Step 0: Detect platform and base branch

First, detect the git hosting platform from the remote URL:

git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null

If the URL contains "github.com" → platform is GitHub
If the URL contains "gitlab" → platform is GitLab
Otherwise, check CLI availability:
- gh auth status 2>/dev/null succeeds → platform is GitHub (covers GitHub Enterprise)
- glab auth status 2>/dev/null succeeds → platform is GitLab (covers self-hosted)
- Neither → unknown (use git-native commands only)

Determine which branch this PR/MR targets, or the repo's default branch if no PR/MR exists. Use the result as "the base branch" in all subsequent steps.

If GitHub:

gh pr view --json baseRefName -q .baseRefName — if succeeds, use it
gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef -q .defaultBranchRef.name — if succeeds, use it

If GitLab:

glab mr view -F json 2>/dev/null and extract the target_branch field — if succeeds, use it
glab repo view -F json 2>/dev/null and extract the default_branch field — if succeeds, use it

Git-native fallback (if unknown platform, or CLI commands fail):

git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's|refs/remotes/origin/||'
If that fails: git rev-parse --verify origin/main 2>/dev/null → use main
If that fails: git rev-parse --verify origin/master 2>/dev/null → use master

If all fail, fall back to main.

Print the detected base branch name. In every subsequent git diff, git log, git fetch, git merge, and PR/MR creation command, substitute the detected branch name wherever the instructions say "the base branch" or <default>.

Ship: Fully Automated Ship Workflow

You are running the /ship workflow. This is a non-interactive, fully automated workflow. Do NOT ask for confirmation at any step. The user said /ship which means DO IT. Run straight through and output the PR URL at the end.

Only stop for:

On the base branch (abort)
Merge conflicts that can't be auto-resolved (stop, show conflicts)
In-branch test failures (pre-existing failures are triaged, not auto-blocking)
Pre-landing review finds ASK items that need user judgment
MINOR or MAJOR version bump needed (ask — see Step 12)
Greptile review comments that need user decision (complex fixes, false positives)
AI-assessed coverage below minimum threshold (hard gate with user override — see Step 7)
Plan items NOT DONE with no user override (see Step 8)
Plan verification failures (see Step 8.1)
TODOS.md missing and user wants to create one (ask — see Step 14)
TODOS.md disorganized and user wants to reorganize (ask — see Step 14)

Never stop for:

Uncommitted changes (always include them)
Version bump choice (auto-pick MICRO or PATCH — see Step 12)
CHANGELOG content (auto-generate from diff)
Commit message approval (auto-commit)
Multi-file changesets (auto-split into bisectable commits)
TODOS.md completed-item detection (auto-mark)
Auto-fixable review findings (dead code, N+1, stale comments — fixed automatically)
Test coverage gaps within target threshold (auto-generate and commit, or flag in PR body)

Re-run behavior (idempotency): Re-running /ship means "run the whole checklist again." Every verification step (tests, coverage audit, plan completion, pre-landing review, adversarial review, VERSION/CHANGELOG check, TODOS, document-release) runs on every invocation. Only actions are idempotent:

Step 12: If VERSION already bumped, skip the bump but still read the version
Step 17: If already pushed, skip the push command
Step 19: If PR exists, update the body instead of creating a new PR Never skip a verification step because a prior /ship run already performed it.

Step 1: Pre-flight

Check the current branch. If on the base branch or the repo's default branch, abort: "You're on the base branch. Ship from a feature branch."
Run git status (never use -uall). Uncommitted changes are always included — no need to ask.
Run git diff <base>...HEAD --stat and git log <base>..HEAD --oneline to understand what's being shipped.
Check review readiness:

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. Offered after all review sections complete in /plan-ceo-review and /plan-eng-review. Falls back to Claude subagent if Codex is unavailable. 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:

Parse the `---HEAD---` section from the bash output 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`. 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 match the current HEAD, do not display any staleness notes

If the Eng Review is NOT "CLEAR":

Print: "No prior eng review found — ship will run its own pre-landing review in Step 9."

Check diff size: git diff <base>...HEAD --stat | tail -1. If the diff is >200 lines, add: "Note: This is a large diff. Consider running /plan-eng-review or /autoplan for architecture-level review before shipping."

If CEO Review is missing, mention as informational ("CEO Review not run — recommended for product changes") but do NOT block.

For Design Review: run source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-diff-scope <base> 2>/dev/null). If SCOPE_FRONTEND=true and no design review (plan-design-review or design-review-lite) exists in the dashboard, mention: "Design Review not run — this PR changes frontend code. The lite design check will run automatically in Step 9, but consider running /design-review for a full visual audit post-implementation." Still never block.

Continue to Step 2 — do NOT block or ask. Ship runs its own review in Step 9.

Step 2: Distribution Pipeline Check

If the diff introduces a new standalone artifact (CLI binary, library package, tool) — not a web service with existing deployment — verify that a distribution pipeline exists.

Check if the diff adds a new cmd/ directory, main.go, or bin/ entry point:

git diff origin/<base> --name-only | grep -E '(cmd/.*/main\.go|bin/|Cargo\.toml|setup\.py|package\.json)' | head -5

If new artifact detected, check for a release workflow:

ls .github/workflows/ 2>/dev/null | grep -iE 'release|publish|dist'
grep -qE 'release|publish|deploy' .gitlab-ci.yml 2>/dev/null && echo "GITLAB_CI_RELEASE"

If no release pipeline exists and a new artifact was added: Use AskUserQuestion:
- "This PR adds a new binary/tool but there's no CI/CD pipeline to build and publish it. Users won't be able to download the artifact after merge."
- A) Add a release workflow now (CI/CD release pipeline — GitHub Actions or GitLab CI depending on platform)
- B) Defer — add to TODOS.md
- C) Not needed — this is internal/web-only, existing deployment covers it
If release pipeline exists: Continue silently.
If no new artifact detected: Skip silently.

Step 3: Merge the base branch (BEFORE tests)

Fetch and merge the base branch into the feature branch so tests run against the merged state:

git fetch origin <base> && git merge origin/<base> --no-edit

If there are merge conflicts: Try to auto-resolve if they are simple (VERSION, schema.rb, CHANGELOG ordering). If conflicts are complex or ambiguous, STOP and show them.

If already up to date: Continue silently.

Step 4: Test Framework Bootstrap

Test Framework Bootstrap

Detect existing test framework and project runtime:

setopt +o nomatch 2>/dev/null || true  # zsh compat
# Detect project runtime
[ -f Gemfile ] && echo "RUNTIME:ruby"
[ -f package.json ] && echo "RUNTIME:node"
[ -f requirements.txt ] || [ -f pyproject.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:python"
[ -f go.mod ] && echo "RUNTIME:go"
[ -f Cargo.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:rust"
[ -f composer.json ] && echo "RUNTIME:php"
[ -f mix.exs ] && echo "RUNTIME:elixir"
# Detect sub-frameworks
[ -f Gemfile ] && grep -q "rails" Gemfile 2>/dev/null && echo "FRAMEWORK:rails"
[ -f package.json ] && grep -q '"next"' package.json 2>/dev/null && echo "FRAMEWORK:nextjs"
# Check for existing test infrastructure
ls jest.config.* vitest.config.* playwright.config.* .rspec pytest.ini pyproject.toml phpunit.xml 2>/dev/null
ls -d test/ tests/ spec/ __tests__/ cypress/ e2e/ 2>/dev/null
# Check opt-out marker
[ -f .gstack/no-test-bootstrap ] && echo "BOOTSTRAP_DECLINED"

If test framework detected (config files or test directories found): Print "Test framework detected: {name} ({N} existing tests). Skipping bootstrap." Read 2-3 existing test files to learn conventions (naming, imports, assertion style, setup patterns). Store conventions as prose context for use in Phase 8e.5 or Step 7. Skip the rest of bootstrap.

If BOOTSTRAP_DECLINED appears: Print "Test bootstrap previously declined — skipping." Skip the rest of bootstrap.

If NO runtime detected (no config files found): Use AskUserQuestion: "I couldn't detect your project's language. What runtime are you using?" Options: A) Node.js/TypeScript B) Ruby/Rails C) Python D) Go E) Rust F) PHP G) Elixir H) This project doesn't need tests. If user picks H → write .gstack/no-test-bootstrap and continue without tests.

If runtime detected but no test framework — bootstrap:

B2. Research best practices

Use WebSearch to find current best practices for the detected runtime:

"[runtime] best test framework 2025 2026"
"[framework A] vs [framework B] comparison"

If WebSearch is unavailable, use this built-in knowledge table:

Runtime	Primary recommendation	Alternative
Ruby/Rails	minitest + fixtures + capybara	rspec + factory_bot + shoulda-matchers
Node.js	vitest + @testing-library	jest + @testing-library
Next.js	vitest + @testing-library/react + playwright	jest + cypress
Python	pytest + pytest-cov	unittest
Go	stdlib testing + testify	stdlib only
Rust	cargo test (built-in) + mockall	—
PHP	phpunit + mockery	pest
Elixir	ExUnit (built-in) + ex_machina	—

B3. Framework selection

Use AskUserQuestion: "I detected this is a [Runtime/Framework] project with no test framework. I researched current best practices. Here are the options: A) [Primary] — [rationale]. Includes: [packages]. Supports: unit, integration, smoke, e2e B) [Alternative] — [rationale]. Includes: [packages] C) Skip — don't set up testing right now RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because [reason based on project context]"

If user picks C → write .gstack/no-test-bootstrap. Tell user: "If you change your mind later, delete .gstack/no-test-bootstrap and re-run." Continue without tests.

If multiple runtimes detected (monorepo) → ask which runtime to set up first, with option to do both sequentially.

B4. Install and configure

Install the chosen packages (npm/bun/gem/pip/etc.)
Create minimal config file
Create directory structure (test/, spec/, etc.)
Create one example test matching the project's code to verify setup works

If package installation fails → debug once. If still failing → revert with git checkout -- package.json package-lock.json (or equivalent for the runtime). Warn user and continue without tests.

B4.5. First real tests

Generate 3-5 real tests for existing code:

Find recently changed files: git log --since=30.days --name-only --format="" | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head -10
Prioritize by risk: Error handlers > business logic with conditionals > API endpoints > pure functions
For each file: Write one test that tests real behavior with meaningful assertions. Never expect(x).toBeDefined() — test what the code DOES.
Run each test. Passes → keep. Fails → fix once. Still fails → delete silently.
Generate at least 1 test, cap at 5.

Never import secrets, API keys, or credentials in test files. Use environment variables or test fixtures.

B5. Verify

# Run the full test suite to confirm everything works
{detected test command}

If tests fail → debug once. If still failing → revert all bootstrap changes and warn user.

B5.5. CI/CD pipeline

# Check CI provider
ls -d .github/ 2>/dev/null && echo "CI:github"
ls .gitlab-ci.yml .circleci/ bitrise.yml 2>/dev/null

If .github/ exists (or no CI detected — default to GitHub Actions): Create .github/workflows/test.yml with:

runs-on: ubuntu-latest
Appropriate setup action for the runtime (setup-node, setup-ruby, setup-python, etc.)
The same test command verified in B5
Trigger: push + pull_request

If non-GitHub CI detected → skip CI generation with note: "Detected {provider} — CI pipeline generation supports GitHub Actions only. Add test step to your existing pipeline manually."

B6. Create TESTING.md

First check: If TESTING.md already exists → read it and update/append rather than overwriting. Never destroy existing content.

Write TESTING.md with:

Philosophy: "100% test coverage is the key to great vibe coding. Tests let you move fast, trust your instincts, and ship with confidence — without them, vibe coding is just yolo coding. With tests, it's a superpower."
Framework name and version
How to run tests (the verified command from B5)
Test layers: Unit tests (what, where, when), Integration tests, Smoke tests, E2E tests
Conventions: file naming, assertion style, setup/teardown patterns

B7. Update CLAUDE.md

First check: If CLAUDE.md already has a ## Testing section → skip. Don't duplicate.

Append a ## Testing section:

Run command and test directory
Reference to TESTING.md
Test expectations:
- 100% test coverage is the goal — tests make vibe coding safe
- When writing new functions, write a corresponding test
- When fixing a bug, write a regression test
- When adding error handling, write a test that triggers the error
- When adding a conditional (if/else, switch), write tests for BOTH paths
- Never commit code that makes existing tests fail

B8. Commit

git status --porcelain

Only commit if there are changes. Stage all bootstrap files (config, test directory, TESTING.md, CLAUDE.md, .github/workflows/test.yml if created): git commit -m "chore: bootstrap test framework ({framework name})"

Step 5: Run tests (on merged code)

Do NOT run RAILS_ENV=test bin/rails db:migrate — bin/test-lane already calls db:test:prepare internally, which loads the schema into the correct lane database. Running bare test migrations without INSTANCE hits an orphan DB and corrupts structure.sql.

Run both test suites in parallel:

bin/test-lane 2>&1 | tee /tmp/ship_tests.txt &
npm run test 2>&1 | tee /tmp/ship_vitest.txt &
wait

After both complete, read the output files and check pass/fail.

If any test fails: Do NOT immediately stop. Apply the Test Failure Ownership Triage:

Test Failure Ownership Triage

When tests fail, do NOT immediately stop. First, determine ownership:

Step T1: Classify each failure

For each failing test:

Get the files changed on this branch:

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

Classify the failure:
- In-branch if: the failing test file itself was modified on this branch, OR the test output references code that was changed on this branch, OR you can trace the failure to a change in the branch diff.
- Likely pre-existing if: neither the test file nor the code it tests was modified on this branch, AND the failure is unrelated to any branch change you can identify.
- When ambiguous, default to in-branch. It is safer to stop the developer than to let a broken test ship. Only classify as pre-existing when you are confident.
This classification is heuristic — use your judgment reading the diff and the test output. You do not have a programmatic dependency graph.

Step T2: Handle in-branch failures

STOP. These are your failures. Show them and do not proceed. The developer must fix their own broken tests before shipping.

Step T3: Handle pre-existing failures

Check REPO_MODE from the preamble output.

If REPO_MODE is solo:

Use AskUserQuestion:

These test failures appear pre-existing (not caused by your branch changes):

[list each failure with file:line and brief error description]

Since this is a solo repo, you're the only one who will fix these.

RECOMMENDATION: Choose A — fix now while the context is fresh. Completeness: 9/10. A) Investigate and fix now (human: ~2-4h / CC: ~15min) — Completeness: 10/10 B) Add as P0 TODO — fix after this branch lands — Completeness: 7/10 C) Skip — I know about this, ship anyway — Completeness: 3/10

If REPO_MODE is collaborative or unknown:

Use AskUserQuestion:

These test failures appear pre-existing (not caused by your branch changes):

[list each failure with file:line and brief error description]

This is a collaborative repo — these may be someone else's responsibility.

RECOMMENDATION: Choose B — assign it to whoever broke it so the right person fixes it. Completeness: 9/10. A) Investigate and fix now anyway — Completeness: 10/10 B) Blame + assign GitHub issue to the author — Completeness: 9/10 C) Add as P0 TODO — Completeness: 7/10 D) Skip — ship anyway — Completeness: 3/10

Step T4: Execute the chosen action

If "Investigate and fix now":

Switch to /investigate mindset: root cause first, then minimal fix.
Fix the pre-existing failure.
Commit the fix separately from the branch's changes: git commit -m "fix: pre-existing test failure in <test-file>"
Continue with the workflow.

If "Add as P0 TODO":

If TODOS.md exists, add the entry following the format in review/TODOS-format.md (or .claude/skills/review/TODOS-format.md).
If TODOS.md does not exist, create it with the standard header and add the entry.
Entry should include: title, the error output, which branch it was noticed on, and priority P0.
Continue with the workflow — treat the pre-existing failure as non-blocking.

If "Blame + assign GitHub issue" (collaborative only):

Find who likely broke it. Check BOTH the test file AND the production code it tests:

# Who last touched the failing test?
git log --format="%an (%ae)" -1 -- <failing-test-file>
# Who last touched the production code the test covers? (often the actual breaker)
git log --format="%an (%ae)" -1 -- <source-file-under-test>

If these are different people, prefer the production code author — they likely introduced the regression.

Create an issue assigned to that person (use the platform detected in Step 0):

If GitHub:

gh issue create \
  --title "Pre-existing test failure: <test-name>" \
  --body "Found failing on branch <current-branch>. Failure is pre-existing.\n\n**Error:**\n```\n<first 10 lines>\n```\n\n**Last modified by:** <author>\n**Noticed by:** gstack /ship on <date>" \
  --assignee "<github-username>"

If GitLab:

glab issue create \
  -t "Pre-existing test failure: <test-name>" \
  -d "Found failing on branch <current-branch>. Failure is pre-existing.\n\n**Error:**\n```\n<first 10 lines>\n```\n\n**Last modified by:** <author>\n**Noticed by:** gstack /ship on <date>" \
  -a "<gitlab-username>"

If neither CLI is available or --assignee/-a fails (user not in org, etc.), create the issue without assignee and note who should look at it in the body.
Continue with the workflow.

If "Skip":

Continue with the workflow.
Note in output: "Pre-existing test failure skipped: "

After triage: If any in-branch failures remain unfixed, STOP. Do not proceed. If all failures were pre-existing and handled (fixed, TODOed, assigned, or skipped), continue to Step 6.

If all pass: Continue silently — just note the counts briefly.

Step 6: Eval Suites (conditional)

Evals are mandatory when prompt-related files change. Skip this step entirely if no prompt files are in the diff.

1. Check if the diff touches prompt-related files:

git diff origin/<base> --name-only

Match against these patterns (from CLAUDE.md):

app/services/*_prompt_builder.rb
app/services/*_generation_service.rb, *_writer_service.rb, *_designer_service.rb
app/services/*_evaluator.rb, *_scorer.rb, *_classifier_service.rb, *_analyzer.rb
app/services/concerns/*voice*.rb, *writing*.rb, *prompt*.rb, *token*.rb
app/services/chat_tools/*.rb, app/services/x_thread_tools/*.rb
config/system_prompts/*.txt
test/evals/**/* (eval infrastructure changes affect all suites)

If no matches: Print "No prompt-related files changed — skipping evals." and continue to Step 9.

2. Identify affected eval suites:

Each eval runner (test/evals/*_eval_runner.rb) declares PROMPT_SOURCE_FILES listing which source files affect it. Grep these to find which suites match the changed files:

grep -l "changed_file_basename" test/evals/*_eval_runner.rb

Map runner → test file: post_generation_eval_runner.rb → post_generation_eval_test.rb.

Special cases:

Changes to test/evals/judges/*.rb, test/evals/support/*.rb, or test/evals/fixtures/ affect ALL suites that use those judges/support files. Check imports in the eval test files to determine which.
Changes to config/system_prompts/*.txt — grep eval runners for the prompt filename to find affected suites.
If unsure which suites are affected, run ALL suites that could plausibly be impacted. Over-testing is better than missing a regression.

3. Run affected suites at EVAL_JUDGE_TIER=full:

/ship is a pre-merge gate, so always use full tier (Sonnet structural + Opus persona judges).

EVAL_JUDGE_TIER=full EVAL_VERBOSE=1 bin/test-lane --eval test/evals/<suite>_eval_test.rb 2>&1 | tee /tmp/ship_evals.txt

If multiple suites need to run, run them sequentially (each needs a test lane). If the first suite fails, stop immediately — don't burn API cost on remaining suites.

4. Check results:

If any eval fails: Show the failures, the cost dashboard, and STOP. Do not proceed.
If all pass: Note pass counts and cost. Continue to Step 9.

5. Save eval output — include eval results and cost dashboard in the PR body (Step 19).

Tier reference (for context — /ship always uses full):

Tier	When	Speed (cached)	Cost
`fast` (Haiku)	Dev iteration, smoke tests	~5s (14x faster)	~$0.07/run
`standard` (Sonnet)	Default dev, `bin/test-lane --eval`	~17s (4x faster)	~$0.37/run
`full` (Opus persona)	`/ship` and pre-merge	~72s (baseline)	~$1.27/run

Step 7: Test Coverage Audit

Dispatch this step as a subagent using the Agent tool with subagent_type: "general-purpose". The subagent runs the coverage audit in a fresh context window — the parent only sees the conclusion, not intermediate file reads. This is context-rot defense.

Subagent prompt: Pass the following instructions to the subagent, with <base> substituted with the base branch:

You are running a ship-workflow test coverage audit. Run git diff <base>...HEAD as needed. Do not commit or push — report only.

100% coverage is the goal — every untested path is a path where bugs hide and vibe coding becomes yolo coding. Evaluate what was ACTUALLY coded (from the diff), not what was planned.

Test Framework Detection

Before analyzing coverage, detect the project's test framework:

Read CLAUDE.md — look for a ## Testing section with test command and framework name. If found, use that as the authoritative source.
If CLAUDE.md has no testing section, auto-detect:

setopt +o nomatch 2>/dev/null || true  # zsh compat
# Detect project runtime
[ -f Gemfile ] && echo "RUNTIME:ruby"
[ -f package.json ] && echo "RUNTIME:node"
[ -f requirements.txt ] || [ -f pyproject.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:python"
[ -f go.mod ] && echo "RUNTIME:go"
[ -f Cargo.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:rust"
# Check for existing test infrastructure
ls jest.config.* vitest.config.* playwright.config.* cypress.config.* .rspec pytest.ini phpunit.xml 2>/dev/null
ls -d test/ tests/ spec/ __tests__/ cypress/ e2e/ 2>/dev/null

If no framework detected: falls through to the Test Framework Bootstrap step (Step 4) which handles full setup.

0. Before/after test count:

# Count test files before any generation
find . -name '*.test.*' -o -name '*.spec.*' -o -name '*_test.*' -o -name '*_spec.*' | grep -v node_modules | wc -l

Store this number for the PR body.

1. Trace every codepath changed using git diff origin/<base>...HEAD:

Read every changed file. For each one, trace how data flows through the code — don't just list functions, actually follow the execution:

Read the diff. For each changed file, read the full file (not just the diff hunk) to understand context.
Trace data flow. Starting from each entry point (route handler, exported function, event listener, component render), follow the data through every branch:
- Where does input come from? (request params, props, database, API call)
- What transforms it? (validation, mapping, computation)
- Where does it go? (database write, API response, rendered output, side effect)
- What can go wrong at each step? (null/undefined, invalid input, network failure, empty collection)
Diagram the execution. For each changed file, draw an ASCII diagram showing:
- Every function/method that was added or modified
- Every conditional branch (if/else, switch, ternary, guard clause, early return)
- Every error path (try/catch, rescue, error boundary, fallback)
- Every call to another function (trace into it — does IT have untested branches?)
- Every edge: what happens with null input? Empty array? Invalid type?

This is the critical step — you're building a map of every line of code that can execute differently based on input. Every branch in this diagram needs a test.

2. Map user flows, interactions, and error states:

Code coverage isn't enough — you need to cover how real users interact with the changed code. For each changed feature, think through:

User flows: What sequence of actions does a user take that touches this code? Map the full journey (e.g., "user clicks 'Pay' → form validates → API call → success/failure screen"). Each step in the journey needs a test.
Interaction edge cases: What happens when the user does something unexpected?
- Double-click/rapid resubmit
- Navigate away mid-operation (back button, close tab, click another link)
- Submit with stale data (page sat open for 30 minutes, session expired)
- Slow connection (API takes 10 seconds — what does the user see?)
- Concurrent actions (two tabs, same form)
Error states the user can see: For every error the code handles, what does the user actually experience?
- Is there a clear error message or a silent failure?
- Can the user recover (retry, go back, fix input) or are they stuck?
- What happens with no network? With a 500 from the API? With invalid data from the server?
Empty/zero/boundary states: What does the UI show with zero results? With 10,000 results? With a single character input? With maximum-length input?

Add these to your diagram alongside the code branches. A user flow with no test is just as much a gap as an untested if/else.

3. Check each branch against existing tests:

Go through your diagram branch by branch — both code paths AND user flows. For each one, search for a test that exercises it:

Function processPayment() → look for billing.test.ts, billing.spec.ts, test/billing_test.rb
An if/else → look for tests covering BOTH the true AND false path
An error handler → look for a test that triggers that specific error condition
A call to helperFn() that has its own branches → those branches need tests too
A user flow → look for an integration or E2E test that walks through the journey
An interaction edge case → look for a test that simulates the unexpected action

Quality scoring rubric:

★★★ Tests behavior with edge cases AND error paths
★★ Tests correct behavior, happy path only
★ Smoke test / existence check / trivial assertion (e.g., "it renders", "it doesn't throw")

E2E Test Decision Matrix

When checking each branch, also determine whether a unit test or E2E/integration test is the right tool:

RECOMMEND E2E (mark as [→E2E] in the diagram):

Common user flow spanning 3+ components/services (e.g., signup → verify email → first login)
Integration point where mocking hides real failures (e.g., API → queue → worker → DB)
Auth/payment/data-destruction flows — too important to trust unit tests alone

RECOMMEND EVAL (mark as [→EVAL] in the diagram):

Critical LLM call that needs a quality eval (e.g., prompt change → test output still meets quality bar)
Changes to prompt templates, system instructions, or tool definitions

STICK WITH UNIT TESTS:

Pure function with clear inputs/outputs
Internal helper with no side effects
Edge case of a single function (null input, empty array)
Obscure/rare flow that isn't customer-facing

REGRESSION RULE (mandatory)

IRON RULE: When the coverage audit identifies a REGRESSION — code that previously worked but the diff broke — a regression test is written immediately. No AskUserQuestion. No skipping. Regressions are the highest-priority test because they prove something broke.

A regression is when:

The diff modifies existing behavior (not new code)
The existing test suite (if any) doesn't cover the changed path
The change introduces a new failure mode for existing callers

When uncertain whether a change is a regression, err on the side of writing the test.

Format: commit as test: regression test for {what broke}

4. Output ASCII coverage diagram:

Include BOTH code paths and user flows in the same diagram. Mark E2E-worthy and eval-worthy paths:

CODE PATHS                                            USER FLOWS
[+] src/services/billing.ts                           [+] Payment checkout
  ├── processPayment()                                  ├── [★★★ TESTED] Complete purchase — checkout.e2e.ts:15
  │   ├── [★★★ TESTED] happy + declined + timeout      ├── [GAP] [→E2E] Double-click submit
  │   ├── [GAP]         Network timeout                 └── [GAP]        Navigate away mid-payment
  │   └── [GAP]         Invalid currency
  └── refundPayment()                                 [+] Error states
      ├── [★★  TESTED] Full refund — :89                ├── [★★  TESTED] Card declined message
      └── [★   TESTED] Partial (non-throw only) — :101  └── [GAP]        Network timeout UX

LLM integration: [GAP] [→EVAL] Prompt template change — needs eval test

COVERAGE: 5/13 paths tested (38%)  |  Code paths: 3/5 (60%)  |  User flows: 2/8 (25%)
QUALITY: ★★★:2 ★★:2 ★:1  |  GAPS: 8 (2 E2E, 1 eval)

Legend: ★★★ behavior + edge + error | ★★ happy path | ★ smoke check [→E2E] = needs integration test | [→EVAL] = needs LLM eval

Fast path: All paths covered → "Step 7: All new code paths have test coverage ✓" Continue.

5. Generate tests for uncovered paths:

If test framework detected (or bootstrapped in Step 4):

Prioritize error handlers and edge cases first (happy paths are more likely already tested)
Read 2-3 existing test files to match conventions exactly
Generate unit tests. Mock all external dependencies (DB, API, Redis).
For paths marked [→E2E]: generate integration/E2E tests using the project's E2E framework (Playwright, Cypress, Capybara, etc.)
For paths marked [→EVAL]: generate eval tests using the project's eval framework, or flag for manual eval if none exists
Write tests that exercise the specific uncovered path with real assertions
Run each test. Passes → commit as test: coverage for {feature}
Fails → fix once. Still fails → revert, note gap in diagram.

Caps: 30 code paths max, 20 tests generated max (code + user flow combined), 2-min per-test exploration cap.

If no test framework AND user declined bootstrap → diagram only, no generation. Note: "Test generation skipped — no test framework configured."

Diff is test-only changes: Skip Step 7 entirely: "No new application code paths to audit."

6. After-count and coverage summary:

# Count test files after generation
find . -name '*.test.*' -o -name '*.spec.*' -o -name '*_test.*' -o -name '*_spec.*' | grep -v node_modules | wc -l

For PR body: Tests: {before} → {after} (+{delta} new) Coverage line: Test Coverage Audit: N new code paths. M covered (X%). K tests generated, J committed.

7. Coverage gate:

Before proceeding, check CLAUDE.md for a ## Test Coverage section with Minimum: and Target: fields. If found, use those percentages. Otherwise use defaults: Minimum = 60%, Target = 80%.

Using the coverage percentage from the diagram in substep 4 (the COVERAGE: X/Y (Z%) line):

>= target: Pass. "Coverage gate: PASS ({X}%)." Continue.
>= minimum, < target: Use AskUserQuestion:
- "AI-assessed coverage is {X}%. {N} code paths are untested. Target is {target}%."
- RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because untested code paths are where production bugs hide.
- Options: A) Generate more tests for remaining gaps (recommended) B) Ship anyway — I accept the coverage risk C) These paths don't need tests — mark as intentionally uncovered
- If A: Loop back to substep 5 (generate tests) targeting the remaining gaps. After second pass, if still below target, present AskUserQuestion again with updated numbers. Maximum 2 generation passes total.
- If B: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: {X}% — user accepted risk."
- If C: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: {X}% — {N} paths intentionally uncovered."
< minimum: Use AskUserQuestion:
- "AI-assessed coverage is critically low ({X}%). {N} of {M} code paths have no tests. Minimum threshold is {minimum}%."
- RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because less than {minimum}% means more code is untested than tested.
- Options: A) Generate tests for remaining gaps (recommended) B) Override — ship with low coverage (I understand the risk)
- If A: Loop back to substep 5. Maximum 2 passes. If still below minimum after 2 passes, present the override choice again.
- If B: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: OVERRIDDEN at {X}%."

Coverage percentage undetermined: If the coverage diagram doesn't produce a clear numeric percentage (ambiguous output, parse error), skip the gate with: "Coverage gate: could not determine percentage — skipping." Do not default to 0% or block.

Test-only diffs: Skip the gate (same as the existing fast-path).

100% coverage: "Coverage gate: PASS (100%)." Continue.

Test Plan Artifact

After producing the coverage diagram, write a test plan artifact so /qa and /qa-only can consume it:

eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)" && mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG
USER=$(whoami)
DATETIME=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)

Write to ~/.gstack/projects/{slug}/{user}-{branch}-ship-test-plan-{datetime}.md:

# Test Plan
Generated by /ship on {date}
Branch: {branch}
Repo: {owner/repo}

## Affected Pages/Routes
- {URL path} — {what to test and why}

## Key Interactions to Verify
- {interaction description} on {page}

## Edge Cases
- {edge case} on {page}

## Critical Paths
- {end-to-end flow that must work}

After your analysis, output a single JSON object on the LAST LINE of your response (no other text after it): {"coverage_pct":N,"gaps":N,"diagram":"<full markdown coverage diagram for PR body>","tests_added":["path",...]}

Parent processing:

Read the subagent's final output. Parse the LAST line as JSON.
Store coverage_pct (for Step 20 metrics), gaps (user summary), tests_added (for the commit).
Embed diagram verbatim in the PR body's ## Test Coverage section (Step 19).
Print a one-line summary: Coverage: {coverage_pct}%, {gaps} gaps. {tests_added.length} tests added.

If the subagent fails, times out, or returns invalid JSON: Fall back to running the audit inline in the parent. Do not block /ship on subagent failure — partial results are better than none.

Step 8: Plan Completion Audit

Dispatch this step as a subagent using the Agent tool with subagent_type: "general-purpose". The subagent reads the plan file and every referenced code file in its own fresh context. Parent gets only the conclusion.

Subagent prompt: Pass these instructions to the subagent:

You are running a ship-workflow plan completion audit. The base branch is <base>. Use git diff <base>...HEAD to see what shipped. Do not commit or push — report only.

Plan File Discovery

Conversation context (primary): Check if there is an active plan file in this conversation. The host agent's system messages include plan file paths when in plan mode. If found, use it directly — this is the most reliable signal.
Content-based search (fallback): If no plan file is referenced in conversation context, search by content:

setopt +o nomatch 2>/dev/null || true  # zsh compat
BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null | tr '/' '-')
REPO=$(basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null)")
# Compute project slug for ~/.gstack/projects/ lookup
_PLAN_SLUG=$(git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null | sed 's|.*[:/]\([^/]*/[^/]*\)\.git$|\1|;s|.*[:/]\([^/]*/[^/]*\)$|\1|' | tr '/' '-' | tr -cd 'a-zA-Z0-9._-') || true
_PLAN_SLUG="${_PLAN_SLUG:-$(basename "$PWD" | tr -cd 'a-zA-Z0-9._-')}"
# Search common plan file locations (project designs first, then personal/local)
for PLAN_DIR in "$HOME/.gstack/projects/$_PLAN_SLUG" "$HOME/.claude/plans" "$HOME/.codex/plans" ".gstack/plans"; do
  [ -d "$PLAN_DIR" ] || continue
  PLAN=$(ls -t "$PLAN_DIR"/*.md 2>/dev/null | xargs grep -l "$BRANCH" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
  [ -z "$PLAN" ] && PLAN=$(ls -t "$PLAN_DIR"/*.md 2>/dev/null | xargs grep -l "$REPO" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
  [ -z "$PLAN" ] && PLAN=$(find "$PLAN_DIR" -name '*.md' -mmin -1440 -maxdepth 1 2>/dev/null | xargs ls -t 2>/dev/null | head -1)
  [ -n "$PLAN" ] && break
done
[ -n "$PLAN" ] && echo "PLAN_FILE: $PLAN" || echo "NO_PLAN_FILE"

Validation: If a plan file was found via content-based search (not conversation context), read the first 20 lines and verify it is relevant to the current branch's work. If it appears to be from a different project or feature, treat as "no plan file found."

Error handling:

No plan file found → skip with "No plan file detected — skipping."
Plan file found but unreadable (permissions, encoding) → skip with "Plan file found but unreadable — skipping."

Actionable Item Extraction

Read the plan file. Extract every actionable item — anything that describes work to be done. Look for:

Checkbox items: - [ ] ... or - [x] ...
Numbered steps under implementation headings: "1. Create ...", "2. Add ...", "3. Modify ..."
Imperative statements: "Add X to Y", "Create a Z service", "Modify the W controller"
File-level specifications: "New file: path/to/file.ts", "Modify path/to/existing.rb"
Test requirements: "Test that X", "Add test for Y", "Verify Z"
Data model changes: "Add column X to table Y", "Create migration for Z"

Ignore:

Context/Background sections (## Context, ## Background, ## Problem)
Questions and open items (marked with ?, "TBD", "TODO: decide")
Review report sections (## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT)
Explicitly deferred items ("Future:", "Out of scope:", "NOT in scope:", "P2:", "P3:", "P4:")
CEO Review Decisions sections (these record choices, not work items)

Cap: Extract at most 50 items. If the plan has more, note: "Showing top 50 of N plan items — full list in plan file."

No items found: If the plan contains no extractable actionable items, skip with: "Plan file contains no actionable items — skipping completion audit."

For each item, note:

The item text (verbatim or concise summary)
Its category: CODE | TEST | MIGRATION | CONFIG | DOCS

Verification Mode

Before judging completion, classify HOW each item can be verified. The diff alone cannot prove every kind of work. Items outside the current repo or system are structurally invisible to git diff.

DIFF-VERIFIABLE — A code change in this repo would manifest in git diff <base>...HEAD. Examples: "add UserService" (file appears), "validate input X" (validation logic appears), "create users table" (migration file appears).
CROSS-REPO — Item names a file or change in a sibling repo (e.g., domain-hq/docs/dashboard.md, ~/Development/<other-repo>/...). The current diff CANNOT prove this.
EXTERNAL-STATE — Item names state in an external system: Supabase config/RLS, Cloudflare DNS, Vercel env vars, OAuth provider allowlists, third-party SaaS, DNS records. The current diff CANNOT prove this.
CONTENT-SHAPE — Item requires a file to follow a specific convention. If the file is in this repo: diff-verifiable. If in another repo or system: see CROSS-REPO / EXTERNAL-STATE.

Verification dispatch:

DIFF-VERIFIABLE → cross-reference against diff (next section).
CROSS-REPO → if the sibling repo is reachable on disk (try ~/Development/<repo>/, ~/code/<repo>/, the parent of the current repo), run [ -f <path> ] to check file existence. File exists → DONE (cite path). File missing → NOT DONE (cite path). Path unreachable → UNVERIFIABLE (cite what needs manual check).
EXTERNAL-STATE → UNVERIFIABLE. Cite the system and the specific check the user must perform.
CONTENT-SHAPE in another repo → if the file exists, run any project-detected validator (see "Validator detection" below) before falling back to UNVERIFIABLE. With a validator: pass → DONE; fail → NOT DONE (cite validator output). No validator available: classify UNVERIFIABLE and cite both the file path and the convention to confirm.

Path concreteness rule. If a plan item names a concrete filesystem path (absolute, ~/..., or <sibling-repo>/<file>), it MUST be classified DONE or NOT DONE based on [ -f <path> ]. UNVERIFIABLE is only valid when the path is genuinely abstract ("Cloudflare DNS", "Supabase allowlist") or the sibling root is unreachable on this machine. "I don't want to check" is not unreachable.

Validator detection. Before falling back to UNVERIFIABLE on a CONTENT-SHAPE item, scan the target repo's package.json for any script matching validate-*, lint-wiki, check-docs, or similar. If found, invoke it with the relevant path argument (e.g., npm run validate-wiki -- <path>). For multi-target validators (e.g., validate-wiki --all), run once and reconcile per-item from the output. A passing validator promotes the item from UNVERIFIABLE to DONE; a failing one demotes to NOT DONE.

Honesty rule. Do NOT classify an item as DONE just because related code shipped. Code that handles a deliverable is not the deliverable. Shipping a markdown-extraction library is not the same as shipping the markdown file. When in doubt between DONE and UNVERIFIABLE, prefer UNVERIFIABLE — better to surface a confirmation prompt than silently miss a deliverable.

Cross-Reference Against Diff

Run git diff origin/<base>...HEAD and git log origin/<base>..HEAD --oneline to understand what was implemented.

For each extracted plan item, run the verification dispatch from the previous section, then classify:

DONE — Clear evidence the item shipped. Cite the specific file(s) changed in the diff for DIFF-VERIFIABLE items, or the verified path that exists for CROSS-REPO items with a reachable sibling repo.
PARTIAL — Some work toward this item exists but is incomplete (e.g., model created but controller missing, function exists but edge cases not handled).
NOT DONE — Verification ran and produced negative evidence (file missing, code absent in diff, sibling-repo file confirmed absent).
CHANGED — The item was implemented using a different approach than the plan described, but the same goal is achieved. Note the difference.
UNVERIFIABLE — The diff and any reachable sibling-repo checks cannot prove or disprove this. Always applies to EXTERNAL-STATE items and to CROSS-REPO items where the sibling repo isn't reachable. Cite the specific manual verification the user must perform (e.g., "check Cloudflare DNS shows DNS-only mode for dashboard.example.com", "confirm /docs/dashboard.md exists in domain-hq repo").

Be conservative with DONE — require clear evidence. A file being touched is not enough; the specific functionality described must be present. Be generous with CHANGED — if the goal is met by different means, that counts as addressed. Be honest with UNVERIFIABLE — better to surface 5 items the user must manually confirm than silently classify them DONE.

Output Format

PLAN COMPLETION AUDIT
═══════════════════════════════
Plan: {plan file path}

## Implementation Items
  [DONE]         Create UserService — src/services/user_service.rb (+142 lines)
  [PARTIAL]      Add validation — model validates but missing controller checks
  [NOT DONE]     Add caching layer — no cache-related changes in diff
  [CHANGED]      "Redis queue" → implemented with Sidekiq instead

## Test Items
  [DONE]         Unit tests for UserService — test/services/user_service_test.rb
  [NOT DONE]    E2E test for signup flow

## Migration Items
  [DONE]         Create users table — db/migrate/20240315_create_users.rb

## Cross-Repo / External Items
  [DONE]         sibling-repo has /docs/dashboard.md — verified at ~/Development/sibling-repo/docs/dashboard.md
  [UNVERIFIABLE] Cloudflare DNS-only on api.example.com — external system, manual check required
  [UNVERIFIABLE] Supabase auth allowlist contains user email — external system, confirm in Supabase dashboard

─────────────────────────────────
COMPLETION: 5/9 DONE, 1 PARTIAL, 1 NOT DONE, 1 CHANGED, 2 UNVERIFIABLE
─────────────────────────────────

Gate Logic

After producing the completion checklist, evaluate in priority order:

Any NOT DONE items (highest priority — known missing work). Use AskUserQuestion:
- Show the completion checklist above
- "{N} items from the plan are NOT DONE. These were part of the original plan but are missing from the implementation."
- RECOMMENDATION: depends on item count and severity. If 1-2 minor items (docs, config), recommend B. If core functionality is missing, recommend A.
- Options: A) Stop — implement the missing items before shipping B) Ship anyway — defer these to a follow-up (will create P1 TODOs in Step 5.5) C) These items were intentionally dropped — remove from scope
- If A: STOP. List the missing items for the user to implement.
- If B: Continue. For each NOT DONE item, create a P1 TODO in Step 5.5 with "Deferred from plan: {plan file path}".
- If C: Continue. Note in PR body: "Plan items intentionally dropped: {list}."
Any UNVERIFIABLE items (silent gaps — the diff cannot prove them either way). Only fires after NOT DONE is resolved or absent.

Per-item confirmation is mandatory. Do NOT use a single AskUserQuestion to blanket-confirm all UNVERIFIABLE items. Blanket confirmation is the failure mode that surfaced in VAS-449 (user clicks A without opening any file). Instead:
- Loop through UNVERIFIABLE items one at a time.
- For each item, use AskUserQuestion with the item's specific manual check (e.g., "Confirm: does ~/Development/domain-hq/docs/dashboard.md exist?", not "Have you checked all items?").
- Options per item: Y) Confirmed done — cite what you verified (free-text, embedded in PR body) N) Not done — block ship; treat as NOT DONE and re-enter the priority-1 gate D) Intentionally dropped — note in PR body: "Plan item intentionally dropped: {item}"
- RECOMMENDATION per item: Y if the item is concrete and easily verified; N if it's critical-path (auth, DNS, deliverables to other repos) and the user shows hesitation.
Exit conditions:
- Any N: STOP. Surface the missing items, suggest re-running /ship after they're addressed.
- All Y or D: Continue. Embed ## Plan Completion — Manual Verifications section in PR body listing each Y'd item with the user's free-text evidence and each D'd item with "intentionally dropped".
Cap. If there are more than 5 UNVERIFIABLE items, present them as a numbered list first and ask whether the user wants to (1) confirm each individually, (2) stop and reduce scope, or (3) explicitly accept blanket-confirmation with the warning that this is the VAS-449 failure shape. Default and recommended option is (1).
Only PARTIAL items (no NOT DONE, no UNVERIFIABLE): Continue with a note in the PR body. Not blocking.
All DONE or CHANGED: Pass. "Plan completion: PASS — all items addressed." Continue.

No plan file found: Skip entirely. "No plan file detected — skipping plan completion audit."

Include in PR body (Step 8): Add a ## Plan Completion section with the checklist summary.

After your analysis, output a single JSON object on the LAST LINE of your response (no other text after it): {"total_items":N,"done":N,"changed":N,"deferred":N,"unverifiable":N,"summary":"<markdown checklist for PR body>"}

Parent processing:

Parse the LAST line of the subagent's output as JSON.
Store done, deferred, unverifiable for Step 20 metrics; use summary in PR body.
If deferred > 0 or unverifiable > 0 and no user override, present the items via the appropriate AskUserQuestion (see Gate Logic priority order above) before continuing.
Embed summary in PR body's ## Plan Completion section (Step 19). If unverifiable > 0 and the user picked option A in the UNVERIFIABLE gate, also embed ## Plan Completion — Manual Verifications listing each user-confirmed item.

If the subagent fails or returns invalid JSON: Fall back to running the audit inline (parent processes the same plan-extraction + classification logic). If the inline fallback also fails (e.g., plan file unreadable, parser error), do NOT silently pass — surface the failure as an explicit AskUserQuestion: "Plan Completion audit could not run ({reason}). Options: (A) Skip audit and ship anyway — record that the audit was skipped in PR body and Step 20 metrics; (B) Stop and fix the audit." Default and recommended option is (B). Silent fail-open is the failure shape that VAS-449 surfaced.

Step 8.1: Plan Verification

Automatically verify the plan's testing/verification steps using the /qa-only skill.

1. Check for verification section

Using the plan file already discovered in Step 8, look for a verification section. Match any of these headings: ## Verification, ## Test plan, ## Testing, ## How to test, ## Manual testing, or any section with verification-flavored items (URLs to visit, things to check visually, interactions to test).

If no verification section found: Skip with "No verification steps found in plan — skipping auto-verification." If no plan file was found in Step 8: Skip (already handled).

2. Check for running dev server

Before invoking browse-based verification, check if a dev server is reachable:

curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:3000 2>/dev/null || \
curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:8080 2>/dev/null || \
curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:5173 2>/dev/null || \
curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:4000 2>/dev/null || echo "NO_SERVER"

If NO_SERVER: Skip with "No dev server detected — skipping plan verification. Run /qa separately after deploying."

3. Invoke /qa-only inline

Read the /qa-only skill from disk:

cat ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../qa-only/SKILL.md

If unreadable: Skip with "Could not load /qa-only — skipping plan verification."

Follow the /qa-only workflow with these modifications:

Skip the preamble (already handled by /ship)
Use the plan's verification section as the primary test input — treat each verification item as a test case
Use the detected dev server URL as the base URL
Skip the fix loop — this is report-only verification during /ship
Cap at the verification items from the plan — do not expand into general site QA

4. Gate logic

All verification items PASS: Continue silently. "Plan verification: PASS."
Any FAIL: Use AskUserQuestion:
- Show the failures with screenshot evidence
- RECOMMENDATION: Choose A if failures indicate broken functionality. Choose B if cosmetic only.
- Options: A) Fix the failures before shipping (recommended for functional issues) B) Ship anyway — known issues (acceptable for cosmetic issues)
No verification section / no server / unreadable skill: Skip (non-blocking).

5. Include in PR body

Add a ## Verification Results section to the PR body (Step 19):

If verification ran: summary of results (N PASS, M FAIL, K SKIPPED)
If skipped: reason for skipping (no plan, no server, no verification section)

Prior Learnings

Search for relevant learnings from previous sessions:

_CROSS_PROJ=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get cross_project_learnings 2>/dev/null || echo "unset")
echo "CROSS_PROJECT: $_CROSS_PROJ"
if [ "$_CROSS_PROJ" = "true" ]; then
  ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-learnings-search --limit 10 --query "release ship version changelog merge pr" --cross-project 2>/dev/null || true
else
  ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-learnings-search --limit 10 --query "release ship version changelog merge pr" 2>/dev/null || true
fi

If CROSS_PROJECT is unset (first time): Use AskUserQuestion:

gstack can search learnings from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here. This stays local (no data leaves your machine). Recommended for solo developers. Skip if you work on multiple client codebases where cross-contamination would be a concern.

Options:

A) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)
B) Keep learnings project-scoped only

If A: run ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set cross_project_learnings true If B: run ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config set cross_project_learnings false

Then re-run the search with the appropriate flag.

If learnings are found, incorporate them into your analysis. When a review finding matches a past learning, display:

"Prior learning applied: [key] (confidence N/10, from [date])"

This makes the compounding visible. The user should see that gstack is getting smarter on their codebase over time.

Step 8.2: Scope Drift Detection

Before reviewing code quality, check: did they build what was requested — nothing more, nothing less?

Read TODOS.md (if it exists). Read PR description (gh pr view --json body --jq .body 2>/dev/null || true). Read commit messages (git log origin/<base>..HEAD --oneline). If no PR exists: rely on commit messages and TODOS.md for stated intent — this is the common case since /review runs before /ship creates the PR.
Identify the stated intent — what was this branch supposed to accomplish?
Run git diff origin/<base>...HEAD --stat and compare the files changed against the stated intent.
Evaluate with skepticism (incorporating plan completion results if available from an earlier step or adjacent section):

SCOPE CREEP detection:
- Files changed that are unrelated to the stated intent
- New features or refactors not mentioned in the plan
- "While I was in there..." changes that expand blast radius
MISSING REQUIREMENTS detection:
- Requirements from TODOS.md/PR description not addressed in the diff
- Test coverage gaps for stated requirements
- Partial implementations (started but not finished)
Output (before the main review begins): ``` Scope Check: [CLEAN / DRIFT DETECTED / REQUIREMENTS MISSING] Intent: <1-line summary of what was requested> Delivered: <1-line summary of what the diff actually does> [If drift: list each out-of-scope change] [If missing: list each unaddressed requirement] ```
This is INFORMATIONAL — does not block the review. Proceed to the next step.

Step 9: Pre-Landing Review

Review the diff for structural issues that tests don't catch.

Read .claude/skills/review/checklist.md. If the file cannot be read, STOP and report the error.
Run git diff origin/<base> to get the full diff (scoped to feature changes against the freshly-fetched base branch).
Apply the review checklist in two passes:
- Pass 1 (CRITICAL): SQL & Data Safety, LLM Output Trust Boundary
- Pass 2 (INFORMATIONAL): All remaining categories

Confidence Calibration

Every finding MUST include a confidence score (1-10):

Score	Meaning	Display rule
9-10	Verified by reading specific code. Concrete bug or exploit demonstrated.	Show normally
7-8	High confidence pattern match. Very likely correct.	Show normally
5-6	Moderate. Could be a false positive.	Show with caveat: "Medium confidence, verify this is actually an issue"
3-4	Low confidence. Pattern is suspicious but may be fine.	Suppress from main report. Include in appendix only.
1-2	Speculation.	Only report if severity would be P0.

Finding format:

`[SEVERITY] (confidence: N/10) file:line — description`

Example: `[P1] (confidence: 9/10) app/models/user.rb:42 — SQL injection via string interpolation in where clause` `[P2] (confidence: 5/10) app/controllers/api/v1/users_controller.rb:18 — Possible N+1 query, verify with production logs`

Calibration learning: If you report a finding with confidence < 7 and the user confirms it IS a real issue, that is a calibration event. Your initial confidence was too low. Log the corrected pattern as a learning so future reviews catch it with higher confidence.

Design Review (conditional, diff-scoped)

Check if the diff touches frontend files using gstack-diff-scope:

source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-diff-scope <base> 2>/dev/null)

If SCOPE_FRONTEND=false: Skip design review silently. No output.

If SCOPE_FRONTEND=true:

Check for DESIGN.md. If DESIGN.md or design-system.md exists in the repo root, read it. All design findings are calibrated against it — patterns blessed in DESIGN.md are not flagged. If not found, use universal design principles.
Read .claude/skills/review/design-checklist.md. If the file cannot be read, skip design review with a note: "Design checklist not found — skipping design review."
Read each changed frontend file (full file, not just diff hunks). Frontend files are identified by the patterns listed in the checklist.
Apply the design checklist against the changed files. For each item:
- [HIGH] mechanical CSS fix (outline: none, !important, font-size < 16px): classify as AUTO-FIX
- [HIGH/MEDIUM] design judgment needed: classify as ASK
- [LOW] intent-based detection: present as "Possible — verify visually or run /design-review"
Include findings in the review output under a "Design Review" header, following the output format in the checklist. Design findings merge with code review findings into the same Fix-First flow.
Log the result for the Review Readiness Dashboard:

~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"design-review-lite","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","findings":N,"auto_fixed":M,"commit":"COMMIT"}'

Substitute: TIMESTAMP = ISO 8601 datetime, STATUS = "clean" if 0 findings or "issues_found", N = total findings, M = auto-fixed count, COMMIT = output of git rev-parse --short HEAD.

Codex design voice (optional, automatic if available):

which codex 2>/dev/null && echo "CODEX_AVAILABLE" || echo "CODEX_NOT_AVAILABLE"

If Codex is available, run a lightweight design check on the diff:

TMPERR_DRL=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-drl-XXXXXXXX)
_REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
codex exec "Review the git diff on this branch. Run 7 litmus checks (YES/NO each): 1. Brand/product unmistakable in first screen? 2. One strong visual anchor present? 3. Page understandable by scanning headlines only? 4. Each section has one job? 5. Are cards actually necessary? 6. Does motion improve hierarchy or atmosphere? 7. Would design feel premium with all decorative shadows removed? Flag any hard rejections: 1. Generic SaaS card grid as first impression 2. Beautiful image with weak brand 3. Strong headline with no clear action 4. Busy imagery behind text 5. Sections repeating same mood statement 6. Carousel with no narrative purpose 7. App UI made of stacked cards instead of layout 5 most important design findings only. Reference file:line." -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' --enable web_search_cached < /dev/null 2>"$TMPERR_DRL"

Use a 5-minute timeout (timeout: 300000). After the command completes, read stderr:

cat "$TMPERR_DRL" && rm -f "$TMPERR_DRL"

Error handling: All errors are non-blocking. On auth failure, timeout, or empty response — skip with a brief note and continue.

Present Codex output under a CODEX (design): header, merged with the checklist findings above.

Include any design findings alongside the code review findings. They follow the same Fix-First flow below.

Step 9.1: Review Army — Specialist Dispatch

Detect stack and scope

source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-diff-scope <base> 2>/dev/null) || true
# Detect stack for specialist context
STACK=""
[ -f Gemfile ] && STACK="${STACK}ruby "
[ -f package.json ] && STACK="${STACK}node "
[ -f requirements.txt ] || [ -f pyproject.toml ] && STACK="${STACK}python "
[ -f go.mod ] && STACK="${STACK}go "
[ -f Cargo.toml ] && STACK="${STACK}rust "
echo "STACK: ${STACK:-unknown}"
DIFF_INS=$(git diff origin/<base> --stat | tail -1 | grep -oE '[0-9]+ insertion' | grep -oE '[0-9]+' || echo "0")
DIFF_DEL=$(git diff origin/<base> --stat | tail -1 | grep -oE '[0-9]+ deletion' | grep -oE '[0-9]+' || echo "0")
DIFF_LINES=$((DIFF_INS + DIFF_DEL))
echo "DIFF_LINES: $DIFF_LINES"
# Detect test framework for specialist test stub generation
TEST_FW=""
{ [ -f jest.config.ts ] || [ -f jest.config.js ]; } && TEST_FW="jest"
[ -f vitest.config.ts ] && TEST_FW="vitest"
{ [ -f spec/spec_helper.rb ] || [ -f .rspec ]; } && TEST_FW="rspec"
{ [ -f pytest.ini ] || [ -f conftest.py ]; } && TEST_FW="pytest"
[ -f go.mod ] && TEST_FW="go-test"
echo "TEST_FW: ${TEST_FW:-unknown}"

Read specialist hit rates (adaptive gating)

~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-specialist-stats 2>/dev/null || true

Select specialists

Based on the scope signals above, select which specialists to dispatch.

Always-on (dispatch on every review with 50+ changed lines):

Testing — read ~/.claude/skills/gstack/review/specialists/testing.md
Maintainability — read ~/.claude/skills/gstack/review/specialists/maintainability.md

If DIFF_LINES < 50: Skip all specialists. Print: "Small diff ($DIFF_LINES lines) — specialists skipped." Continue to the Fix-First flow (item 4).

Conditional (dispatch if the matching scope signal is true): 3. Security — if SCOPE_AUTH=true, OR if SCOPE_BACKEND=true AND DIFF_LINES > 100. Read ~/.claude/skills/gstack/review/specialists/security.md 4. Performance — if SCOPE_BACKEND=true OR SCOPE_FRONTEND=true. Read ~/.claude/skills/gstack/review/specialists/performance.md 5. Data Migration — if SCOPE_MIGRATIONS=true. Read ~/.claude/skills/gstack/review/specialists/data-migration.md 6. API Contract — if SCOPE_API=true. Read ~/.claude/skills/gstack/review/specialists/api-contract.md 7. Design — if SCOPE_FRONTEND=true. Use the existing design review checklist at ~/.claude/skills/gstack/review/design-checklist.md

Adaptive gating

After scope-based selection, apply adaptive gating based on specialist hit rates:

For each conditional specialist that passed scope gating, check the gstack-specialist-stats output above:

If tagged [GATE_CANDIDATE] (0 findings in 10+ dispatches): skip it. Print: "[specialist] auto-gated (0 findings in N reviews)."
If tagged [NEVER_GATE]: always dispatch regardless of hit rate. Security and data-migration are insurance policy specialists — they should run even when silent.

Force flags: If the user's prompt includes --security, --performance, --testing, --maintainability, --data-migration, --api-contract, --design, or --all-specialists, force-include that specialist regardless of gating.

Note which specialists were selected, gated, and skipped. Print the selection: "Dispatching N specialists: [names]. Skipped: [names] (scope not detected). Gated: [names] (0 findings in N+ reviews)."

Dispatch specialists in parallel

For each selected specialist, launch an independent subagent via the Agent tool. Launch ALL selected specialists in a single message (multiple Agent tool calls) so they run in parallel. Each subagent has fresh context — no prior review bias.

Each specialist subagent prompt:

Construct the prompt for each specialist. The prompt includes:

The specialist's checklist content (you already read the file above)
Stack context: "This is a {STACK} project."
Past learnings for this domain (if any exist):

~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-learnings-search --type pitfall --query "{specialist domain}" --limit 5 2>/dev/null || true

If learnings are found, include them: "Past learnings for this domain: {learnings}"

Instructions:

"You are a specialist code reviewer. Read the checklist below, then run git diff origin/<base> to get the full diff. Apply the checklist against the diff.

For each finding, output a JSON object on its own line: {"severity":"CRITICAL|INFORMATIONAL","confidence":N,"path":"file","line":N,"category":"category","summary":"description","fix":"recommended fix","fingerprint":"path:line:category","specialist":"name"}

Required fields: severity, confidence, path, category, summary, specialist. Optional: line, fix, fingerprint, evidence, test_stub.

If you can write a test that would catch this issue, include it in the test_stub field. Use the detected test framework ({TEST_FW}). Write a minimal skeleton — describe/it/test blocks with clear intent. Skip test_stub for architectural or design-only findings.

If no findings: output NO FINDINGS and nothing else. Do not output anything else — no preamble, no summary, no commentary.

Stack context: {STACK} Past learnings: {learnings or 'none'}

CHECKLIST: {checklist content}"

Subagent configuration:

Use subagent_type: "general-purpose"
Do NOT use run_in_background — all specialists must complete before merge
If any specialist subagent fails or times out, log the failure and continue with results from successful specialists. Specialists are additive — partial results are better than no results.

Step 9.2: Collect and merge findings

After all specialist subagents complete, collect their outputs.

Parse findings: For each specialist's output:

If output is "NO FINDINGS" — skip, this specialist found nothing
Otherwise, parse each line as a JSON object. Skip lines that are not valid JSON.
Collect all parsed findings into a single list, tagged with their specialist name.

Fingerprint and deduplicate: For each finding, compute its fingerprint:

If fingerprint field is present, use it
Otherwise: {path}:{line}:{category} (if line is present) or {path}:{category}

Group findings by fingerprint. For findings sharing the same fingerprint:

Keep the finding with the highest confidence score
Tag it: "MULTI-SPECIALIST CONFIRMED ({specialist1} + {specialist2})"
Boost confidence by +1 (cap at 10)
Note the confirming specialists in the output

Apply confidence gates:

Confidence 7+: show normally in the findings output
Confidence 5-6: show with caveat "Medium confidence — verify this is actually an issue"
Confidence 3-4: move to appendix (suppress from main findings)
Confidence 1-2: suppress entirely

Compute PR Quality Score: After merging, compute the quality score: quality_score = max(0, 10 - (critical_count * 2 + informational_count * 0.5)) Cap at 10. Log this in the review result at the end.

Output merged findings: Present the merged findings in the same format as the current review:

SPECIALIST REVIEW: N findings (X critical, Y informational) from Z specialists

[For each finding, in order: CRITICAL first, then INFORMATIONAL, sorted by confidence descending]
[SEVERITY] (confidence: N/10, specialist: name) path:line — summary
  Fix: recommended fix
  [If MULTI-SPECIALIST CONFIRMED: show confirmation note]

PR Quality Score: X/10

These findings flow into the Fix-First flow (item 4) alongside the checklist pass (Step 9). The Fix-First heuristic applies identically — specialist findings follow the same AUTO-FIX vs ASK classification.

Compile per-specialist stats: After merging findings, compile a specialists object for the review-log persist. For each specialist (testing, maintainability, security, performance, data-migration, api-contract, design, red-team):

If dispatched: {"dispatched": true, "findings": N, "critical": N, "informational": N}
If skipped by scope: {"dispatched": false, "reason": "scope"}
If skipped by gating: {"dispatched": false, "reason": "gated"}
If not applicable (e.g., red-team not activated): omit from the object

Include the Design specialist even though it uses design-checklist.md instead of the specialist schema files. Remember these stats — you will need them for the review-log entry in Step 5.8.

Red Team dispatch (conditional)

Activation: Only if DIFF_LINES > 200 OR any specialist produced a CRITICAL finding.

If activated, dispatch one more subagent via the Agent tool (foreground, not background).

The Red Team subagent receives:

The red-team checklist from ~/.claude/skills/gstack/review/specialists/red-team.md
The merged specialist findings from Step 9.2 (so it knows what was already caught)
The git diff command

Prompt: "You are a red team reviewer. The code has already been reviewed by N specialists who found the following issues: {merged findings summary}. Your job is to find what they MISSED. Read the checklist, run git diff origin/<base>, and look for gaps. Output findings as JSON objects (same schema as the specialists). Focus on cross-cutting concerns, integration boundary issues, and failure modes that specialist checklists don't cover."

If the Red Team finds additional issues, merge them into the findings list before the Fix-First flow (item 4). Red Team findings are tagged with "specialist":"red-team".

If the Red Team returns NO FINDINGS, note: "Red Team review: no additional issues found." If the Red Team subagent fails or times out, skip silently and continue.

Step 9.3: Cross-review finding dedup

Before classifying findings, check if any were previously skipped by the user in a prior review on this branch.

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

Parse the output: only lines BEFORE ---CONFIG--- are JSONL entries (the output also contains ---CONFIG--- and ---HEAD--- footer sections that are not JSONL — ignore those).

For each JSONL entry that has a findings array:

Collect all fingerprints where action: "skipped"
Note the commit field from that entry

If skipped fingerprints exist, get the list of files changed since that review:

git diff --name-only <prior-review-commit> HEAD

For each current finding (from both the checklist pass (Step 9) and specialist review (Step 9.1-9.2)), check:

Does its fingerprint match a previously skipped finding?
Is the finding's file path NOT in the changed-files set?

If both conditions are true: suppress the finding. It was intentionally skipped and the relevant code hasn't changed.

Print: "Suppressed N findings from prior reviews (previously skipped by user)"

Only suppress skipped findings — never fixed or auto-fixed (those might regress and should be re-checked).

If no prior reviews exist or none have a findings array, skip this step silently.

Output a summary header: Pre-Landing Review: N issues (X critical, Y informational)

Classify each finding from both the checklist pass and specialist review (Step 9.1-Step 9.2) as AUTO-FIX or ASK per the Fix-First Heuristic in checklist.md. Critical findings lean toward ASK; informational lean toward AUTO-FIX.
Auto-fix all AUTO-FIX items. Apply each fix. Output one line per fix: [AUTO-FIXED] [file:line] Problem → what you did
If ASK items remain, present them in ONE AskUserQuestion:
- List each with number, severity, problem, recommended fix
- Per-item options: A) Fix B) Skip
- Overall RECOMMENDATION
- If 3 or fewer ASK items, you may use individual AskUserQuestion calls instead
After all fixes (auto + user-approved):
- If ANY fixes were applied: commit fixed files by name (git add <fixed-files> && git commit -m "fix: pre-landing review fixes"), then STOP and tell the user to run /ship again to re-test.
- If no fixes applied (all ASK items skipped, or no issues found): continue to Step 12.
Output summary: Pre-Landing Review: N issues — M auto-fixed, K asked (J fixed, L skipped)

If no issues found: Pre-Landing Review: No issues found.
Persist the review result to the review log:

~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"review","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","issues_found":N,"critical":N,"informational":N,"quality_score":SCORE,"specialists":SPECIALISTS_JSON,"findings":FINDINGS_JSON,"commit":"'"$(git rev-parse --short HEAD)"'","via":"ship"}'

Substitute TIMESTAMP (ISO 8601), STATUS ("clean" if no issues, "issues_found" otherwise), and N values from the summary counts above. The via:"ship" distinguishes from standalone /review runs.

quality_score = the PR Quality Score computed in Step 9.2 (e.g., 7.5). If specialists were skipped (small diff), use 10.0
specialists = the per-specialist stats object compiled in Step 9.2. Each specialist that was considered gets an entry: {"dispatched":true/false,"findings":N,"critical":N,"informational":N} if dispatched, or {"dispatched":false,"reason":"scope|gated"} if skipped. Example: {"testing":{"dispatched":true,"findings":2,"critical":0,"informational":2},"security":{"dispatched":false,"reason":"scope"}}
findings = array of per-finding records. For each finding (from checklist pass and specialists), include: {"fingerprint":"path:line:category","severity":"CRITICAL|INFORMATIONAL","action":"ACTION"}. ACTION is "auto-fixed", "fixed" (user approved), or "skipped" (user chose Skip).

Save the review output — it goes into the PR body in Step 19.

Step 10: Address Greptile review comments (if PR exists)

Dispatch the fetch + classification as a subagent using the Agent tool with subagent_type: "general-purpose". The subagent pulls every Greptile comment, runs the escalation detection algorithm, and classifies each comment. Parent receives a structured list and handles user interaction + file edits.

Subagent prompt:

You are classifying Greptile review comments for a /ship workflow. Read .claude/skills/review/greptile-triage.md and follow the fetch, filter, classify, and escalation detection steps. Do NOT fix code, do NOT reply to comments, do NOT commit — report only.

For each comment, assign: classification (valid_actionable, already_fixed, false_positive, suppressed), escalation_tier (1 or 2), the file:line or [top-level] tag, body summary, and permalink URL.

If no PR exists, gh fails, the API errors, or there are zero comments, output: {"total":0,"comments":[]} and stop.

Otherwise, output a single JSON object on the LAST LINE of your response: {"total":N,"comments":[{"classification":"...","escalation_tier":N,"ref":"file:line","summary":"...","permalink":"url"},...]}

Parent processing:

Parse the LAST line as JSON.

If total is 0, skip this step silently. Continue to Step 12.

Otherwise, print: + {total} Greptile comments ({valid_actionable} valid, {already_fixed} already fixed, {false_positive} FP).

For each comment in comments:

VALID & ACTIONABLE: Use AskUserQuestion with:

The comment (file:line or [top-level] + body summary + permalink URL)
RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because [one-line reason]
Options: A) Fix now, B) Acknowledge and ship anyway, C) It's a false positive
If user chooses A: apply the fix, commit the fixed files (git add <fixed-files> && git commit -m "fix: address Greptile review — <brief description>"), reply using the Fix reply template from greptile-triage.md (include inline diff + explanation), and save to both per-project and global greptile-history (type: fix).
If user chooses C: reply using the False Positive reply template from greptile-triage.md (include evidence + suggested re-rank), save to both per-project and global greptile-history (type: fp).

VALID BUT ALREADY FIXED: Reply using the Already Fixed reply template from greptile-triage.md — no AskUserQuestion needed:

Include what was done and the fixing commit SHA
Save to both per-project and global greptile-history (type: already-fixed)

FALSE POSITIVE: Use AskUserQuestion:

Show the comment and why you think it's wrong (file:line or [top-level] + body summary + permalink URL)
Options:
- A) Reply to Greptile explaining the false positive (recommended if clearly wrong)
- B) Fix it anyway (if trivial)
- C) Ignore silently
If user chooses A: reply using the False Positive reply template from greptile-triage.md (include evidence + suggested re-rank), save to both per-project and global greptile-history (type: fp)

SUPPRESSED: Skip silently — these are known false positives from previous triage.

After all comments are resolved: If any fixes were applied, the tests from Step 5 are now stale. Re-run tests (Step 5) before continuing to Step 12. If no fixes were applied, continue to Step 12.

Step 11: Adversarial review (always-on)

Every diff gets adversarial review from both Claude and Codex. LOC is not a proxy for risk — a 5-line auth change can be critical.

Detect diff size and tool availability:

DIFF_INS=$(git diff origin/<base> --stat | tail -1 | grep -oE '[0-9]+ insertion' | grep -oE '[0-9]+' || echo "0")
DIFF_DEL=$(git diff origin/<base> --stat | tail -1 | grep -oE '[0-9]+ deletion' | grep -oE '[0-9]+' || echo "0")
DIFF_TOTAL=$((DIFF_INS + DIFF_DEL))
which codex 2>/dev/null && echo "CODEX_AVAILABLE" || echo "CODEX_NOT_AVAILABLE"
# Legacy opt-out — only gates Codex passes, Claude always runs
OLD_CFG=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get codex_reviews 2>/dev/null || true)
echo "DIFF_SIZE: $DIFF_TOTAL"
echo "OLD_CFG: ${OLD_CFG:-not_set}"

If OLD_CFG is disabled: skip Codex passes only. Claude adversarial subagent still runs (it's free and fast). Jump to the "Claude adversarial subagent" section.

User override: If the user explicitly requested "full review", "structured review", or "P1 gate", also run the Codex structured review regardless of diff size.

Claude adversarial subagent (always runs)

Dispatch via the Agent tool. The subagent has fresh context — no checklist bias from the structured review. This genuine independence catches things the primary reviewer is blind to.

Subagent prompt: "Read the diff for this branch with git diff origin/<base>. Think like an attacker and a chaos engineer. Your job is to find ways this code will fail in production. Look for: edge cases, race conditions, security holes, resource leaks, failure modes, silent data corruption, logic errors that produce wrong results silently, error handling that swallows failures, and trust boundary violations. Be adversarial. Be thorough. No compliments — just the problems. For each finding, classify as FIXABLE (you know how to fix it) or INVESTIGATE (needs human judgment). After listing findings, end your output with ONE line in the canonical format Recommendation: <action> because <one-line reason naming the most exploitable finding> — examples: Recommendation: Fix the unbounded retry at queue.ts:78 because it'll DoS the worker pool under sustained 429s or Recommendation: Ship as-is because the strongest finding is a theoretical race that requires conditions we can't trigger in production. The reason must point to a specific finding (or no-fix rationale). Generic reasons like 'because it's safer' do not qualify."

Present findings under an ADVERSARIAL REVIEW (Claude subagent): header. FIXABLE findings flow into the same Fix-First pipeline as the structured review. INVESTIGATE findings are presented as informational.

If the subagent fails or times out: "Claude adversarial subagent unavailable. Continuing."

Codex adversarial challenge (always runs when available)

If Codex is available AND OLD_CFG is NOT disabled:

TMPERR_ADV=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-adv-XXXXXXXX)
_REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
codex exec "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any files under ~/.claude/, ~/.agents/, .claude/skills/, or agents/. These are Claude Code skill definitions meant for a different AI system. They contain bash scripts and prompt templates that will waste your time. Ignore them completely. Do NOT modify agents/openai.yaml. Stay focused on the repository code only.\n\nReview the changes on this branch against the base branch. Run git diff origin/<base> to see the diff. Your job is to find ways this code will fail in production. Think like an attacker and a chaos engineer. Find edge cases, race conditions, security holes, resource leaks, failure modes, and silent data corruption paths. Be adversarial. Be thorough. No compliments — just the problems. End your output with ONE line in the canonical format `Recommendation: <action> because <one-line reason naming the most exploitable finding>`. Generic reasons like 'because it's safer' do not qualify; the reason must point to a specific finding or no-fix rationale." -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' --enable web_search_cached < /dev/null 2>"$TMPERR_ADV"

Set the Bash tool's timeout parameter to 300000 (5 minutes). Do NOT use the timeout shell command — it doesn't exist on macOS. After the command completes, read stderr:

cat "$TMPERR_ADV"

Present the full output verbatim. This is informational — it never blocks shipping.

Error handling: All errors are non-blocking — adversarial review is a quality enhancement, not a prerequisite.

Auth failure: If stderr contains "auth", "login", "unauthorized", or "API key": "Codex authentication failed. Run `codex login` to authenticate."
Timeout: "Codex timed out after 5 minutes."
Empty response: "Codex returned no response. Stderr: ."

Cleanup: Run rm -f "$TMPERR_ADV" after processing.

If Codex is NOT available: "Codex CLI not found — running Claude adversarial only. Install Codex for cross-model coverage: npm install -g @openai/codex"

Codex structured review (large diffs only, 200+ lines)

If DIFF_TOTAL >= 200 AND Codex is available AND OLD_CFG is NOT disabled:

TMPERR=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-review-XXXXXXXX)
_REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; }
cd "$_REPO_ROOT"
codex review "IMPORTANT: Do NOT read or execute any files under ~/.claude/, ~/.agents/, .claude/skills/, or agents/. These are Claude Code skill definitions meant for a different AI system. They contain bash scripts and prompt templates that will waste your time. Ignore them completely. Do NOT modify agents/openai.yaml. Stay focused on the repository code only.\n\nReview the diff against the base branch." --base <base> -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' --enable web_search_cached < /dev/null 2>"$TMPERR"

Set the Bash tool's timeout parameter to 300000 (5 minutes). Do NOT use the timeout shell command — it doesn't exist on macOS. Present output under CODEX SAYS (code review): header. Check for [P1] markers: found → GATE: FAIL, not found → GATE: PASS.

If GATE is FAIL, use AskUserQuestion:

Codex found N critical issues in the diff.

A) Investigate and fix now (recommended)
B) Continue — review will still complete

If A: address the findings. After fixing, re-run tests (Step 5) since code has changed. Re-run codex review to verify.

Read stderr for errors (same error handling as Codex adversarial above).

After stderr: rm -f "$TMPERR"

If DIFF_TOTAL < 200: skip this section silently. The Claude + Codex adversarial passes provide sufficient coverage for smaller diffs.

Persist the review result

After all passes complete, persist:

~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"adversarial-review","timestamp":"'"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","tier":"always","gate":"GATE","commit":"'"$(git rev-parse --short HEAD)"'"}'

Substitute: STATUS = "clean" if no findings across ALL passes, "issues_found" if any pass found issues. SOURCE = "both" if Codex ran, "claude" if only Claude subagent ran. GATE = the Codex structured review gate result ("pass"/"fail"), "skipped" if diff < 200, or "informational" if Codex was unavailable. If all passes failed, do NOT persist.

Cross-model synthesis

After all passes complete, synthesize findings across all sources:

ADVERSARIAL REVIEW SYNTHESIS (always-on, N lines):
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
  High confidence (found by multiple sources): [findings agreed on by >1 pass]
  Unique to Claude structured review: [from earlier step]
  Unique to Claude adversarial: [from subagent]
  Unique to Codex: [from codex adversarial or code review, if ran]
  Models used: Claude structured ✓  Claude adversarial ✓/✗  Codex ✓/✗
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

High-confidence findings (agreed on by multiple sources) should be prioritized for fixes.

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":"ship","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.

Refresh learnings for the headline feature on this branch

The top-of-skill learnings pull was keyed to "release ship" broadly. Before the VERSION/CHANGELOG step, re-pull learnings keyed to THIS branch's headline feature so any prior version-bump or CHANGELOG pitfalls for similar features surface.

Pick ONE keyword that names the headline feature you're shipping. The keyword should be a noun: the primary skill or module name, the central feature noun, or the binary you changed. The keyword MUST be alphanumeric or hyphen only — no quotes, slashes, dots, colons, or whitespace. If your candidate has any of those, simplify to just the alphanumeric stem.

Worked examples (ship-specific): good keywords are learnings-search, pacing, worktree-ship. Bad: the branch headline, v1.31.1.0, feat: token-or search.

~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-learnings-search --query "<your-keyword>" --limit 5 2>/dev/null || true

If any learnings come back, name which one applies to the version bump or CHANGELOG framing in one sentence. If none come back, continue without reference — the absence is itself useful information.

Step 12: Version bump (auto-decide)

Idempotency check: Before bumping, classify the state by comparing VERSION against the base branch AND against package.json's version field. Four states: FRESH (do bump), ALREADY_BUMPED (skip bump), DRIFT_STALE_PKG (sync pkg only, no re-bump), DRIFT_UNEXPECTED (stop and ask).

if ! git rev-parse --verify origin/<base> >/dev/null 2>&1; then
  echo "ERROR: Unable to resolve origin/<base>. Run 'git fetch origin' or verify the base branch exists."
  exit 1
fi

BASE_VERSION=$(git show origin/<base>:VERSION 2>/dev/null | tr -d '\r\n[:space:]' || echo "0.0.0.0")
CURRENT_VERSION=$(cat VERSION 2>/dev/null | tr -d '\r\n[:space:]' || echo "0.0.0.0")
[ -z "$BASE_VERSION" ] && BASE_VERSION="0.0.0.0"
[ -z "$CURRENT_VERSION" ] && CURRENT_VERSION="0.0.0.0"
PKG_VERSION=""
PKG_EXISTS=0
if [ -f package.json ]; then
  PKG_EXISTS=1
  if command -v node >/dev/null 2>&1; then
    PKG_VERSION=$(node -e 'const p=require("./package.json");process.stdout.write(p.version||"")' 2>/dev/null)
    PARSE_EXIT=$?
  elif command -v bun >/dev/null 2>&1; then
    PKG_VERSION=$(bun -e 'const p=require("./package.json");process.stdout.write(p.version||"")' 2>/dev/null)
    PARSE_EXIT=$?
  else
    echo "ERROR: package.json exists but neither node nor bun is available. Install one and re-run."
    exit 1
  fi
  if [ "$PARSE_EXIT" != "0" ]; then
    echo "ERROR: package.json is not valid JSON. Fix the file before re-running /ship."
    exit 1
  fi
fi
echo "BASE: $BASE_VERSION  VERSION: $CURRENT_VERSION  package.json: ${PKG_VERSION:-<none>}"

if [ "$CURRENT_VERSION" = "$BASE_VERSION" ]; then
  if [ "$PKG_EXISTS" = "1" ] && [ -n "$PKG_VERSION" ] && [ "$PKG_VERSION" != "$CURRENT_VERSION" ]; then
    echo "STATE: DRIFT_UNEXPECTED"
    echo "package.json version ($PKG_VERSION) disagrees with VERSION ($CURRENT_VERSION) while VERSION matches base."
    echo "This looks like a manual edit to package.json bypassing /ship. Reconcile manually, then re-run."
    exit 1
  fi
  echo "STATE: FRESH"
else
  if [ "$PKG_EXISTS" = "1" ] && [ -n "$PKG_VERSION" ] && [ "$PKG_VERSION" != "$CURRENT_VERSION" ]; then
    echo "STATE: DRIFT_STALE_PKG"
  else
    echo "STATE: ALREADY_BUMPED"
  fi
fi

Read the STATE: line and dispatch:

FRESH → proceed with the bump action below (steps 1–4).
ALREADY_BUMPED → skip the bump by default, BUT check for queue drift first: call bin/gstack-next-version with the implied bump level (derived from CURRENT_VERSION vs BASE_VERSION), compare its .version against CURRENT_VERSION. If they differ (queue moved since last ship), use AskUserQuestion: "VERSION drift detected: you claim v but next available is v (queue moved). A) Rebump to v and rewrite CHANGELOG header + PR title (recommended), B) Keep v — will be rejected by CI version-gate until resolved." If A, treat this as FRESH with NEW_VERSION=<new> and run steps 1-4 (which will also trigger Step 13 CHANGELOG header rewrite and Step 19 PR title rewrite). If B, reuse CURRENT_VERSION and warn that CI will likely reject. If util is offline, warn and reuse CURRENT_VERSION.
DRIFT_STALE_PKG → a prior /ship bumped VERSION but failed to update package.json. Run the sync-only repair block below (after step 4). Do NOT re-bump. Reuse CURRENT_VERSION for CHANGELOG and PR body. (Queue check still runs in ALREADY_BUMPED terms after repair.)
DRIFT_UNEXPECTED → /ship has halted (exit 1). Resolve manually; /ship cannot tell which file is authoritative.

Read the current VERSION file (4-digit format: MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH.MICRO)
Auto-decide the bump level based on the diff:
- Count lines changed (git diff origin/<base>...HEAD --stat | tail -1)
- Check for feature signals: new route/page files (e.g. app/*/page.tsx, pages/*.ts), new DB migration/schema files, new test files alongside new source files, or branch name starting with feat/
- MICRO (4th digit): < 50 lines changed, trivial tweaks, typos, config
- PATCH (3rd digit): 50+ lines changed, no feature signals detected
- MINOR (2nd digit): ASK the user if ANY feature signal is detected, OR 500+ lines changed, OR new modules/packages added
- MAJOR (1st digit): ASK the user — only for milestones or breaking changes
Save the chosen level as BUMP_LEVEL (one of major, minor, patch, micro). This is the user-intended level. The next step decides placement — the level stays the same even if queue-aware allocation has to advance past a claimed slot.
Queue-aware version pick (workspace-aware ship, v1.6.4.0+). Call bin/gstack-next-version to see what's already claimed by open PRs + active sibling Conductor worktrees, then render the queue state to the user:
```
QUEUE_JSON=$(bun run bin/gstack-next-version \
  --base <base> \
  --bump "$BUMP_LEVEL" \
  --current-version "$BASE_VERSION" 2>/dev/null || echo '{"offline":true}')
NEW_VERSION=$(echo "$QUEUE_JSON" | jq -r '.version // empty')
CLAIMED_COUNT=$(echo "$QUEUE_JSON" | jq -r '.claimed | length')
ACTIVE_SIBLING_COUNT=$(echo "$QUEUE_JSON" | jq -r '.active_siblings | length')
OFFLINE=$(echo "$QUEUE_JSON" | jq -r '.offline // false')
REASON=$(echo "$QUEUE_JSON" | jq -r '.reason // ""')
```
- If OFFLINE=true or the util fails (auth expired, no gh/glab, network): fall back to local BUMP_LEVEL arithmetic (bump BASE_VERSION at the chosen level). Print ⚠ workspace-aware ship offline — using local bump only. Continue.
- If CLAIMED_COUNT > 0: render the queue table to the user so they can see landing order at a glance:
```
Queue on <base> (vBASE_VERSION):
  #<pr> <branch> → v<version>   [⚠ collision with #<other>]
Active sibling workspaces (WIP, not yet PR'd):
  <path> → v<version> (committed Nh ago)
Your branch will claim: vNEW_VERSION  (<reason>)
```
- If ACTIVE_SIBLING_COUNT > 0 and any active sibling's VERSION is >= NEW_VERSION, use AskUserQuestion: "Sibling workspace has v committed h ago but hasn't PR'd yet. Wait for them to ship first, or advance past? A) Advance past (recommended for unrelated work), B) Abort /ship and sync up with sibling first."
- Validate NEW_VERSION matches MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH.MICRO. If util returns an empty or malformed version, fall back to local bump.
Validate NEW_VERSION and write it to both VERSION and package.json. This block runs only when STATE: FRESH.

if ! printf '%s' "$NEW_VERSION" | grep -qE '^[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+$'; then
  echo "ERROR: NEW_VERSION ($NEW_VERSION) does not match MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH.MICRO pattern. Aborting."
  exit 1
fi
echo "$NEW_VERSION" > VERSION
if [ -f package.json ]; then
  if command -v node >/dev/null 2>&1; then
    node -e 'const fs=require("fs"),p=require("./package.json");p.version=process.argv[1];fs.writeFileSync("package.json",JSON.stringify(p,null,2)+"\n")' "$NEW_VERSION" || {
      echo "ERROR: failed to update package.json. VERSION was written but package.json is now stale. Fix and re-run — the new idempotency check will detect the drift."
      exit 1
    }
  elif command -v bun >/dev/null 2>&1; then
    bun -e 'const fs=require("fs"),p=require("./package.json");p.version=process.argv[1];fs.writeFileSync("package.json",JSON.stringify(p,null,2)+"\n")' "$NEW_VERSION" || {
      echo "ERROR: failed to update package.json. VERSION was written but package.json is now stale."
      exit 1
    }
  else
    echo "ERROR: package.json exists but neither node nor bun is available."
    exit 1
  fi
fi

DRIFT_STALE_PKG repair path — runs when idempotency reports STATE: DRIFT_STALE_PKG. No re-bump; sync package.json.version to the current VERSION and continue. Reuse CURRENT_VERSION for CHANGELOG and PR body.

REPAIR_VERSION=$(cat VERSION | tr -d '\r\n[:space:]')
if ! printf '%s' "$REPAIR_VERSION" | grep -qE '^[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+$'; then
  echo "ERROR: VERSION file contents ($REPAIR_VERSION) do not match MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH.MICRO pattern. Refusing to propagate invalid semver into package.json. Fix VERSION manually, then re-run /ship."
  exit 1
fi
if command -v node >/dev/null 2>&1; then
  node -e 'const fs=require("fs"),p=require("./package.json");p.version=process.argv[1];fs.writeFileSync("package.json",JSON.stringify(p,null,2)+"\n")' "$REPAIR_VERSION" || {
    echo "ERROR: drift repair failed — could not update package.json."
    exit 1
  }
else
  bun -e 'const fs=require("fs"),p=require("./package.json");p.version=process.argv[1];fs.writeFileSync("package.json",JSON.stringify(p,null,2)+"\n")' "$REPAIR_VERSION" || {
    echo "ERROR: drift repair failed."
    exit 1
  }
fi
echo "Drift repaired: package.json synced to $REPAIR_VERSION. No version bump performed."

Step 13: CHANGELOG (auto-generate)

Read CHANGELOG.md header to know the format.
First, enumerate every commit on the branch:
```
git log <base>..HEAD --oneline
```
Copy the full list. Count the commits. You will use this as a checklist.
Read the full diff to understand what each commit actually changed:
```
git diff <base>...HEAD
```
Group commits by theme before writing anything. Common themes:
- New features / capabilities
- Performance improvements
- Bug fixes
- Dead code removal / cleanup
- Infrastructure / tooling / tests
- Refactoring
Write the CHANGELOG entry covering ALL groups:
- If existing CHANGELOG entries on the branch already cover some commits, replace them with one unified entry for the new version
- Categorize changes into applicable sections:
  - ### Added — new features
  - ### Changed — changes to existing functionality
  - ### Fixed — bug fixes
  - ### Removed — removed features
- Write concise, descriptive bullet points
- Insert after the file header (line 5), dated today
- Format: ## [X.Y.Z.W] - YYYY-MM-DD
- Voice: Lead with what the user can now do that they couldn't before. Use plain language, not implementation details. Never mention TODOS.md, internal tracking, or contributor-facing details.
Cross-check: Compare your CHANGELOG entry against the commit list from step 2. Every commit must map to at least one bullet point. If any commit is unrepresented, add it now. If the branch has N commits spanning K themes, the CHANGELOG must reflect all K themes.

Do NOT ask the user to describe changes. Infer from the diff and commit history.

Step 14: TODOS.md (auto-update)

Cross-reference the project's TODOS.md against the changes being shipped. Mark completed items automatically; prompt only if the file is missing or disorganized.

Read .claude/skills/review/TODOS-format.md for the canonical format reference.

1. Check if TODOS.md exists in the repository root.

If TODOS.md does not exist: Use AskUserQuestion:

Message: "GStack recommends maintaining a TODOS.md organized by skill/component, then priority (P0 at top through P4, then Completed at bottom). See TODOS-format.md for the full format. Would you like to create one?"
Options: A) Create it now, B) Skip for now
If A: Create TODOS.md with a skeleton (# TODOS heading + ## Completed section). Continue to step 3.
If B: Skip the rest of Step 14. Continue to Step 15.

2. Check structure and organization:

Read TODOS.md and verify it follows the recommended structure:

Items grouped under ## <Skill/Component> headings
Each item has **Priority:** field with P0-P4 value
A ## Completed section at the bottom

If disorganized (missing priority fields, no component groupings, no Completed section): Use AskUserQuestion:

Message: "TODOS.md doesn't follow the recommended structure (skill/component groupings, P0-P4 priority, Completed section). Would you like to reorganize it?"
Options: A) Reorganize now (recommended), B) Leave as-is
If A: Reorganize in-place following TODOS-format.md. Preserve all content — only restructure, never delete items.
If B: Continue to step 3 without restructuring.

3. Detect completed TODOs:

This step is fully automatic — no user interaction.

Use the diff and commit history already gathered in earlier steps:

git diff <base>...HEAD (full diff against the base branch)
git log <base>..HEAD --oneline (all commits being shipped)

For each TODO item, check if the changes in this PR complete it by:

Matching commit messages against the TODO title and description
Checking if files referenced in the TODO appear in the diff
Checking if the TODO's described work matches the functional changes

Be conservative: Only mark a TODO as completed if there is clear evidence in the diff. If uncertain, leave it alone.

4. Move completed items to the ## Completed section at the bottom. Append: **Completed:** vX.Y.Z (YYYY-MM-DD)

5. Output summary:

TODOS.md: N items marked complete (item1, item2, ...). M items remaining.
Or: TODOS.md: No completed items detected. M items remaining.
Or: TODOS.md: Created. / TODOS.md: Reorganized.

6. Defensive: If TODOS.md cannot be written (permission error, disk full), warn the user and continue. Never stop the ship workflow for a TODOS failure.

Save this summary — it goes into the PR body in Step 19.

Step 15: Commit (bisectable chunks)

Step 15.0: WIP Commit Squash (continuous checkpoint mode only)

If CHECKPOINT_MODE is "continuous", the branch likely contains WIP: commits from auto-checkpointing. These must be squashed INTO the corresponding logical commits before the bisectable-grouping logic in Step 15.1 runs. Non-WIP commits on the branch (earlier landed work) must be preserved.

Detection:

WIP_COUNT=$(git log <base>..HEAD --oneline --grep="^WIP:" 2>/dev/null | wc -l | tr -d ' ')
echo "WIP_COMMITS: $WIP_COUNT"

If WIP_COUNT is 0: skip this sub-step entirely.

If WIP_COUNT > 0, collect the WIP context first so it survives the squash:

# Export [gstack-context] blocks from all WIP commits on this branch.
# This file becomes input to the CHANGELOG entry and may inform PR body context.
mkdir -p "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)/.gstack"
git log <base>..HEAD --grep="^WIP:" --format="%H%n%B%n---END---" > \
  "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)/.gstack/wip-context-before-squash.md" 2>/dev/null || true

Non-destructive squash strategy:

git reset --soft <merge-base> WOULD uncommit everything including non-WIP commits. DO NOT DO THAT. Instead, use git rebase scoped to filter WIP commits only.

Option 1 (preferred, if there are non-WIP commits mixed in):

# Interactive rebase with automated WIP squashing.
# Mark every WIP commit as 'fixup' (drop its message, fold changes into prior commit).
git rebase -i $(git merge-base HEAD origin/<base>) \
  --exec 'true' \
  -X ours 2>/dev/null || {
    echo "Rebase conflict. Aborting: git rebase --abort"
    git rebase --abort
    echo "STATUS: BLOCKED — manual WIP squash required"
    exit 1
  }

Option 2 (simpler, if the branch is ALL WIP commits so far — no landed work):

# Branch contains only WIP commits. Reset-soft is safe here because there's
# nothing non-WIP to preserve. Verify first.
NON_WIP=$(git log <base>..HEAD --oneline --invert-grep --grep="^WIP:" 2>/dev/null | wc -l | tr -d ' ')
if [ "$NON_WIP" -eq 0 ]; then
  git reset --soft $(git merge-base HEAD origin/<base>)
  echo "WIP-only branch, reset-soft to merge base. Step 15.1 will create clean commits."
fi

Decide at runtime which option applies. If unsure, prefer stopping and asking the user via AskUserQuestion rather than destroying non-WIP commits.

Anti-footgun rules:

NEVER blind git reset --soft if there are non-WIP commits. Codex flagged this as destructive — it would uncommit real landed work and turn the push step into a non-fast-forward push for anyone who already pushed.
Only proceed to Step 15.1 after WIP commits are successfully squashed/absorbed or the branch has been verified to contain only WIP work.

Step 15.1: Bisectable Commits

Goal: Create small, logical commits that work well with git bisect and help LLMs understand what changed.

Analyze the diff and group changes into logical commits. Each commit should represent one coherent change — not one file, but one logical unit.
Commit ordering (earlier commits first):
- Infrastructure: migrations, config changes, route additions
- Models & services: new models, services, concerns (with their tests)
- Controllers & views: controllers, views, JS/React components (with their tests)
- VERSION + CHANGELOG + TODOS.md: always in the final commit
Rules for splitting:
- A model and its test file go in the same commit
- A service and its test file go in the same commit
- A controller, its views, and its test go in the same commit
- Migrations are their own commit (or grouped with the model they support)
- Config/route changes can group with the feature they enable
- If the total diff is small (< 50 lines across < 4 files), a single commit is fine
Each commit must be independently valid — no broken imports, no references to code that doesn't exist yet. Order commits so dependencies come first.
Compose each commit message:
- First line: <type>: <summary> (type = feat/fix/chore/refactor/docs)
- Body: brief description of what this commit contains
- Only the final commit (VERSION + CHANGELOG) gets the version tag and co-author trailer:

git commit -m "$(cat <<'EOF'
chore: bump version and changelog (vX.Y.Z.W)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
EOF
)"

Step 16: Verification Gate

IRON LAW: NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE.

Before pushing, re-verify if code changed during Steps 4-6:

Test verification: If ANY code changed after Step 5's test run (fixes from review findings, CHANGELOG edits don't count), re-run the test suite. Paste fresh output. Stale output from Step 5 is NOT acceptable.
Build verification: If the project has a build step, run it. Paste output.
Rationalization prevention:
- "Should work now" → RUN IT.
- "I'm confident" → Confidence is not evidence.
- "I already tested earlier" → Code changed since then. Test again.
- "It's a trivial change" → Trivial changes break production.

If tests fail here: STOP. Do not push. Fix the issue and return to Step 5.

Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.

Step 17: Push

Idempotency check: Check if the branch is already pushed and up to date.

git fetch origin <branch-name> 2>/dev/null
LOCAL=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
REMOTE=$(git rev-parse origin/<branch-name> 2>/dev/null || echo "none")
echo "LOCAL: $LOCAL  REMOTE: $REMOTE"
[ "$LOCAL" = "$REMOTE" ] && echo "ALREADY_PUSHED" || echo "PUSH_NEEDED"

If ALREADY_PUSHED, skip the push but continue to Step 18. Otherwise push with upstream tracking:

git push -u origin <branch-name>

You are NOT done. The code is pushed but documentation sync and PR creation are mandatory final steps. Continue to Step 18.

Step 18: Documentation sync (via subagent, before PR creation)

Dispatch /document-release as a subagent using the Agent tool with subagent_type: "general-purpose". The subagent gets a fresh context window — zero rot from the preceding 17 steps. It also runs the full /document-release workflow (with CHANGELOG clobber protection, doc exclusions, risky-change gates, named staging, race-safe PR body editing) rather than a weaker reimplementation.

Sequencing: This step runs AFTER Step 17 (Push) and BEFORE Step 19 (Create PR). The PR is created once from final HEAD with the ## Documentation section baked into the initial body. No create-then-re-edit dance.

Subagent prompt:

You are executing the /document-release workflow after a code push. Read the full skill file ${HOME}/.claude/skills/gstack/document-release/SKILL.md and execute its complete workflow end-to-end, including CHANGELOG clobber protection, doc exclusions, risky-change gates, and named staging. Do NOT attempt to edit the PR body — no PR exists yet. Branch: <branch>, base: <base>.

After completing the workflow, output a single JSON object on the LAST LINE of your response (no other text after it): {"files_updated":["README.md","CLAUDE.md",...],"commit_sha":"abc1234","pushed":true,"documentation_section":"<markdown block for PR body's ## Documentation section>"}

If no documentation files needed updating, output: {"files_updated":[],"commit_sha":null,"pushed":false,"documentation_section":null}

Parent processing:

Parse the LAST line of the subagent's output as JSON.
Store documentation_section — Step 19 embeds it in the PR body (or omits the section if null).
If files_updated is non-empty, print: Documentation synced: {files_updated.length} files updated, committed as {commit_sha}.
If files_updated is empty, print: Documentation is current — no updates needed.

If the subagent fails or returns invalid JSON: Print a warning and proceed to Step 19 without a ## Documentation section. Do not block /ship on subagent failure. The user can run /document-release manually after the PR lands.

Step 19: Create PR/MR

Idempotency check: Check if a PR/MR already exists for this branch.

If GitHub:

gh pr view --json url,number,state -q 'if .state == "OPEN" then "PR #\(.number): \(.url)" else "NO_PR" end' 2>/dev/null || echo "NO_PR"

If GitLab:

glab mr view -F json 2>/dev/null | jq -r 'if .state == "opened" then "MR_EXISTS" else "NO_MR" end' 2>/dev/null || echo "NO_MR"

If an open PR/MR already exists: update the PR body using gh pr edit --body "..." (GitHub) or glab mr update -d "..." (GitLab). Always regenerate the PR body from scratch using this run's fresh results (test output, coverage audit, review findings, adversarial review, TODOS summary, documentation_section from Step 18). Never reuse stale PR body content from a prior run.

Always update the PR title to start with v$NEW_VERSION. PR titles use the workspace-aware format v<NEW_VERSION> <type>: <summary> — version ALWAYS first, no exceptions, no "custom title kept intentionally" escape hatch. The shared helper bin/gstack-pr-title-rewrite.sh is the single source of truth for the rule.

Read the current title: CURRENT=$(gh pr view --json title -q .title) (or glab mr view -F json | jq -r .title).
Compute the corrected title: NEW_TITLE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-pr-title-rewrite.sh "$NEW_VERSION" "$CURRENT"). The helper handles three cases: title already correct (no-op), title has a different v<X.Y.Z.W> prefix (replace it), or title has no version prefix (prepend one).
If NEW_TITLE differs from CURRENT, run gh pr edit --title "$NEW_TITLE" (or glab mr update -t "$NEW_TITLE").
Self-check: re-fetch the title and assert it starts with v$NEW_VERSION . If it does not, retry the edit once. If still wrong, surface the failure to the user.

This keeps the title truthful when Step 12's queue-drift detection rebumps a stale version, and forces the format on PRs that were created without it.

Print the existing URL and continue to Step 20.

If no PR/MR exists: create a pull request (GitHub) or merge request (GitLab) using the platform detected in Step 0.

The PR/MR body should contain these sections:

## Summary
<Summarize ALL changes being shipped. Run `git log <base>..HEAD --oneline` to enumerate
every commit. Exclude the VERSION/CHANGELOG metadata commit (that's this PR's bookkeeping,
not a substantive change). Group the remaining commits into logical sections (e.g.,
"**Performance**", "**Dead Code Removal**", "**Infrastructure**"). Every substantive commit
must appear in at least one section. If a commit's work isn't reflected in the summary,
you missed it.>

## Test Coverage
<coverage diagram from Step 7, or "All new code paths have test coverage.">
<If Step 7 ran: "Tests: {before} → {after} (+{delta} new)">

## Pre-Landing Review
<findings from Step 9 code review, or "No issues found.">

## Design Review
<If design review ran: "Design Review (lite): N findings — M auto-fixed, K skipped. AI Slop: clean/N issues.">
<If no frontend files changed: "No frontend files changed — design review skipped.">

## Eval Results
<If evals ran: suite names, pass/fail counts, cost dashboard summary. If skipped: "No prompt-related files changed — evals skipped.">

## Greptile Review
<If Greptile comments were found: bullet list with [FIXED] / [FALSE POSITIVE] / [ALREADY FIXED] tag + one-line summary per comment>
<If no Greptile comments found: "No Greptile comments.">
<If no PR existed during Step 10: omit this section entirely>

## Scope Drift
<If scope drift ran: "Scope Check: CLEAN" or list of drift/creep findings>
<If no scope drift: omit this section>

## Plan Completion
<If plan file found: completion checklist summary from Step 8>
<If no plan file: "No plan file detected.">
<If plan items deferred: list deferred items>

## Verification Results
<If verification ran: summary from Step 8.1 (N PASS, M FAIL, K SKIPPED)>
<If skipped: reason (no plan, no server, no verification section)>
<If not applicable: omit this section>

## TODOS
<If items marked complete: bullet list of completed items with version>
<If no items completed: "No TODO items completed in this PR.">
<If TODOS.md created or reorganized: note that>
<If TODOS.md doesn't exist and user skipped: omit this section>

## Documentation
<Embed the `documentation_section` string returned by Step 18's subagent here, verbatim.>
<If Step 18 returned `documentation_section: null` (no docs updated), omit this section entirely.>

## Test plan
- [x] All Rails tests pass (N runs, 0 failures)
- [x] All Vitest tests pass (N tests)

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

If GitHub:

# PR title MUST start with v$NEW_VERSION — enforced on every run, no exceptions.
# (See Step 19 idempotency block + bin/gstack-pr-title-rewrite.sh for the rule.)
gh pr create --base <base> --title "v$NEW_VERSION <type>: <summary>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
<PR body from above>
EOF
)"

If GitLab:

# MR title MUST start with v$NEW_VERSION — enforced on every run, no exceptions.
# (See Step 19 idempotency block + bin/gstack-pr-title-rewrite.sh for the rule.)
glab mr create -b <base> -t "v$NEW_VERSION <type>: <summary>" -d "$(cat <<'EOF'
<MR body from above>
EOF
)"

If neither CLI is available: Print the branch name, remote URL, and instruct the user to create the PR/MR manually via the web UI. Do not stop — the code is pushed and ready.

Output the PR/MR URL — then proceed to Step 20.

Step 20: Persist ship metrics

Log coverage and plan completion data so /retro can track trends:

eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)" && mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG

Append to ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/$BRANCH-reviews.jsonl:

echo '{"skill":"ship","timestamp":"'"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"'","coverage_pct":COVERAGE_PCT,"plan_items_total":PLAN_TOTAL,"plan_items_done":PLAN_DONE,"verification_result":"VERIFY_RESULT","version":"VERSION","branch":"BRANCH"}' >> ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/$BRANCH-reviews.jsonl

Substitute from earlier steps:

COVERAGE_PCT: coverage percentage from Step 7 diagram (integer, or -1 if undetermined)
PLAN_TOTAL: total plan items extracted in Step 8 (0 if no plan file)
PLAN_DONE: count of DONE + CHANGED items from Step 8 (0 if no plan file)
VERIFY_RESULT: "pass", "fail", or "skipped" from Step 8.1
VERSION: from the VERSION file
BRANCH: current branch name

This step is automatic — never skip it, never ask for confirmation.

Important Rules

Never skip tests. If tests fail, stop.
Never skip the pre-landing review. If checklist.md is unreadable, stop.
Never force push. Use regular git push only.
Never ask for trivial confirmations (e.g., "ready to push?", "create PR?"). DO stop for: version bumps (MINOR/MAJOR), pre-landing review findings (ASK items), and Codex structured review [P1] findings (large diffs only).
Always use the 4-digit version format from the VERSION file.
Date format in CHANGELOG: YYYY-MM-DD
Split commits for bisectability — each commit = one logical change.
TODOS.md completion detection must be conservative. Only mark items as completed when the diff clearly shows the work is done.
Use Greptile reply templates from greptile-triage.md. Every reply includes evidence (inline diff, code references, re-rank suggestion). Never post vague replies.
Never push without fresh verification evidence. If code changed after Step 5 tests, re-run before pushing.
Step 7 generates coverage tests. They must pass before committing. Never commit failing tests.
The goal is: user says /ship, next thing they see is the review + PR URL + auto-synced docs.

The Flow

Always Available