rtu_v5/.opencode/get-shit-done/workflows/discuss-phase.md at main

Files

2026-05-29 14:48:36 +08:00

25 KiB

Raw Permalink Blame History

Extract implementation decisions that downstream agents need. Analyze the phase to identify gray areas, let the user choose what to discuss, then deep-dive each selected area until satisfied.

You are a thinking partner, not an interviewer. The user is the visionary — you are the builder. Your job is to capture decisions that will guide research and planning, not to figure out implementation yourself.

<downstream_awareness> CONTEXT.md feeds into:

gsd-phase-researcher — Reads CONTEXT.md to know WHAT to research
- "User wants card-based layout" → researcher investigates card component patterns
- "Infinite scroll decided" → researcher looks into virtualization libraries
gsd-planner — Reads CONTEXT.md to know WHAT decisions are locked
- "Pull-to-refresh on mobile" → planner includes that in task specs
- "OpenCode's Discretion: loading skeleton" → planner can decide approach

Your job: Capture decisions clearly enough that downstream agents can act on them without asking the user again.

Not your job: Figure out HOW to implement. That's what research and planning do with the decisions you capture. </downstream_awareness>

**User = founder/visionary. OpenCode = builder.**

The user knows:

How they imagine it working
What it should look/feel like
What's essential vs nice-to-have
Specific behaviors or references they have in mind

The user doesn't know (and shouldn't be asked):

Codebase patterns (researcher reads the code)
Technical risks (researcher identifies these)
Implementation approach (planner figures this out)
Success metrics (inferred from the work)

Ask about vision and implementation choices. Capture decisions for downstream agents.

<scope_guardrail> CRITICAL: No scope creep.

The phase boundary comes from ROADMAP.md and is FIXED. Discussion clarifies HOW to implement what's scoped, never WHETHER to add new capabilities.

Allowed (clarifying ambiguity):

"How should posts be displayed?" (layout, density, info shown)
"What happens on empty state?" (within the feature)
"Pull to refresh or manual?" (behavior choice)

Not allowed (scope creep):

"Should we also add comments?" (new capability)
"What about search/filtering?" (new capability)
"Maybe include bookmarking?" (new capability)

The heuristic: Does this clarify how we implement what's already in the phase, or does it add a new capability that could be its own phase?

When user suggests scope creep:

"[Feature X] would be a new capability — that's its own phase.
Want me to note it for the roadmap backlog?

For now, let's focus on [phase domain]."

Capture the idea in a "Deferred Ideas" section. Don't lose it, don't act on it. </scope_guardrail>

<gray_area_identification> Gray areas are implementation decisions the user cares about — things that could go multiple ways and would change the result.

How to identify gray areas:

read the phase goal from ROADMAP.md
Understand the domain — What kind of thing is being built?
- Something users SEE → visual presentation, interactions, states matter
- Something users CALL → interface contracts, responses, errors matter
- Something users RUN → invocation, output, behavior modes matter
- Something users READ → structure, tone, depth, flow matter
- Something being ORGANIZED → criteria, grouping, handling exceptions matter
Generate phase-specific gray areas — Not generic categories, but concrete decisions for THIS phase

Don't use generic category labels (UI, UX, Behavior). Generate specific gray areas:

Phase: "User authentication"
→ Session handling, Error responses, Multi-device policy, Recovery flow

Phase: "Organize photo library"
→ Grouping criteria, Duplicate handling, Naming convention, Folder structure

Phase: "CLI for database backups"
→ Output format, Flag design, Progress reporting, Error recovery

Phase: "API documentation"
→ Structure/navigation, Code examples depth, Versioning approach, Interactive elements

The key question: What decisions would change the outcome that the user should weigh in on?

OpenCode handles these (don't ask):

Technical implementation details
Architecture patterns
Performance optimization
Scope (roadmap defines this) </gray_area_identification>

Express path available: If you already have a PRD or acceptance criteria document, use /gsd-plan-phase {phase} --prd path/to/prd.md to skip this discussion and go straight to planning.

Phase number from argument (required).

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

Parse JSON for: commit_docs, phase_found, phase_dir, phase_number, phase_name, phase_slug, padded_phase, has_research, has_context, has_plans, has_verification, plan_count, roadmap_exists, planning_exists.

If phase_found is false:

Phase [X] not found in roadmap.

Use /gsd-progress to see available phases.

Exit workflow.

If phase_found is true: Continue to check_existing.

Check if CONTEXT.md already exists using `has_context` from init.

ls ${phase_dir}/*-CONTEXT.md 2>/dev/null

If exists: Use question:

header: "Context"
question: "Phase [X] already has context. What do you want to do?"
options:
- "Update it" — Review and revise existing context
- "View it" — Show me what's there
- "Skip" — Use existing context as-is

If "Update": Load existing, continue to analyze_phase If "View": Display CONTEXT.md, then offer update/skip If "Skip": Exit workflow

If doesn't exist:

Check has_plans and plan_count from init. If has_plans is true:

Use question:

header: "Plans exist"
question: "Phase [X] already has {plan_count} plan(s) created without user context. Your decisions here won't affect existing plans unless you replan."
options:
- "Continue and replan after" — Capture context, then run /gsd-plan-phase {X} to replan
- "View existing plans" — Show plans before deciding
- "Cancel" — Skip discuss-phase

If "Continue and replan after": Continue to analyze_phase. If "View existing plans": Display plan files, then offer "Continue" / "Cancel". If "Cancel": Exit workflow.

If has_plans is false: Continue to load_prior_context.

read project-level and prior phase context to avoid re-asking decided questions and maintain consistency.

Step 1: read project-level files

# Core project files
cat .planning/PROJECT.md 2>/dev/null
cat .planning/REQUIREMENTS.md 2>/dev/null
cat .planning/STATE.md 2>/dev/null

Extract from these:

PROJECT.md — Vision, principles, non-negotiables, user preferences
REQUIREMENTS.md — Acceptance criteria, constraints, must-haves vs nice-to-haves
STATE.md — Current progress, any flags or session notes

Step 2: read all prior CONTEXT.md files

# Find all CONTEXT.md files from phases before current
find .planning/phases -name "*-CONTEXT.md" 2>/dev/null | sort

For each CONTEXT.md where phase number < current phase:

read the <decisions> section — these are locked preferences
read <specifics> — particular references or "I want it like X" moments
Note any patterns (e.g., "user consistently prefers minimal UI", "user rejected single-key shortcuts")

Step 3: Build internal <prior_decisions> context

Structure the extracted information:

<prior_decisions>
## Project-Level
- [Key principle or constraint from PROJECT.md]
- [Requirement that affects this phase from REQUIREMENTS.md]

## From Prior Phases
### Phase N: [Name]
- [Decision that may be relevant to current phase]
- [Preference that establishes a pattern]

### Phase M: [Name]
- [Another relevant decision]
</prior_decisions>

Usage in subsequent steps:

analyze_phase: Skip gray areas already decided in prior phases
present_gray_areas: Annotate options with prior decisions ("You chose X in Phase 5")
discuss_areas: Pre-fill answers or flag conflicts ("This contradicts Phase 3 — same here or different?")

If no prior context exists: Continue without — this is expected for early phases.

Lightweight scan of existing code to inform gray area identification and discussion. Uses ~10% context — acceptable for an interactive session.

Step 1: Check for existing codebase maps

ls .planning/codebase/*.md 2>/dev/null

If codebase maps exist: read the most relevant ones (CONVENTIONS.md, STRUCTURE.md, STACK.md based on phase type). Extract:

Reusable components/hooks/utilities
Established patterns (state management, styling, data fetching)
Integration points (where new code would connect)

Skip to Step 3 below.

Step 2: If no codebase maps, do targeted grep

Extract key terms from the phase goal (e.g., "feed" → "post", "card", "list"; "auth" → "login", "session", "token").

# Find files related to phase goal terms
grep -rl "{term1}\|{term2}" src/ app/ --include="*.ts" --include="*.tsx" --include="*.js" --include="*.jsx" 2>/dev/null | head -10

# Find existing components/hooks
ls src/components/ 2>/dev/null
ls src/hooks/ 2>/dev/null
ls src/lib/ src/utils/ 2>/dev/null

read the 3-5 most relevant files to understand existing patterns.

Step 3: Build internal codebase_context

From the scan, identify:

Reusable assets — existing components, hooks, utilities that could be used in this phase
Established patterns — how the codebase does state management, styling, data fetching
Integration points — where new code would connect (routes, nav, providers)
Creative options — approaches the existing architecture enables or constrains

Store as internal <codebase_context> for use in analyze_phase and present_gray_areas. This is NOT written to a file — it's used within this session only.

Analyze the phase to identify gray areas worth discussing. **Use both `prior_decisions` and `codebase_context` to ground the analysis.**

read the phase description from ROADMAP.md and determine:

Domain boundary — What capability is this phase delivering? State it clearly.
Check prior decisions — Before generating gray areas, check if any were already decided:
- Scan <prior_decisions> for relevant choices (e.g., "Ctrl+C only, no single-key shortcuts")
- These are pre-answered — don't re-ask unless this phase has conflicting needs
- Note applicable prior decisions for use in presentation
Gray areas by category — For each relevant category (UI, UX, Behavior, Empty States, Content), identify 1-2 specific ambiguities that would change implementation. Annotate with code context where relevant (e.g., "You already have a Card component" or "No existing pattern for this").
Skip assessment — If no meaningful gray areas exist (pure infrastructure, clear-cut implementation, or all already decided in prior phases), the phase may not need discussion.

Output your analysis internally, then present to user.

Example analysis for "Post Feed" phase (with code and prior context):

Domain: Displaying posts from followed users
Existing: Card component (src/components/ui/Card.tsx), useInfiniteQuery hook, Tailwind CSS
Prior decisions: "Minimal UI preferred" (Phase 2), "No pagination — always infinite scroll" (Phase 4)
Gray areas:
- UI: Layout style (cards vs timeline vs grid) — Card component exists with shadow/rounded variants
- UI: Information density (full posts vs previews) — no existing density patterns
- Behavior: Loading pattern — ALREADY DECIDED: infinite scroll (Phase 4)
- Empty State: What shows when no posts exist — EmptyState component exists in ui/
- Content: What metadata displays (time, author, reactions count)

Present the domain boundary, prior decisions, and gray areas to user.

First, state the boundary and any prior decisions that apply:

Phase [X]: [Name]
Domain: [What this phase delivers — from your analysis]

We'll clarify HOW to implement this.
(New capabilities belong in other phases.)

[If prior decisions apply:]
**Carrying forward from earlier phases:**
- [Decision from Phase N that applies here]
- [Decision from Phase M that applies here]

Then use question (multiSelect: true):

header: "Discuss"
question: "Which areas do you want to discuss for [phase name]?"
options: Generate 3-4 phase-specific gray areas, each with:
- "[Specific area]" (label) — concrete, not generic
- [1-2 questions this covers + code context annotation] (description)
- Highlight the recommended choice with brief explanation why

Prior decision annotations: When a gray area was already decided in a prior phase, annotate it:

☐ Exit shortcuts — How should users quit?
  (You decided "Ctrl+C only, no single-key shortcuts" in Phase 5 — revisit or keep?)

Code context annotations: When the scout found relevant existing code, annotate the gray area description:

☐ Layout style — Cards vs list vs timeline?
  (You already have a Card component with shadow/rounded variants. Reusing it keeps the app consistent.)

Combining both: When both prior decisions and code context apply:

☐ Loading behavior — Infinite scroll or pagination?
  (You chose infinite scroll in Phase 4. useInfiniteQuery hook already set up.)

Do NOT include a "skip" or "you decide" option. User ran this command to discuss — give them real choices.

Examples by domain (with code context):

For "Post Feed" (visual feature):

☐ Layout style — Cards vs list vs timeline? (Card component exists with variants)
☐ Loading behavior — Infinite scroll or pagination? (useInfiniteQuery hook available)
☐ Content ordering — Chronological, algorithmic, or user choice?
☐ Post metadata — What info per post? Timestamps, reactions, author?

For "Database backup CLI" (command-line tool):

☐ Output format — JSON, table, or plain text? Verbosity levels?
☐ Flag design — Short flags, long flags, or both? Required vs optional?
☐ Progress reporting — Silent, progress bar, or verbose logging?
☐ Error recovery — Fail fast, retry, or prompt for action?

For "Organize photo library" (organization task):

☐ Grouping criteria — By date, location, faces, or events?
☐ Duplicate handling — Keep best, keep all, or prompt each time?
☐ Naming convention — Original names, dates, or descriptive?
☐ Folder structure — Flat, nested by year, or by category?

Continue to discuss_areas with selected areas.

For each selected area, conduct a focused discussion loop.

Philosophy: 4 questions, then check.

Ask 4 questions per area before offering to continue or move on. Each answer often reveals the next question.

For each area:

Announce the area:
```
Let's talk about [Area].
```
Ask 4 questions using question:
- header: "[Area]" (max 12 chars — abbreviate if needed)
- question: Specific decision for this area
- options: 2-3 concrete choices (question adds "Other" automatically), with the recommended choice highlighted and brief explanation why
- Annotate options with code context when relevant:
```
"How should posts be displayed?"
- Cards (reuses existing Card component — consistent with Messages)
- List (simpler, would be a new pattern)
- Timeline (needs new Timeline component — none exists yet)
```
- Include "You decide" as an option when reasonable — captures OpenCode discretion
- Context7 for library choices: When a gray area involves library selection (e.g., "magic links" → query next-auth docs) or API approach decisions, use mcp__context7__* tools to fetch current documentation and inform the options. Don't use Context7 for every question — only when library-specific knowledge improves the options.
After 4 questions, check:
- header: "[Area]" (max 12 chars)
- question: "More questions about [area], or move to next?"
- options: "More questions" / "Next area"
If "More questions" → ask 4 more, then check again If "Next area" → proceed to next selected area If "Other" (free text) → interpret intent: continuation phrases ("chat more", "keep going", "yes", "more") map to "More questions"; advancement phrases ("done", "move on", "next", "skip") map to "Next area". If ambiguous, ask: "Continue with more questions about [area], or move to the next area?"
After all initially-selected areas complete:
- Summarize what was captured from the discussion so far
- question:
  - header: "Done"
  - question: "We've discussed [list areas]. Which gray areas remain unclear?"
  - options: "Explore more gray areas" / "I'm ready for context"
- If "Explore more gray areas":
  - Identify 2-4 additional gray areas based on what was learned
  - Return to present_gray_areas logic with these new areas
  - Loop: discuss new areas, then prompt again
- If "I'm ready for context": Proceed to write_context

question design:

Options should be concrete, not abstract ("Cards" not "Option A")
Each answer should inform the next question
If user picks "Other" to provide freeform input (e.g., "let me describe it", "something else", or an open-ended reply), ask your follow-up as plain text — NOT another question. Wait for them to type at the normal prompt, then reflect their input back and confirm before resuming question for the next question.

Scope creep handling: If user mentions something outside the phase domain:

"[Feature] sounds like a new capability — that belongs in its own phase.
I'll note it as a deferred idea.

Back to [current area]: [return to current question]"

Track deferred ideas internally.

Create CONTEXT.md capturing decisions made.

Find or create phase directory:

Use values from init: phase_dir, phase_slug, padded_phase.

If phase_dir is null (phase exists in roadmap but no directory):

mkdir -p ".planning/phases/${padded_phase}-${phase_slug}"

File location: ${phase_dir}/${padded_phase}-CONTEXT.md

Structure the content by what was discussed:

# Phase [X]: [Name] - Context

**Gathered:** [date]
**Status:** Ready for planning

<domain>
## Phase Boundary

[Clear statement of what this phase delivers — the scope anchor]

</domain>

<decisions>
## Implementation Decisions

### [Category 1 that was discussed]
- [Decision or preference captured]
- [Another decision if applicable]

### [Category 2 that was discussed]
- [Decision or preference captured]

### OpenCode's Discretion
[Areas where user said "you decide" — note that OpenCode has flexibility here]

</decisions>

<code_context>
## Existing Code Insights

### Reusable Assets
- [Component/hook/utility]: [How it could be used in this phase]

### Established Patterns
- [Pattern]: [How it constrains/enables this phase]

### Integration Points
- [Where new code connects to existing system]

</code_context>

<specifics>
## Specific Ideas

[Any particular references, examples, or "I want it like X" moments from discussion]

[If none: "No specific requirements — open to standard approaches"]

</specifics>

<deferred>
## Deferred Ideas

[Ideas that came up but belong in other phases. Don't lose them.]

[If none: "None — discussion stayed within phase scope"]

</deferred>

---

*Phase: XX-name*
*Context gathered: [date]*

write file.

Present summary and next steps:

Created: .planning/phases/${PADDED_PHASE}-${SLUG}/${PADDED_PHASE}-CONTEXT.md

## Decisions Captured

### [Category]
- [Key decision]

### [Category]
- [Key decision]

[If deferred ideas exist:]
## Noted for Later
- [Deferred idea] — future phase

---

## ▶ Next Up

**Phase ${PHASE}: [Name]** — [Goal from ROADMAP.md]

`/gsd-plan-phase ${PHASE}`

*`/new` first → fresh context window*

---

**Also available:**
- `/gsd-plan-phase ${PHASE} --skip-research` — plan without research
- Review/edit CONTEXT.md before continuing

---

Commit phase context (uses `commit_docs` from init internally):

node "./.opencode/get-shit-done/bin/gsd-tools.cjs" commit "docs(${padded_phase}): capture phase context" --files "${phase_dir}/${padded_phase}-CONTEXT.md"

Confirm: "Committed: docs(${padded_phase}): capture phase context"

Update STATE.md with session info:

node "./.opencode/get-shit-done/bin/gsd-tools.cjs" state record-session \
  --stopped-at "Phase ${PHASE} context gathered" \
  --resume-file "${phase_dir}/${padded_phase}-CONTEXT.md"

Commit STATE.md:

node "./.opencode/get-shit-done/bin/gsd-tools.cjs" commit "docs(state): record phase ${PHASE} context session" --files .planning/STATE.md

Check for auto-advance trigger:

Parse --auto flag from $ARGUMENTS
Sync chain flag with intent — if user invoked manually (no --auto), clear the ephemeral chain flag from any previous interrupted --auto chain. This does NOT touch workflow.auto_advance (the user's persistent settings preference):
```
if [[ ! "$ARGUMENTS" =~ --auto ]]; then
  node "./.opencode/get-shit-done/bin/gsd-tools.cjs" config-set workflow._auto_chain_active false 2>/dev/null
fi
```

read both the chain flag and user preference:

AUTO_CHAIN=$(node "./.opencode/get-shit-done/bin/gsd-tools.cjs" config-get workflow._auto_chain_active 2>/dev/null || echo "false")
AUTO_CFG=$(node "./.opencode/get-shit-done/bin/gsd-tools.cjs" config-get workflow.auto_advance 2>/dev/null || echo "false")

If --auto flag present AND AUTO_CHAIN is not true: Persist chain flag to config (handles direct --auto usage without new-project):

node "./.opencode/get-shit-done/bin/gsd-tools.cjs" config-set workflow._auto_chain_active true

If --auto flag present OR AUTO_CHAIN is true OR AUTO_CFG is true:

Display banner:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
 GSD ► AUTO-ADVANCING TO PLAN
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Context captured. Launching plan-phase...

Launch plan-phase using the skill tool to avoid nested task sessions (which cause runtime freezes due to deep agent nesting — see #686):

skill(skill="gsd-plan-phase", args="${PHASE} --auto")

This keeps the auto-advance chain flat — discuss, plan, and execute all run at the same nesting level rather than spawning increasingly deep task agents.

Handle plan-phase return:

PHASE COMPLETE → Full chain succeeded. Display:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
 GSD ► PHASE ${PHASE} COMPLETE
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Auto-advance pipeline finished: discuss → plan → execute

Next: /gsd-discuss-phase ${NEXT_PHASE} --auto
*/new first → fresh context window*

PLANNING COMPLETE → Planning done, execution didn't complete:

Auto-advance partial: Planning complete, execution did not finish.
Continue: /gsd-execute-phase ${PHASE}

PLANNING INCONCLUSIVE / CHECKPOINT → Stop chain:

Auto-advance stopped: Planning needs input.
Continue: /gsd-plan-phase ${PHASE}

GAPS FOUND → Stop chain:

Auto-advance stopped: Gaps found during execution.
Continue: /gsd-plan-phase ${PHASE} --gaps

If neither --auto nor config enabled: Route to confirm_creation step (existing behavior — show manual next steps).

<success_criteria>

Phase validated against roadmap
Prior context loaded (PROJECT.md, REQUIREMENTS.md, STATE.md, prior CONTEXT.md files)
Already-decided questions not re-asked (carried forward from prior phases)
Codebase scouted for reusable assets, patterns, and integration points
Gray areas identified through intelligent analysis with code and prior decision annotations
User selected which areas to discuss
Each selected area explored until user satisfied (with code-informed and prior-decision-informed options)
Scope creep redirected to deferred ideas
CONTEXT.md captures actual decisions, not vague vision
CONTEXT.md includes code_context section with reusable assets and patterns
Deferred ideas preserved for future phases
STATE.md updated with session info
User knows next steps </success_criteria>

25 KiB Raw Permalink Blame History

25 KiB

Raw Permalink Blame History