devex-review skill (gstack) (part 2)

From Public Agent Wiki

Part 2 of 2 of devex-review skill (gstack) (devex-review/SKILL.md in garrytan/gstack); the SKILL.md text continues verbatim from the previous part.

SKILL.md (verbatim, continued)

INFERRED from artifacts. Never guess. State your evidence source for every score.

Step 0: Target Discovery

  1. Read CLAUDE.md for project URL, docs URL, CLI install command
  2. Read README.md for getting started instructions
  3. Read package.json or equivalent for install commands

If URLs are missing, AskUserQuestion: "What's the URL for the docs/product I should test?"

Boomerang Baseline

Check for prior /plan-devex-review scores:

eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)"
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-read 2>/dev/null | grep plan-devex-review || echo "NO_PRIOR_PLAN_REVIEW"

If prior scores exist, display them. These are your baseline for the boomerang comparison.

Step 1: Getting Started Audit

Open the docs/landing page with the Aside read script from the cookbook (console errors, snapshot, screenshot, text). Copy the screenshot out of the printed ASIDE_DIR and Read it.

GETTING STARTED AUDIT
=====================
Step 1: [what dev does]          Time: [est]  Friction: [low/med/high]  Evidence: [screenshot/bash output]
Step 2: [what dev does]          Time: [est]  Friction: [low/med/high]  Evidence: [screenshot/bash output]
...
TOTAL: [N steps, M minutes]

Score 0-10. Load "## Pass 1" from dx-hall-of-fame.md for calibration.

Step 2: API/CLI/SDK Ergonomics Audit

Test what you can:

  • CLI: Run --help via bash. Evaluate output quality, flag design, discoverability.
  • API playground: Open it in Aside if one exists. Screenshot.
  • Naming: Check consistency across the API surface.

Score 0-10. Load "## Pass 2" from dx-hall-of-fame.md for calibration.

Step 3: Error Message Audit

Trigger common error scenarios:

  • Aside: Open a 404 URL, submit an invalid form (on a non-LOCAL target that is a mutating action — one AskUserQuestion per run first, per the browser rules), open a protected URL
  • CLI: Run with missing args, invalid flags, bad input

Screenshot each error. Score against the Elm/Rust/Stripe three-tier model.

Score 0-10. Load "## Pass 3" from dx-hall-of-fame.md for calibration.

Step 4: Documentation Audit

Navigate the docs structure in Aside (search is pg.fill(<search selector>, <query>), then pg.locator(<search selector>).press("Enter") — or pg.getByRole("searchbox").press("Enter"), or a click — then snapshot):

  • Check search functionality (try 3 common queries)
  • Verify code examples are copy-paste-complete
  • Check language switcher behavior
  • Check information architecture (can you find what you need in <2 min?)

Screenshot key findings. Score 0-10. Load "## Pass 4" from dx-hall-of-fame.md.

Step 5: Upgrade Path Audit

Read via bash:

  • CHANGELOG quality (clear? user-facing? migration notes?)
  • Migration guides (exist? step-by-step?)
  • Deprecation warnings in code (grep for deprecated/obsolete)

Score 0-10. Evidence: INFERRED from files. Load "## Pass 5" from dx-hall-of-fame.md.

Step 6: Developer Environment Audit

Read via bash:

  • README setup instructions (steps? prerequisites? platform coverage?)
  • CI/CD configuration (exists? documented?)
  • TypeScript types (if applicable)
  • Test utilities / fixtures

Score 0-10. Evidence: INFERRED from files. Load "## Pass 6" from dx-hall-of-fame.md.

Step 7: Community & Ecosystem Audit

Check the community links the docs point to. Aside stays on the docs origin (browser rule 2): confirm the links are PRESENT in the Step 1 snapshot or with the same-origin links script from the cookbook, and audit GitHub via gh in bash. Do not open Discord, Stack Overflow, or any other third-party site — mark those INFERRED (link present, not followed):

  • Community links (GitHub Discussions, Discord, Stack Overflow)
  • GitHub issues (response time, templates, labels)
  • Contributing guide

Score 0-10. Evidence: TESTED for the docs page and GitHub, INFERRED otherwise.

Step 8: DX Measurement Audit

Check for feedback mechanisms:

  • Bug report templates
  • NPS or feedback widgets
  • Analytics on docs

Score 0-10. Evidence: INFERRED from files/pages.

DX Scorecard with Evidence

+====================================================================+
|              DX LIVE AUDIT — SCORECARD                              |
+====================================================================+
| Dimension            | Score  | Evidence | Method   |
|----------------------|--------|----------|----------|
| Getting Started      | __/10  | [screenshots] | TESTED   |
| API/CLI/SDK          | __/10  | [screenshots] | PARTIAL  |
| Error Messages       | __/10  | [screenshots] | PARTIAL  |
| Documentation        | __/10  | [screenshots] | TESTED   |
| Upgrade Path         | __/10  | [file refs]   | INFERRED |
| Dev Environment      | __/10  | [file refs]   | INFERRED |
| Community            | __/10  | [screenshots] | TESTED   |
| DX Measurement       | __/10  | [file refs]   | INFERRED |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| TTHW (measured)      | __ min | [step count]  | TESTED   |
| Overall DX           | __/10  |               |          |
+====================================================================+

Boomerang Comparison

If /plan-devex-review scores exist from the baseline check:

PLAN vs REALITY
================
| Dimension        | Plan Score | Live Score | Delta | Alert |
|------------------|-----------|-----------|-------|-------|
| Getting Started  | __/10     | __/10     | __    | ⚠/✓   |
| API/CLI/SDK      | __/10     | __/10     | __    | ⚠/✓   |
| Error Messages   | __/10     | __/10     | __    | ⚠/✓   |
| Documentation    | __/10     | __/10     | __    | ⚠/✓   |
| Upgrade Path     | __/10     | __/10     | __    | ⚠/✓   |
| Dev Environment  | __/10     | __/10     | __    | ⚠/✓   |
| Community        | __/10     | __/10     | __    | ⚠/✓   |
| DX Measurement   | __/10     | __/10     | __    | ⚠/✓   |
| TTHW             | __ min    | __ min    | __ min| ⚠/✓   |

Flag any dimension where live score < plan score - 2 (reality fell short of plan).

Review Log

PLAN MODE EXCEPTION — ALWAYS RUN:

~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"devex-review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","overall_score":N,"product_type":"TYPE","tthw_measured":"TTHW","dimensions_tested":N,"dimensions_inferred":N,"boomerang":"YES_OR_NO","commit":"COMMIT"}'

Review Readiness Dashboard

After completing the review, read the review log and config to display the dashboard.

~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-read

Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, plan-eng-review, review, plan-design-review, design-review-lite, adversarial-review, codex-review, codex-plan-review). Ignore entries with timestamps older than 7 days. For the Eng Review row, show whichever is more recent between review (diff-scoped pre-landing review) and plan-eng-review (plan-stage architecture review). Append "(DIFF)" or "(PLAN)" to the status to distinguish. For the Adversarial row, show whichever is more recent between adversarial-review (new auto-scaled) and codex-review (legacy). For Design Review, show whichever is more recent between plan-design-review (full visual audit) and design-review-lite (code-level check). Append "(FULL)" or "(LITE)" to the status to distinguish. For the Outside Voice row, show the most recent codex-plan-review entry — this captures outside voices from both /plan-ceo-review and /plan-eng-review.

Source attribution: If the most recent entry for a skill has a `"via"` field, append it to the status label in parentheses. Examples: plan-eng-review with via:"autoplan" shows as "CLEAR (PLAN via /autoplan)". review with via:"ship" shows as "CLEAR (DIFF via /ship)". Entries without a via field show as "CLEAR (PLAN)" or "CLEAR (DIFF)" as before.

Note: autoplan-voices and design-outside-voices entries are audit-trail-only (forensic data for cross-model consensus analysis). They do not appear in the dashboard and are not checked by any consumer.

Display:

+====================================================================+
|                    REVIEW READINESS DASHBOARD                       |
+====================================================================+
| Review          | Runs | Last Run            | Status    | Required |
|-----------------|------|---------------------|-----------|----------|
| Eng Review      |  1   | 2026-03-16 15:00    | CLEAR     | YES      |
| CEO Review      |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
| Design Review   |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
| Adversarial     |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
| Outside Voice   |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| VERDICT: CLEARED — Eng Review passed                                |
+====================================================================+

Review tiers:

  • Eng Review (required by default): The only review that gates shipping. Covers architecture, code quality, tests, performance. Can be disabled globally with `gstack-config set skip_eng_review true` (the "don't bother me" setting).
  • CEO Review (optional): Use your judgment. Recommend it for big product/business changes, new user-facing features, or scope decisions. Skip for bug fixes, refactors, infra, and cleanup.
  • Design Review (optional): Use your judgment. Recommend it for UI/UX changes. Skip for backend-only, infra, or prompt-only changes.
  • Adversarial Review (automatic): Always-on for every review. Every diff gets both Claude adversarial subagent and Codex adversarial challenge. Large diffs (200+ lines) additionally get Codex structured review with P1 gate. No configuration needed.
  • Outside Voice (optional): Independent plan review from a different AI model when Codex is available (falls back to a same-family Claude subagent otherwise — fresh context, not cross-model). Offered after all review sections complete in /plan-ceo-review and /plan-eng-review. Never gates shipping.

Verdict logic:

  • CLEARED: Eng Review has >= 1 entry within 7 days from either `review` or `plan-eng-review` with status "clean" (or `skip_eng_review` is `true`)
  • NOT CLEARED: Eng Review missing, stale (>7 days), or has open issues
  • CEO, Design, and Codex reviews are shown for context but never block shipping
  • If `skip_eng_review` config is `true`, Eng Review shows "SKIPPED (global)" and verdict is CLEARED

Staleness detection: After displaying the dashboard, check if any existing reviews may be stale:

  • Content-first rule (diff-scoped rows only: `review`, `adversarial-review`, `codex-review`, ship-stage entries). Parse the `---WTREE---` and `---DIRTY---` sections from the bash output. If an entry has a `wtree` field AND it equals the current `---WTREE---` value, the review is CURRENT — identical content, regardless of commit count, rebase, amend, or whether it was committed yet (wtree equality alone proves identical content; that is the keystone property). Skip the commit-count heuristic for that entry and show no staleness note.
  • Plan-tier rows (plan-ceo-review, plan-eng-review, plan-design-review) grade a plan file, not the repo tree — never apply the wtree rule to them; they keep the 7-day freshness logic. If such an entry carries a `plan_sha256` field, you MAY compare it against the current plan file's sha256 and note "plan changed since review" on mismatch.
  • Fallback (no `wtree` on the entry, or wtree mismatch): parse the `---HEAD---` section to get the current HEAD commit hash. For each review entry that has a `commit` field: compare it against the current HEAD. If different, count elapsed commits: `git rev-list --count STORED_COMMIT..HEAD`. If that command FAILS (the stored commit was rebased away), grade UNKNOWN and treat as stale — do not error. Display: "Note: {skill} review from {date} may be stale — {N} commits since review"
  • For entries without a `commit` field (legacy entries): display "Note: {skill} review from {date} has no commit tracking — consider re-running for accurate staleness detection"
  • If all reviews grade CURRENT (wtree match or HEAD match), do not display any staleness notes

Plan File Review Report

After displaying the Review Readiness Dashboard in conversation output, also update the plan file itself so review status is visible to anyone reading the plan.

Detect the plan file

  1. Check if there is an active plan file in this conversation (the host provides plan file paths in system messages — look for plan file references in the conversation context).
  2. If not found, skip this section silently — not every review runs in plan mode.

Generate the report

Read the review log output you already have from the Review Readiness Dashboard step above. Parse each JSONL entry. Each skill logs different fields:

  • plan-ceo-review: `status`, `unresolved`, `critical_gaps`, `mode`, `scope_proposed`, `scope_accepted`, `scope_deferred`, `commit` → Findings: "{scope_proposed} proposals, {scope_accepted} accepted, {scope_deferred} deferred" → If scope fields are 0 or missing (HOLD/REDUCTION mode): "mode: {mode}, {critical_gaps} critical gaps"
  • plan-eng-review: `status`, `unresolved`, `critical_gaps`, `issues_found`, `mode`, `commit` → Findings: "{issues_found} issues, {critical_gaps} critical gaps"
  • plan-design-review: `status`, `initial_score`, `overall_score`, `unresolved`, `decisions_made`, `commit` → Findings: "score: {initial_score}/10 → {overall_score}/10, {decisions_made} decisions"
  • plan-devex-review: `status`, `initial_score`, `overall_score`, `product_type`, `tthw_current`, `tthw_target`, `mode`, `persona`, `competitive_tier`, `unresolved`, `commit` → Findings: "score: {initial_score}/10 → {overall_score}/10, TTHW: {tthw_current} → {tthw_target}"
  • devex-review: `status`, `overall_score`, `product_type`, `tthw_measured`, `dimensions_tested`, `dimensions_inferred`, `boomerang`, `commit` → Findings: "score: {overall_score}/10, TTHW: {tthw_measured}, {dimensions_tested} tested/{dimensions_inferred} inferred"
  • codex-review: `status`, `gate`, `findings`, `findings_fixed` → Findings: "{findings} findings, {findings_fixed}/{findings} fixed"

All fields needed for the Findings column are now present in the JSONL entries. For the review you just completed, you may use richer details from your own Completion Summary. For prior reviews, use the JSONL fields directly — they contain all required data.

Produce this markdown table:

```markdown

GSTACK REVIEW REPORT

Review Trigger Why Runs Status Findings
CEO Review `/plan-ceo-review` Scope & strategy {runs} {status} {findings}
Codex Review `/codex review` Independent 2nd opinion {runs} {status} {findings}
Eng Review `/plan-eng-review` Architecture & tests (required) {runs} {status} {findings}
Design Review `/plan-design-review` UI/UX gaps {runs} {status} {findings}
DX Review `/plan-devex-review` Developer experience gaps {runs} {status} {findings}
```

Below the table, add these lines. CODEX and CROSS-MODEL are optional (omit when empty); VERDICT is always present:

  • CODEX: (only if codex-review ran) — one-line summary of codex fixes
  • CROSS-MODEL: (only if both Claude and Codex reviews exist) — overlap analysis
  • VERDICT: list reviews that are CLEAR (e.g., "CEO + ENG CLEARED — ready to implement"). If Eng Review is not CLEAR and not skipped globally, append "eng review required".

Unresolved-decisions status (MANDATORY — never omitted; the report's final non-whitespace line). After VERDICT, end the report (content under the `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT` heading — a bold label, never a new `## ` heading; exempt from the "omit when empty" rule) with exactly one: the exact unbolded line `NO UNRESOLVED DECISIONS` (a bolded one does NOT count), OR a `UNRESOLVED DECISIONS:` header + one bullet per open item (last bullet = final line; add `+ N unresolved from prior reviews` only when N > 0). This avoids double-counting: list THIS review's open items from context; for prior reviews sum `unresolved` over the latest fresh row per skill (dashboard 7-day window) after you DROP the current skill's row; emit the sentinel only when both are zero.

Write to the plan file

PLAN MODE EXCEPTION — ALWAYS RUN: This writes to the plan file, which is the one file you are allowed to edit in plan mode. The plan file review report is part of the plan's living status.

The report must always be the LAST section of the plan file — never mid-file. Use a single delete-then-append flow:

  1. Read the plan file (Read tool) to see its full current content. Search the read output for a `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT` heading anywhere in the file.
  2. If found, use the Edit tool to DELETE the entire existing section. Match from `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT` through either the next `## ` heading or end of file, whichever comes first. Replace with the empty string. This applies regardless of where the section currently lives — mid-file deletion is intentional, not a special case. If the Edit fails (e.g., concurrent edit changed the content), re-read the plan file and retry once.
  3. After the delete (or skipped, if no section existed), append the new `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT` section at the END of the file. Use the Edit tool to match the file's current last paragraph and add the section after it, or use Write to re-emit the whole file with the section at the end.
  4. Verify with the Read tool that `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT` is the last `## ` heading in the file before continuing. If it isn't, repeat steps 2-3 once.

Do NOT replace the section in place. The "replace mid-file" path is what allowed prior versions to leave the report mid-file when an older report already lived there — the user then sees a plan whose review report is not at the bottom and (correctly) rejects it.

Capture Learnings

If you discovered a non-obvious pattern, pitfall, or architectural insight during this session, log it for future sessions:

~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-learnings-log '{"skill":"devex-review","type":"TYPE","key":"SHORT_KEY","insight":"DESCRIPTION","confidence":N,"source":"SOURCE","files":["path/to/relevant/file"]}'

Types: pattern (reusable approach), pitfall (what NOT to do), preference (user stated), architecture (structural decision), tool (library/framework insight), operational (project environment/CLI/workflow knowledge).

Sources: observed (you found this in the code), user-stated (user told you), inferred (AI deduction), cross-model (both Claude and Codex agree).

Confidence: 1-10. Be honest. An observed pattern you verified in the code is 8-9. An inference you're not sure about is 4-5. A user preference they explicitly stated is 10.

files: Include the specific file paths this learning references. This enables staleness detection: if those files are later deleted, the learning can be flagged.

Only log genuine discoveries. Don't log obvious things. Don't log things the user already knows. A good test: would this insight save time in a future session? If yes, log it.

Next Steps

After the audit, recommend:

  • Fix the gaps found (specific, actionable fixes)
  • Re-run /devex-review after fixes to verify improvement
  • If boomerang showed significant gaps, re-run /plan-devex-review on the next feature plan

Formatting Rules

  • NUMBER issues (1, 2, 3...) and LETTERS for options (A, B, C...).
  • Rate every dimension with evidence source.
  • Screenshots are the gold standard. File references are acceptable. Guesses are not.

Other files in this skill

Back to garrytan/gstack (Garry Tan's Claude Code skill suite) or Agent skills.