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:
- intent
- planning
- implementation
- validation
- review
- ship
- 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:
-
GitHub planning lineage
docs/specs/cstack-github-planning-lineage-slice.md
-
Validation intelligence
docs/specs/cstack-deliver-validation-intelligence-slice.md
-
Post-ship feedback
docs/specs/cstack-post-ship-feedback-slice.md
-
Initiative graph and run control plane
docs/specs/cstack-initiative-graph-slice.md
-
Delivery checklist and deployment evidence
docs/specs/cstack-delivery-checklist-deployment-evidence-slice.md
-
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
Spec: End-to-End Product Delivery Workstreams Beyond
gstackBuilds on #1
Related baseline: #2, #3, #4
Informed by
docs/research/gstack-codex-interaction-model.mdExtends the forward-looking workstream decomposition in
docs/specs/cstack-end-to-end-workstreams-spec.mdSummary
cstackalready 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
cstacktoward a more seamless end-to-end product delivery loop without breaking its local-first Codex-wrapper identity.The intended boundary for this issue is:
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,deliverWhat remains weaker is the control plane around that workflow:
Current
cstackBaselineShipped baseline remains the active contract in
docs/specs/cstack-spec-v0.1.md.Important current capabilities:
.cstack/runs/<run-id>/This issue should treat
#2,#3, and#4as 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:
cstackcstackshould adopt, adapt, or reject itRecommended comparison groups:
Local-first workflow and coding tools
gstackaiderGooseClaude Codeworkflow patternsGitHub-centric delivery agents
GitHub Copilot coding agentSweep, only if the primary source clearly supports issue-to-PR workflow comparisonBroader autonomous engineering systems
OpenHandsTransferable Patterns And Rejections
The synthesis should answer:
Default rejection set:
cstackworkflow contractProposed Workstreams
This issue should decompose the next expansion into six independently shippable workstreams:
GitHub planning lineage
docs/specs/cstack-github-planning-lineage-slice.mdValidation intelligence
docs/specs/cstack-deliver-validation-intelligence-slice.mdPost-ship feedback
docs/specs/cstack-post-ship-feedback-slice.mdInitiative graph and run control plane
docs/specs/cstack-initiative-graph-slice.mdDelivery checklist and deployment evidence
docs/specs/cstack-delivery-checklist-deployment-evidence-slice.mdCapability-pack governance
docs/specs/cstack-capability-pack-governance-slice.mdAcceptance Criteria
This issue is complete when:
cstackexpansion maps to a real current gapNon-Goals
This issue should not:
#2,#3, or#4cstackas a generic autonomous platformFollow-On Issues
Each workstream should eventually become its own follow-on implementation issue or slice: