Skip to content

Spec: end-to-end product delivery workstreams beyond gstack #32

Description

@ganesh47

Spec: End-to-End Product Delivery Workstreams Beyond gstack

Builds on #1
Related baseline: #2, #3, #4
Informed by docs/research/gstack-codex-interaction-model.md
Extends the forward-looking workstream decomposition in docs/specs/cstack-end-to-end-workstreams-spec.md

Summary

cstack already ships a local-first Codex workflow wrapper with durable artifacts, lineage, bounded delegation, GitHub-aware delivery, and artifact-grounded inspection.

The next product question is not whether to copy gstack.

The next question is which workflow and control-plane capabilities from adjacent systems should extend cstack toward a more seamless end-to-end product delivery loop without breaking its local-first Codex-wrapper identity.

The intended boundary for this issue is:

  1. intent
  2. planning
  3. implementation
  4. validation
  5. review
  6. ship
  7. post-ship feedback

This issue does not include GTM execution, broad product operations, or always-on remote agent orchestration.

Why Now

The shipped workflow surface is strong at engineering-complete delivery:

  • discover, spec, build, review, ship, deliver
  • intent routing and stage lineage
  • isolated execution for mutation workflows
  • GitHub-aware readiness and mutation policy
  • artifact-grounded inspection

What remains weaker is the control plane around that workflow:

  • planning lineage across issues, runs, PRs, and releases
  • validation intelligence as a first-class delivery surface
  • bounded post-ship follow-up capture
  • initiative-level grouping across many runs
  • explicit capability policy for external research and attached tools

Current cstack Baseline

Shipped baseline remains the active contract in docs/specs/cstack-spec-v0.1.md.

Important current capabilities:

  • workflow-first operator model over Codex CLI
  • durable local artifacts under .cstack/runs/<run-id>/
  • bounded discover-team research and specialist review
  • review and ship as first-class workflows
  • deliver as umbrella workflow over build, validation, review, and ship
  • GitHub-aware engineering delivery with PR, issue, checks, Actions, release, and mutation evidence

This issue should treat #2, #3, and #4 as shipped baseline rather than reopened scope.

External Comparables

The comparison set should stay mixed and decision-oriented rather than turning into a generic competitor list.

For each comparable, capture:

  • official URL
  • execution posture: local-first, hybrid, or cloud-first
  • what is genuinely comparable to cstack
  • what is not comparable
  • the transferable idea
  • whether cstack should adopt, adapt, or reject it

Recommended comparison groups:

Local-first workflow and coding tools

  • gstack
  • aider
  • Goose
  • Claude Code workflow patterns

GitHub-centric delivery agents

  • GitHub Copilot coding agent
  • Sweep, only if the primary source clearly supports issue-to-PR workflow comparison

Broader autonomous engineering systems

  • OpenHands
  • one additional tool only if the primary source clearly supports planning, execution, review, or artifact lineage comparison

Transferable Patterns And Rejections

The synthesis should answer:

  • which issue-to-PR or issue-to-run patterns transfer cleanly
  • which artifact and inspection patterns transfer cleanly
  • which validation and delivery-control patterns transfer cleanly
  • which ideas should be rejected because they depend on cloud-first execution, hidden orchestration, or vague autonomous-company positioning

Default rejection set:

  • permanent roleplay agent cast
  • hidden orchestration that cannot be reconstructed from artifacts
  • broad cloud control planes as the default product posture
  • GTM or customer-ops execution inside the cstack workflow contract

Proposed Workstreams

This issue should decompose the next expansion into six independently shippable workstreams:

  1. GitHub planning lineage
    docs/specs/cstack-github-planning-lineage-slice.md

  2. Validation intelligence
    docs/specs/cstack-deliver-validation-intelligence-slice.md

  3. Post-ship feedback
    docs/specs/cstack-post-ship-feedback-slice.md

  4. Initiative graph and run control plane
    docs/specs/cstack-initiative-graph-slice.md

  5. Delivery checklist and deployment evidence
    docs/specs/cstack-delivery-checklist-deployment-evidence-slice.md

  6. Capability-pack governance
    docs/specs/cstack-capability-pack-governance-slice.md

Acceptance Criteria

This issue is complete when:

  • the comparison catalog covers at least five real comparables grounded in primary sources
  • each comparable clearly distinguishes transferable versus non-transferable patterns
  • every proposed cstack expansion maps to a real current gap
  • each workstream has its own artifact boundary, inspector impact, acceptance criteria, and release boundary
  • the issue clearly separates shipped baseline from forward-looking scope
  • follow-on implementation issues can be opened from the workstream slices without redefining the whole strategy

Non-Goals

This issue should not:

  • rewrite the active shipped spec as if these slices already exist
  • reopen shipped closure work from #2, #3, or #4
  • collapse all six workstreams into one synchronized release
  • redefine cstack as a generic autonomous platform

Follow-On Issues

Each workstream should eventually become its own follow-on implementation issue or slice:

  • issue-linked run metadata and issue synthesis
  • deliver validation expansion
  • post-ship feedback artifacts and follow-up generation
  • initiative graph and grouped ledger views
  • readiness policy and deployment evidence references
  • capability-pack policy and capability visibility

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions