> * docs(#4906): correct the amendment's motivating example and state the limit it exposes An isolated review pass falsified the first draft's central example. The correction is recorded in the amendment rather than quietly patched, because it bounds what the rule can promise. - The draft claimed phase.complete derives the value it writes into **Plans:** from a different REGION of the same document. It does not. planCount and summaryCount come from findPhaseInternal at src/phase.cts:3429-3434 — a filesystem scan of the phase directory. No PlanningDoc node holds them. That widens the dependency rather than narrowing it, and it makes an explicit limit necessary: a document-scoped write refusal protects the document's own consistency and says nothing about the correctness of a value sourced from outside the document. Recorded as a stated limit and named out of scope for this epic. - The rejected alternative (refuse only when the mutation's own target node is unreadable) is re-grounded on two arguments that survive: it would almost never fire, since a verb locates the node in order to write it; and it guards something smaller than the operation performs, because serialization re-emits the whole file. - §5's body names `phase list` as a consumer an unreadable Progress table would block. It is not one — cmdPhasesList (src/phase.cts:207) enumerates phases/ and never opens ROADMAP.md. init.progress and roadmap.analyze are the real instances; the argument never needed three. §5's body left unmodified per the append-only rule, correction carried in the amendment, fold in at ratification. - Clarified that the new WriteOutcome refusal sits on a different axis from §5's reserved document-level Result<PlanningDoc> parse failure, so no reader can conclude that reservation was reopened. A document can be valid to open and still refuse to be written. Refs #4906 Refs #4910 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
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.