<!-- AUTO-GENERATED from SKILL.md.tmpl — do not edit directly --> <!-- Regenerate: bun run gen:skill-docs -->

Preamble (run first)

_UPD=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-update-check 2>/dev/null || .claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-update-check 2>/dev/null || true)
[ -n "$_UPD" ] && echo "$_UPD" || true
mkdir -p ~/.gstack/sessions
touch ~/.gstack/sessions/"$PPID"
_SESSIONS=$(find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin -120 -type f 2>/dev/null | wc -l | tr -d ' ')
find ~/.gstack/sessions -mmin +120 -type f -delete 2>/dev/null || true
_CONTRIB=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get gstack_contributor 2>/dev/null || true)
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
_LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"

If output shows UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>: read ~/.claude/skills/gstack/gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md and follow the "Inline upgrade flow" (auto-upgrade if configured, otherwise AskUserQuestion with 4 options, write snooze state if declined). If JUST_UPGRADED <from> <to>: tell user "Running gstack v{to} (just updated!)" and continue.

If LAKE_INTRO is no: Before continuing, introduce the Completeness Principle. Tell the user: "gstack follows the Boil the Lake principle — always do the complete thing when AI makes the marginal cost near-zero. Read more: https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean" Then offer to open the essay in their default browser:

open https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean
touch ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen

Only run open if the user says yes. Always run touch to mark as seen. This only happens once.

AskUserQuestion Format

ALWAYS follow this structure for every AskUserQuestion call:

1. Re-ground: State the project, the current branch (use the _BRANCH value printed by the preamble — NOT any branch from conversation history or gitStatus), and the current plan/task. (1-2 sentences)
2. Simplify: Explain the problem in plain English a smart 16-year-old could follow. No raw function names, no internal jargon, no implementation details. Use concrete examples and analogies. Say what it DOES, not what it's called.
3. Recommend: RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason] — always prefer the complete option over shortcuts (see Completeness Principle). Include Completeness: X/10 for each option. Calibration: 10 = complete implementation (all edge cases, full coverage), 7 = covers happy path but skips some edges, 3 = shortcut that defers significant work. If both options are 8+, pick the higher; if one is ≤5, flag it.
4. Options: Lettered options: A) ... B) ... C) ... — when an option involves effort, show both scales: (human: ~X / CC: ~Y)

Assume the user hasn't looked at this window in 20 minutes and doesn't have the code open. If you'd need to read the source to understand your own explanation, it's too complex.

Per-skill instructions may add additional formatting rules on top of this baseline.

Completeness Principle — Boil the Lake

AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you present options:

• If Option A is the complete implementation (full parity, all edge cases, 100% coverage) and Option B is a shortcut that saves modest effort — always recommend A. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+gstack. "Good enough" is the wrong instinct when "complete" costs minutes more.
• Lake vs. ocean: A "lake" is boilable — 100% test coverage for a module, full feature implementation, handling all edge cases, complete error paths. An "ocean" is not — rewriting an entire system from scratch, adding features to dependencies you don't control, multi-quarter platform migrations. Recommend boiling lakes. Flag oceans as out of scope.
• When estimating effort, always show both scales: human team time and CC+gstack time. The compression ratio varies by task type — use this reference:

Task type	Human team	CC+gstack	Compression
Boilerplate / scaffolding	2 days	15 min	~100x
Test writing	1 day	15 min	~50x
Feature implementation	1 week	30 min	~30x
Bug fix + regression test	4 hours	15 min	~20x
Architecture / design	2 days	4 hours	~5x
Research / exploration	1 day	3 hours	~3x

• This principle applies to test coverage, error handling, documentation, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.

Anti-patterns — DON'T do this:

• BAD: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." (If A is only 70 lines more, choose A.)
• BAD: "We can skip edge case handling to save time." (Edge case handling costs minutes with CC.)
• BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
• BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

Contributor Mode

If _CONTRIB is true: you are in contributor mode. You're a gstack user who also helps make it better.

At the end of each major workflow step (not after every single command), reflect on the gstack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by gstack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!

Calibration — this is the bar: For example, $B js "await fetch(...)" used to fail with SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions because gstack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and gstack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.

NOT worth filing: user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.

To file: write ~/.gstack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md with all sections below (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):

# {Title}

Hey gstack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:

**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}

## Steps to reproduce
1. {step}

## Raw output

{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}

## What would make this a 10
{one sentence: what gstack should have done differently}

**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {gstack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}

Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. browse-js-no-await). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed gstack field report: {title}"

Completion Status Protocol

When completing a skill workflow, report status using one of:

• DONE — All steps completed successfully. Evidence provided for each claim.
• DONE_WITH_CONCERNS — Completed, but with issues the user should know about. List each concern.
• BLOCKED — Cannot proceed. State what is blocking and what was tried.
• NEEDS_CONTEXT — Missing information required to continue. State exactly what you need.

Escalation

It is always OK to stop and say "this is too hard for me" or "I'm not confident in this result."

Bad work is worse than no work. You will not be penalized for escalating.

• If you have attempted a task 3 times without success, STOP and escalate.
• If you are uncertain about a security-sensitive change, STOP and escalate.
• If the scope of work exceeds what you can verify, STOP and escalate.

Escalation format:

STATUS: BLOCKED | NEEDS_CONTEXT
REASON: [1-2 sentences]
ATTEMPTED: [what you tried]
RECOMMENDATION: [what the user should do next]

Step 0: Detect base branch

Determine which branch this PR targets. Use the result as "the base branch" in all subsequent steps.

1. Check if a PR already exists for this branch: gh pr view --json baseRefName -q .baseRefName If this succeeds, use the printed branch name as the base branch.

2. If no PR exists (command fails), detect the repo's default branch: gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef -q .defaultBranchRef.name

3. If both commands fail, fall back to main.

Print the detected base branch name. In every subsequent git diff, git log, git fetch, git merge, and gh pr create command, substitute the detected branch name wherever the instructions say "the base branch."

---

Document Release: Post-Ship Documentation Update

You are running the /document-release workflow. This runs after /ship (code committed, PR exists or about to exist) but before the PR merges. Your job: ensure every documentation file in the project is accurate, up to date, and written in a friendly, user-forward voice.

You are mostly automated. Make obvious factual updates directly. Stop and ask only for risky or subjective decisions.

Only stop for:

• Risky/questionable doc changes (narrative, philosophy, security, removals, large rewrites)
• VERSION bump decision (if not already bumped)
• New TODOS items to add
• Cross-doc contradictions that are narrative (not factual)

Never stop for:

• Factual corrections clearly from the diff
• Adding items to tables/lists
• Updating paths, counts, version numbers
• Fixing stale cross-references
• CHANGELOG voice polish (minor wording adjustments)
• Marking TODOS complete
• Cross-doc factual inconsistencies (e.g., version number mismatch)

NEVER do:

• Overwrite, replace, or regenerate CHANGELOG entries — polish wording only, preserve all content
• Bump VERSION without asking — always use AskUserQuestion for version changes
• Use Write tool on CHANGELOG.md — always use Edit with exact old_string matches

---

Step 1: Pre-flight & Diff Analysis

1. Check the current branch. If on the base branch, abort: "You're on the base branch. Run from a feature branch."

2. Gather context about what changed:

git diff <base>...HEAD --stat

git log <base>..HEAD --oneline

git diff <base>...HEAD --name-only

3. Discover all documentation files in the repo:

find . -maxdepth 2 -name "*.md" -not -path "./.git/*" -not -path "./node_modules/*" -not -path "./.gstack/*" -not -path "./.context/*" | sort

4. Classify the changes into categories relevant to documentation:

   • New features — new files, new commands, new skills, new capabilities
   • Changed behavior — modified services, updated APIs, config changes
   • Removed functionality — deleted files, removed commands
   • Infrastructure — build system, test infrastructure, CI

5. Output a brief summary: "Analyzing N files changed across M commits. Found K documentation files to review."

---

Step 2: Per-File Documentation Audit

Read each documentation file and cross-reference it against the diff. Use these generic heuristics (adapt to whatever project you're in — these are not gstack-specific):

README.md:

• Does it describe all features and capabilities visible in the diff?
• Are install/setup instructions consistent with the changes?
• Are examples, demos, and usage descriptions still valid?
• Are troubleshooting steps still accurate?

ARCHITECTURE.md:

• Do ASCII diagrams and component descriptions match the current code?
• Are design decisions and "why" explanations still accurate?
• Be conservative — only update things clearly contradicted by the diff. Architecture docs describe things unlikely to change frequently.

CONTRIBUTING.md — New contributor smoke test:

• Walk through the setup instructions as if you are a brand new contributor.
• Are the listed commands accurate? Would each step succeed?
• Do test tier descriptions match the current test infrastructure?
• Are workflow descriptions (dev setup, contributor mode, etc.) current?
• Flag anything that would fail or confuse a first-time contributor.

CLAUDE.md / project instructions:

• Does the project structure section match the actual file tree?
• Are listed commands and scripts accurate?
• Do build/test instructions match what's in package.json (or equivalent)?

Any other .md files:

• Read the file, determine its purpose and audience.
• Cross-reference against the diff to check if it contradicts anything the file says.

For each file, classify needed updates as:

• Auto-update — Factual corrections clearly warranted by the diff: adding an item to a table, updating a file path, fixing a count, updating a project structure tree.
• Ask user — Narrative changes, section removal, security model changes, large rewrites (more than ~10 lines in one section), ambiguous relevance, adding entirely new sections.

---

Step 3: Apply Auto-Updates

Make all clear, factual updates directly using the Edit tool.

For each file modified, output a one-line summary describing what specifically changed — not just "Updated README.md" but "README.md: added /new-skill to skills table, updated skill count from 9 to 10."

Never auto-update:

• README introduction or project positioning
• ARCHITECTURE philosophy or design rationale
• Security model descriptions
• Do not remove entire sections from any document

---

Step 4: Ask About Risky/Questionable Changes

For each risky or questionable update identified in Step 2, use AskUserQuestion with:

• Context: project name, branch, which doc file, what we're reviewing
• The specific documentation decision
• RECOMMENDATION: Choose [X] because [one-line reason]
• Options including C) Skip — leave as-is

Apply approved changes immediately after each answer.

---

Step 5: CHANGELOG Voice Polish

CRITICAL — NEVER CLOBBER CHANGELOG ENTRIES.

This step polishes voice. It does NOT rewrite, replace, or regenerate CHANGELOG content.

A real incident occurred where an agent replaced existing CHANGELOG entries when it should have preserved them. This skill must NEVER do that.

Rules:

1. Read the entire CHANGELOG.md first. Understand what is already there.
2. Only modify wording within existing entries. Never delete, reorder, or replace entries.
3. Never regenerate a CHANGELOG entry from scratch. The entry was written by /ship from the actual diff and commit history. It is the source of truth. You are polishing prose, not rewriting history.
4. If an entry looks wrong or incomplete, use AskUserQuestion — do NOT silently fix it.
5. Use Edit tool with exact old_string matches — never use Write to overwrite CHANGELOG.md.

If CHANGELOG was not modified in this branch: skip this step.

If CHANGELOG was modified in this branch, review the entry for voice:

• Sell test: Would a user reading each bullet think "oh nice, I want to try that"? If not, rewrite the wording (not the content).
• Lead with what the user can now do — not implementation details.
• "You can now..." not "Refactored the..."
• Flag and rewrite any entry that reads like a commit message.
• Internal/contributor changes belong in a separate "### For contributors" subsection.
• Auto-fix minor voice adjustments. Use AskUserQuestion if a rewrite would alter meaning.

---

Step 6: Cross-Doc Consistency & Discoverability Check

After auditing each file individually, do a cross-doc consistency pass:

1. Does the README's feature/capability list match what CLAUDE.md (or project instructions) describes?
2. Does ARCHITECTURE's component list match CONTRIBUTING's project structure description?
3. Does CHANGELOG's latest version match the VERSION file?
4. Discoverability: Is every documentation file reachable from README.md or CLAUDE.md? If ARCHITECTURE.md exists but neither README nor CLAUDE.md links to it, flag it. Every doc should be discoverable from one of the two entry-point files.
5. Flag any contradictions between documents. Auto-fix clear factual inconsistencies (e.g., a version mismatch). Use AskUserQuestion for narrative contradictions.

---

Step 7: TODOS.md Cleanup

This is a second pass that complements /ship's Step 5.5. Read review/TODOS-format.md (if available) for the canonical TODO item format.

If TODOS.md does not exist, skip this step.

1. Completed items not yet marked: Cross-reference the diff against open TODO items. If a TODO is clearly completed by the changes in this branch, move it to the Completed section with **Completed:** vX.Y.Z.W (YYYY-MM-DD). Be conservative — only mark items with clear evidence in the diff.

2. Items needing description updates: If a TODO references files or components that were significantly changed, its description may be stale. Use AskUserQuestion to confirm whether the TODO should be updated, completed, or left as-is.

3. New deferred work: Check the diff for TODO, FIXME, HACK, and XXX comments. For each one that represents meaningful deferred work (not a trivial inline note), use AskUserQuestion to ask whether it should be captured in TODOS.md.

---

Step 8: VERSION Bump Question

CRITICAL — NEVER BUMP VERSION WITHOUT ASKING.

1. If VERSION does not exist: Skip silently.

2. Check if VERSION was already modified on this branch:

git diff <base>...HEAD -- VERSION

3. If VERSION was NOT bumped: Use AskUserQuestion:

   • RECOMMENDATION: Choose C (Skip) because docs-only changes rarely warrant a version bump
   • A) Bump PATCH (X.Y.Z+1) — if doc changes ship alongside code changes
   • B) Bump MINOR (X.Y+1.0) — if this is a significant standalone release
   • C) Skip — no version bump needed

4. If VERSION was already bumped: Do NOT skip silently. Instead, check whether the bump still covers the full scope of changes on this branch:

   a. Read the CHANGELOG entry for the current VERSION. What features does it describe? b. Read the full diff (git diff <base>...HEAD --stat and git diff <base>...HEAD --name-only). Are there significant changes (new features, new skills, new commands, major refactors) that are NOT mentioned in the CHANGELOG entry for the current version? c. If the CHANGELOG entry covers everything: Skip — output "VERSION: Already bumped to vX.Y.Z, covers all changes." d. If there are significant uncovered changes: Use AskUserQuestion explaining what the current version covers vs what's new, and ask:

   • RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because the new changes warrant their own version
   • A) Bump to next patch (X.Y.Z+1) — give the new changes their own version
   • B) Keep current version — add new changes to the existing CHANGELOG entry
   • C) Skip — leave version as-is, handle later

   The key insight: a VERSION bump set for "feature A" should not silently absorb "feature B" if feature B is substantial enough to deserve its own version entry.

---

Step 9: Commit & Output

Empty check first: Run git status (never use -uall). If no documentation files were modified by any previous step, output "All documentation is up to date." and exit without committing.

Commit:

1. Stage modified documentation files by name (never git add -A or git add .).
2. Create a single commit:

git commit -m "$(cat <<'EOF'
docs: update project documentation for vX.Y.Z.W

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
EOF
)"

3. Push to the current branch:

git push

PR body update (idempotent, race-safe):

1. Read the existing PR body into a PID-unique tempfile:

gh pr view --json body -q .body > /tmp/gstack-pr-body-$$.md

2. If the tempfile already contains a ## Documentation section, replace that section with the updated content. If it does not contain one, append a ## Documentation section at the end.

3. The Documentation section should include a doc diff preview — for each file modified, describe what specifically changed (e.g., "README.md: added /document-release to skills table, updated skill count from 9 to 10").

4. Write the updated body back:

gh pr edit --body-file /tmp/gstack-pr-body-$$.md

5. Clean up the tempfile:

rm -f /tmp/gstack-pr-body-$$.md

6. If gh pr view fails (no PR exists): skip with message "No PR found — skipping body update."
7. If gh pr edit fails: warn "Could not update PR body — documentation changes are in the commit." and continue.

Structured doc health summary (final output):

Output a scannable summary showing every documentation file's status:

Documentation health:
  README.md       [status] ([details])
  ARCHITECTURE.md [status] ([details])
  CONTRIBUTING.md [status] ([details])
  CHANGELOG.md    [status] ([details])
  TODOS.md        [status] ([details])
  VERSION         [status] ([details])

Where status is one of:

• Updated — with description of what changed
• Current — no changes needed
• Voice polished — wording adjusted
• Not bumped — user chose to skip
• Already bumped — version was set by /ship
• Skipped — file does not exist

---

Important Rules

• Read before editing. Always read the full content of a file before modifying it.
• Never clobber CHANGELOG. Polish wording only. Never delete, replace, or regenerate entries.
• Never bump VERSION silently. Always ask. Even if already bumped, check whether it covers the full scope of changes.
• Be explicit about what changed. Every edit gets a one-line summary.
• Generic heuristics, not project-specific. The audit checks work on any repo.
• Discoverability matters. Every doc file should be reachable from README or CLAUDE.md.
• Voice: friendly, user-forward, not obscure. Write like you're explaining to a smart person who hasn't seen the code.