diff --git a/LOCAL_PATCHES.md b/LOCAL_PATCHES.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7cd656817 --- /dev/null +++ b/LOCAL_PATCHES.md @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ +# Local Patches — Triage & Upstream Plan + +Living document. Every patch carried on top of `upstream/main` belongs here, with +a triage decision: **PR upstream**, **keep local (extension point)**, or **delete**. + +Audit cadence: every upgrade (`/gstack-upgrade`). If a patch sits here for >30 days +without a PR filed or a justification, delete it or land it. + +Last audit: 2026-05-23 + +--- + +## Patches that touch core / shared skills + +### 1. `aff14a72` — `plan-eng-review`: Step 0.5 existing-capability check +- **Files:** `skills/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md` +- **What it does:** adds a 60-second pre-design check for plans touching gbrain / OpenClaw / Hermes substrates — surfaces existing integrations / launchd jobs before greenlighting new infra code. +- **Why it exists:** memory `feedback_probe_mini_integrations_first` — caught a 2,200-page redundant ingestion design 2026-05-20. +- **Triage: PR UPSTREAM.** Generalizes well — any operator with a substrate-style integration system benefits from a pre-build capability check. Likely fast review. +- **PR action:** open against `garrytan/gstack` titled `feat(plan-eng-review): Step 0.5 existing-capability check before substrate code`. +- **Owner:** Anoop +- **Status:** not yet filed + +--- + +## Patches in extension points (never conflict) + +None currently — gstack repo is clean in this regard. + +--- + +## Rules for future patches + +1. **Default to extension points.** Before touching `skills//SKILL.md`, ask: can this be a *new* skill (`skills/my-skill/`) or a `references/` addition? Modifying upstream skills generates rebase conflicts every gstack-upgrade. + +2. **If you must touch an upstream-skill SKILL.md, file the upstream PR within 7 days.** Carrying core-skill patches without upstreaming is interest-bearing debt. + +3. **Don't commit scratch.** Local debugging files belong outside the repo or in `/scratch/` (gitignored). + +4. **`/gstack-upgrade` is the canonical upgrade flow.** Don't hand-roll. If it breaks, fix the skill, not the workaround. diff --git a/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md b/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md index 5557a33fa..46c68b5e3 100644 --- a/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md +++ b/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md @@ -1006,7 +1006,22 @@ If the complexity check triggers (8+ files or 2+ new classes/services), STOP bef **STOP.** Do NOT proceed to Section 1 (Architecture review), edit the plan file with a proposed scope reduction, or call ExitPlanMode until the user responds. Naming the 80% solution in chat prose and continuing — or loading the AskUserQuestion schema via ToolSearch and then never invoking it — is the failure mode this gate exists to prevent. -If the complexity check does not trigger, present your Step 0 findings and proceed directly to Section 1. +If the complexity check does not trigger, present your Step 0 findings and proceed directly to Step 0.5. + +### Step 0.5: Existing-capability check (gbrain / autopilot / integration recipes) + +If the plan touches a knowledge-graph or agent-runtime substrate (gbrain, OpenClaw, Hermes, a similar recipe-driven system), run this 60-second check BEFORE designing new code under `ops//`: + +```bash +# gbrain example — substitute the substrate's equivalent CLI / launchd label +ssh 'gbrain integrations list && launchctl list | grep -i gbrain' +``` + +The recipe-driven substrates (gbrain especially) ship a senses + reflexes system that IS the signal-detector / autopilot / ingest pattern. Most "wire X into the flow" plans should be **configuring an existing recipe** (or writing a markdown recipe modeled on an existing one), NOT building new infrastructure. If a recipe exists `AVAILABLE` → configure it. If a recipe is `CONFIGURED` but dormant → investigate why. If no recipe exists → write a markdown recipe modeled on a sibling recipe (e.g. `imessage-to-brain`), submit upstream. Only propose new ops/ code if all three branches fail. + +This step exists because the failure mode is real: a 2026-05-17 hash-lemma plan proposed extracting a JSONL queue lib + producer + consumer bin + LaunchAgent + OAuth-DCR migration to wire "signal-detector on every Slack message" — when the gbrain `integrations` system already shipped the pattern. The 60-second check would have flagged the wrong-buildout at scope-lock. + +For substrates with no equivalent capability surface (pure web apps, libraries, CLIs), skip this step. Always work through the full interactive review: one section at a time (Architecture → Code Quality → Tests → Performance) with at most 8 top issues per section. diff --git a/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl b/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl index 1d5be0e6f..9196e755b 100644 --- a/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl +++ b/plan-eng-review/SKILL.md.tmpl @@ -142,7 +142,22 @@ If the complexity check triggers (8+ files or 2+ new classes/services), STOP bef **STOP.** Do NOT proceed to Section 1 (Architecture review), edit the plan file with a proposed scope reduction, or call ExitPlanMode until the user responds. Naming the 80% solution in chat prose and continuing — or loading the AskUserQuestion schema via ToolSearch and then never invoking it — is the failure mode this gate exists to prevent. -If the complexity check does not trigger, present your Step 0 findings and proceed directly to Section 1. +If the complexity check does not trigger, present your Step 0 findings and proceed directly to Step 0.5. + +### Step 0.5: Existing-capability check (gbrain / autopilot / integration recipes) + +If the plan touches a knowledge-graph or agent-runtime substrate (gbrain, OpenClaw, Hermes, a similar recipe-driven system), run this 60-second check BEFORE designing new code under `ops//`: + +```bash +# gbrain example — substitute the substrate's equivalent CLI / launchd label +ssh 'gbrain integrations list && launchctl list | grep -i gbrain' +``` + +The recipe-driven substrates (gbrain especially) ship a senses + reflexes system that IS the signal-detector / autopilot / ingest pattern. Most "wire X into the flow" plans should be **configuring an existing recipe** (or writing a markdown recipe modeled on an existing one), NOT building new infrastructure. If a recipe exists `AVAILABLE` → configure it. If a recipe is `CONFIGURED` but dormant → investigate why. If no recipe exists → write a markdown recipe modeled on a sibling recipe (e.g. `imessage-to-brain`), submit upstream. Only propose new ops/ code if all three branches fail. + +This step exists because the failure mode is real: a 2026-05-17 hash-lemma plan proposed extracting a JSONL queue lib + producer + consumer bin + LaunchAgent + OAuth-DCR migration to wire "signal-detector on every Slack message" — when the gbrain `integrations` system already shipped the pattern. The 60-second check would have flagged the wrong-buildout at scope-lock. + +For substrates with no equivalent capability surface (pure web apps, libraries, CLIs), skip this step. Always work through the full interactive review: one section at a time (Architecture → Code Quality → Tests → Performance) with at most 8 top issues per section.