Detailed guides for every gstack skill — philosophy, workflow, and examples.
| Skill | Your specialist | What they do |
|---|---|---|
/plan-ceo-review |
CEO / Founder | Rethink the problem. Find the 10-star product hiding inside the request. Four modes: Expansion, Selective Expansion, Hold Scope, Reduction. |
/plan-eng-review |
Eng Manager | Lock in architecture, data flow, diagrams, edge cases, and tests. Forces hidden assumptions into the open. |
/plan-design-review |
Senior Designer | 80-item design audit with letter grades. AI Slop detection. Infers your design system. Report only — never touches code. |
/design-consultation |
Design Partner | Build a complete design system from scratch. Knows the landscape, proposes creative risks, generates realistic product mockups. Design at the heart of all other phases. |
/review |
Staff Engineer | Find the bugs that pass CI but blow up in production. Auto-fixes the obvious ones. Flags completeness gaps. |
/ship |
Release Engineer | Sync main, run tests, audit coverage, push, open PR. Bootstraps test frameworks if you don't have one. One command. |
/browse |
QA Engineer | Give the agent eyes. Real Chromium browser, real clicks, real screenshots. ~100ms per command. |
/qa |
QA Lead | Test your app, find bugs, fix them with atomic commits, re-verify. Auto-generates regression tests for every fix. |
/qa-only |
QA Reporter | Same methodology as /qa but report only. Use when you want a pure bug report without code changes. |
/qa-design-review |
Designer Who Codes | Same audit as /plan-design-review, then fixes what it finds. Atomic commits, before/after screenshots. |
/setup-browser-cookies |
Session Manager | Import cookies from your real browser (Chrome, Arc, Brave, Edge) into the headless session. Test authenticated pages. |
/retro |
Eng Manager | Team-aware weekly retro. Per-person breakdowns, shipping streaks, test health trends, growth opportunities. |
/document-release |
Technical Writer | Update all project docs to match what you just shipped. Catches stale READMEs automatically. |
/plan-ceo-reviewThis is my founder mode.
This is where I want the model to think with taste, ambition, user empathy, and a long time horizon. I do not want it taking the request literally. I want it asking a more important question first:
What is this product actually for?
I think of this as Brian Chesky mode.
The point is not to implement the obvious ticket. The point is to rethink the problem from the user's point of view and find the version that feels inevitable, delightful, and maybe even a little magical.
Say I am building a Craigslist-style listing app and I say:
"Let sellers upload a photo for their item."
A weak assistant will add a file picker and save an image.
That is not the real product.
In /plan-ceo-review, I want the model to ask whether "photo upload" is even the feature. Maybe the real feature is helping someone create a listing that actually sells.
If that is the real job, the whole plan changes.
Now the model should ask:
That is what /plan-ceo-review does for me.
It does not just ask, "how do I add this feature?" It asks, "what is the 10-star product hiding inside this request?"
Visions and decisions are persisted to ~/.gstack/projects/ so they survive beyond the conversation. Exceptional visions can be promoted to docs/designs/ in your repo for the team.
/plan-eng-reviewThis is my eng manager mode.
Once the product direction is right, I want a different kind of intelligence entirely. I do not want more sprawling ideation. I do not want more "wouldn't it be cool if." I want the model to become my best technical lead.
This mode should nail:
And one surprisingly big unlock for me: diagrams.
LLMs get way more complete when you force them to draw the system. Sequence diagrams, state diagrams, component diagrams, data-flow diagrams, even test matrices. Diagrams force hidden assumptions into the open. They make hand-wavy planning much harder.
So /plan-eng-review is where I want the model to build the technical spine that can carry the product vision.
Take the same listing app example.
Let's say /plan-ceo-review already did its job. We decided the real feature is not just photo upload. It is a smart listing flow that:
Now /plan-eng-review takes over.
Now I want the model to answer questions like:
And this is where I want diagrams — architecture diagrams, state models, data-flow diagrams, test matrices. Diagrams force hidden assumptions into the open. They make hand-wavy planning much harder.
That is /plan-eng-review.
Not "make the idea smaller." Make the idea buildable.
Every review (CEO, Eng, Design) logs its result. At the end of each review, you see a dashboard:
+====================================================================+
| REVIEW READINESS DASHBOARD |
+====================================================================+
| Review | Runs | Last Run | Status | Required |
|-----------------|------|---------------------|-----------|----------|
| Eng Review | 1 | 2026-03-16 15:00 | CLEAR | YES |
| CEO Review | 1 | 2026-03-16 14:30 | CLEAR | no |
| Design Review | 0 | — | — | no |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| VERDICT: CLEARED — Eng Review passed |
+====================================================================+
Eng Review is the only required gate (disable with gstack-config set skip_eng_review true). CEO and Design are informational — recommended for product and UI changes respectively.
When /plan-eng-review finishes the test review section, it writes a test plan artifact to ~/.gstack/projects/. When you later run /qa, it picks up that test plan automatically — your engineering review feeds directly into QA testing with no manual copy-paste.
/plan-design-reviewThis is my senior designer mode.
Most developers cannot tell whether their site looks AI-generated. I could not, until I started paying attention. There is a growing class of sites that are functional but soulless — they work fine but scream "an AI built this and nobody with taste looked at it." Purple gradients, 3-column icon grids, uniform bubbly border-radius on everything, centered text on every section, decorative blobs floating in the background. The ChatGPT aesthetic.
/plan-design-review gives the agent a designer's eye.
It opens your site and reacts to it the way a Stripe or Linear designer would — immediately, viscerally, with opinions. The first output is a structured gut reaction: what the site communicates at a glance, what the eye is drawn to, and a one-word verdict. That is the most valuable part. Everything after is supporting evidence.
Then it extracts your actual design system by reading the CSS: how many fonts are you really using? What is your heading scale? How many colors? Is your spacing on a grid or arbitrary? It structures this as an Inferred Design System and offers to save it as a DESIGN.md — so now you have a design system you never had before, derived from what you actually shipped.
The audit covers 80 items across 10 categories. Typography, spacing, hierarchy, color, responsive design, interaction states, motion, content quality, performance feel, and — the headline feature — AI Slop Detection. Ten specific anti-patterns that mark a site as machine-generated.
Every finding gets a letter grade (A through F) per category. The report opens with two headline scores: Design Score and AI Slop Score. "Your site got a B on design but a D on AI Slop" tells you exactly where to focus.
You: /plan-design-review https://myapp.com
Claude: Design Score: C | AI Slop Score: D
"The site communicates generic SaaS energy."
"I notice the hero section uses a blue-to-purple gradient
with a 3-column feature grid below it — the single most
recognizable AI-generated layout pattern."
"The first 3 things my eye goes to are: the gradient, the
symmetrical icon grid, and a 'Get Started' button that
looks like every other 'Get Started' button."
"If I had to describe this in one word: template."
Inferred Design System:
- Fonts: Inter (body), Inter (headings) — 1 font family
- Colors: 14 unique non-gray colors (flag: >12)
- Heading scale: 36/24/18/16 — flat, no drama between sizes
- Spacing: mostly 16px and 24px — no rhythm
Top 5 Design Improvements:
1. Break the 3-column icon grid (High, AI Slop)
2. Add heading scale contrast — at least 2:1 ratio (High, Typography)
3. Replace uniform border-radius with intentional hierarchy (Medium, Spacing)
4. Kill the gradient hero — use a real image or bold typography (High, AI Slop)
5. Add a second font for headings — Inter-only reads as generic (Medium, Typography)
[Full report saved to .gstack/design-reports/]
Want me to save this inferred design system as your DESIGN.md?
This is report only — it never touches your code. Use /qa-design-review when you want it to fix what it finds.
/design-consultationThis is my design partner mode.
/plan-design-review audits a site that already exists. /design-consultation is for when you have nothing yet — no design system, no font choices, no color palette. You are starting from zero and you want a senior designer to sit down with you and build the whole visual identity together.
It is a conversation, not a form. The agent asks about your product, your users, and your audience. It thinks about what your product needs to communicate — trust, speed, craft, warmth, whatever fits — and works backward from that to concrete choices. Then it proposes a complete, coherent design system: aesthetic direction, typography (3+ fonts with specific roles), color palette with hex values, spacing scale, layout approach, and motion strategy. Every recommendation comes with a rationale. Every choice reinforces every other choice.
But coherence is table stakes. Every dev tool dashboard looks the same — clean sans-serif, muted grays, a blue accent. They are all coherent. They are all forgettable. The difference between a product that looks "nice" and one that people actually recognize is the deliberate creative risks: the unexpected serif for headings, the bold accent nobody else in your category uses, the tighter spacing that makes your data feel authoritative instead of airy.
That is what /design-consultation is really about. It does not just propose a safe system. It proposes safe choices AND risks — and tells you which is which. "Here are the choices that keep you literate in your category. And here is where I think you should break from convention, and why." You pick which risks to take. The agent checks that the whole system still coheres either way.
If you want, the agent will research what's already out there in your space — take screenshots of real sites, analyze their fonts and colors and spacing — so you can see the landscape before you make choices. This is not about copying. It is about getting in the ballpark so you know what the conventions are, and then deciding which ones are worth breaking.
After you agree on the system, it generates an interactive HTML preview page — not just swatches and font samples, but realistic product pages. If you are building a dashboard, you see a dashboard with a sidebar, data tables, and stat cards. If you are building a marketing site, you see a hero section with real copy and a CTA. Everything rendered in your design system, with your product name, in light and dark mode. You see what your product could feel like before a single line of production code is written.
Then it writes DESIGN.md to your repo root — your project's design source of truth — and updates CLAUDE.md so every future Claude Code session respects the system. From that point on, /qa-design-review can audit against it, and any agent working on your frontend knows the rules.
You: /design-consultation
Claude: From the README, this looks like a developer analytics dashboard
for engineering teams. Sound right? Tell me about the feeling
you want — and would you like me to look at what's out there
first so we can see the landscape?
You: Yes, it's for eng managers. Show me what's out there.
Claude: [browses Linear, Vercel, Datadog, Posthog — takes screenshots]
Here's the landscape. They all converge on clean sans-serifs
and muted blue-gray palettes. Linear stands out with dark-first
and tight spacing. The rest feel interchangeable.
Here's my proposal — and where I'd play it safe vs. take risks:
AESTHETIC: Industrial/Utilitarian — data-first, every pixel earns its place
TYPOGRAPHY: Geist (body + UI), Instrument Serif (display), JetBrains Mono (data)
COLOR: Restrained — slate neutrals, single teal accent (#0D9488)
SPACING: 4px base, compact density
LAYOUT: Grid-disciplined, 12-column
MOTION: Minimal-functional — only transitions that aid comprehension
SAFE CHOICES (match category expectations):
Geist for body — your users already know this font from Vercel
Slate neutrals — warm grays feel right for data-heavy UIs
Grid-disciplined layout — dashboards need predictable alignment
RISKS (where you'd stand out):
Instrument Serif for display headings — nobody in dev tools
uses a serif. It creates instant hierarchy contrast and
signals "we care about craft" in a space full of sans-serifs.
Single teal accent instead of blue — everyone else in this space uses blue.
Teal is close enough to feel trustworthy, different enough
to be recognizable.
4px compact density — tighter than Linear, says "we respect
your screen real estate."
The safe choices keep you literate. The risks are where your
product gets its own face. Which risks appeal to you?
You: Love the serif risk. Let's see it.
Claude: Preview opened in your browser.
[/tmp/design-consultation-preview-1710000000.html]
The page shows a realistic dashboard: sidebar nav, header with
avatar, stat cards, data table — all in your design system.
Instrument Serif at hero scale, Geist in body text, JetBrains
Mono in the data table. Teal accent on buttons and active states.
Light and dark mode toggle in the corner.
How does it feel? Want to adjust anything before I write DESIGN.md?
You: Ship it.
Claude: Wrote DESIGN.md (typography, color, spacing, layout, motion).
Updated CLAUDE.md with design system guidelines.
All future sessions will respect these choices.
/qa-design-reviewThis is my designer who codes mode.
/plan-design-review tells you what is wrong. /qa-design-review fixes it.
It runs the same 80-item audit, then enters a fix loop: for each design finding, it locates the source file, makes the minimal CSS/styling change, commits with style(design): FINDING-NNN, re-navigates to verify, and takes before/after screenshots. One commit per fix, fully bisectable.
The self-regulation heuristic is tuned for design work — CSS-only changes get a free pass (they are inherently safe and reversible), but changes to component JSX/TSX files count against the risk budget. Hard cap at 30 fixes. If the risk score exceeds 20%, it stops and asks.
You: /qa-design-review https://myapp.com
Claude: [Runs full design audit — same output as /plan-design-review]
Design Score: C | AI Slop Score: D
12 findings (4 high, 5 medium, 3 polish)
Fixing 9 design issues...
style(design): FINDING-001 — replace 3-column icon grid with asymmetric layout
style(design): FINDING-002 — add heading scale 48/32/24/18/16
style(design): FINDING-003 — remove gradient hero, use bold typography
style(design): FINDING-004 — add second font for headings
style(design): FINDING-005 — vary border-radius by element role
style(design): FINDING-006 — left-align body text, reserve center for headings
style(design): FINDING-007 — add hover/focus states to all interactive elements
style(design): FINDING-008 — add prefers-reduced-motion media query
style(design): FINDING-009 — set max content width to 680px for body text
Final audit:
Design Score: C → B+ | AI Slop Score: D → A
9 fixes applied (8 verified, 1 best-effort). 3 deferred.
[Report with before/after screenshots saved to .gstack/design-reports/]
Nine commits, each touching one concern. The AI Slop score went from D to A because the three most recognizable patterns (gradient hero, 3-column grid, uniform radius) are gone.
/reviewThis is my paranoid staff engineer mode.
Passing tests do not mean the branch is safe.
/review exists because there is a whole class of bugs that can survive CI and still punch you in the face in production. This mode is not about dreaming bigger. It is not about making the plan prettier. It is about asking:
What can still break?
This is a structural audit, not a style nitpick pass. I want the model to look for things like:
/review traces it through every switch statement and allowlist in your codebase, not just the files you changedFindings get action, not just listed. Obvious mechanical fixes (dead code, stale comments, N+1 queries) are applied automatically — you see [AUTO-FIXED] file:line Problem → what was done for each one. Genuinely ambiguous issues (security, race conditions, design decisions) get surfaced for your call.
/review now flags shortcut implementations where the complete version costs less than 30 minutes of CC time. If you chose the 80% solution and the 100% solution is a lake, not an ocean, the review will call it out.
Suppose the smart listing flow is implemented and the tests are green.
/review should still ask:
That is the point of /review.
I do not want flattery here. I want the model imagining the production incident before it happens.
/shipThis is my release machine mode.
Once I have decided what to build, nailed the technical plan, and run a serious review, I do not want more talking. I want execution.
/ship is for the final mile. It is for a ready branch, not for deciding what to build.
This is where the model should stop behaving like a brainstorm partner and start behaving like a disciplined release engineer: sync with main, run the right tests, make sure the branch state is sane, update changelog or versioning if the repo expects it, push, and create or update the PR.
If your project doesn't have a test framework, /ship sets one up — detects your runtime, researches the best framework, installs it, writes 3-5 real tests for your actual code, sets up CI/CD (GitHub Actions), and creates TESTING.md. 100% test coverage is the goal — tests make vibe coding safe instead of yolo coding.
Every /ship run builds a code path map from your diff, searches for corresponding tests, and produces an ASCII coverage diagram with quality stars. Gaps get tests auto-generated. Your PR body shows the coverage: Tests: 42 → 47 (+5 new).
/ship checks the Review Readiness Dashboard before creating the PR. If the Eng Review is missing, it asks — but won't block you. Decisions are saved per-branch so you're never re-asked.
A lot of branches die when the interesting work is done and only the boring release work is left. Humans procrastinate that part. AI should not.
/browseThis is my QA engineer mode.
/browse is the skill that closes the loop. Before it, the agent could think and code but was still half blind. It had to guess about UI state, auth flows, redirects, console errors, empty states, and broken layouts. Now it can just go look.
It is a compiled binary that talks to a persistent Chromium daemon — built on Playwright by Microsoft. First call starts the browser (~3s). Every call after that: ~100-200ms. The browser stays running between commands, so cookies, tabs, and localStorage carry over.
You: /browse staging.myapp.com — log in, test the signup flow, and check
every page I changed in this branch
Claude: [18 tool calls, ~60 seconds]
> browse goto https://staging.myapp.com/signup
> browse snapshot -i
> browse fill @e2 "test@example.com"
> browse fill @e3 "password123"
> browse click @e5 (Submit)
> browse screenshot /tmp/signup.png
> Read /tmp/signup.png
Signup works. Redirected to onboarding. Now checking changed pages.
> browse goto https://staging.myapp.com/dashboard
> browse screenshot /tmp/dashboard.png
> Read /tmp/dashboard.png
> browse console
Dashboard loads. No console errors. Charts render with sample data.
All 4 pages load correctly. No console errors. No broken layouts.
Signup → onboarding → dashboard flow works end to end.
18 tool calls, about a minute. Full QA pass. No browser opened.
Security note: /browse runs a persistent Chromium session. Cookies, localStorage, and session state carry over between commands. Do not use it against sensitive production environments unless you intend to — it is a real browser with real state. The session auto-shuts down after 30 minutes of idle time.
For the full command reference, see BROWSER.md.
/qaThis is my QA lead mode.
/browse gives the agent eyes. /qa gives it a testing methodology.
The most common use case: you're on a feature branch, you just finished coding, and you want to verify everything works. Just say /qa — it reads your git diff, identifies which pages and routes your changes affect, spins up the browser, and tests each one. No URL required. No manual test plan.
Four modes:
git diff main, identifies affected pages, tests them specifically--quick) — 30-second smoke test. Homepage + top 5 nav targets.--regression baseline.json) — run full mode, then diff against a previous baseline.When /qa fixes a bug and verifies it, it automatically generates a regression test that catches the exact scenario that broke. Tests include full attribution tracing back to the QA report.
You: /qa https://staging.myapp.com
Claude: [Explores 12 pages, fills 3 forms, tests 2 flows]
QA Report: staging.myapp.com — Health Score: 72/100
Top 3 Issues:
1. CRITICAL: Checkout form submits with empty required fields
2. HIGH: Mobile nav menu doesn't close after selecting an item
3. MEDIUM: Dashboard chart overlaps sidebar below 1024px
[Full report with screenshots saved to .gstack/qa-reports/]
Testing authenticated pages: Use /setup-browser-cookies first to import your real browser sessions, then /qa can test pages behind login.
/setup-browser-cookiesThis is my session manager mode.
Before /qa or /browse can test authenticated pages, they need cookies. Instead of manually logging in through the headless browser every time, /setup-browser-cookies imports your real sessions directly from your daily browser.
It auto-detects installed Chromium browsers (Comet, Chrome, Arc, Brave, Edge), decrypts cookies via the macOS Keychain, and loads them into the Playwright session. An interactive picker UI lets you choose exactly which domains to import — no cookie values are ever displayed.
You: /setup-browser-cookies
Claude: Cookie picker opened — select the domains you want to import
in your browser, then tell me when you're done.
[You pick github.com, myapp.com in the browser UI]
You: done
Claude: Imported 2 domains (47 cookies). Session is ready.
Or skip the UI entirely:
You: /setup-browser-cookies github.com
Claude: Imported 12 cookies for github.com from Comet.
/retroThis is my engineering manager mode.
At the end of the week I want to know what actually happened. Not vibes — data. /retro analyzes commit history, work patterns, and shipping velocity and writes a candid retrospective.
It is team-aware. It identifies who is running the command, gives you the deepest treatment on your own work, then breaks down every contributor with specific praise and growth opportunities. It computes metrics like commits, LOC, test ratio, PR sizes, and fix ratio. It detects coding sessions from commit timestamps, finds hotspot files, tracks shipping streaks, and identifies the biggest ship of the week.
It also tracks test health: total test files, tests added this period, regression test commits, and trend deltas. If test ratio drops below 20%, it flags it as a growth area.
You: /retro
Claude: Week of Mar 1: 47 commits (3 contributors), 3.2k LOC, 38% tests, 12 PRs, peak: 10pm | Streak: 47d
## Your Week
32 commits, +2.4k LOC, 41% tests. Peak hours: 9-11pm.
Biggest ship: cookie import system (browser decryption + picker UI).
What you did well: shipped a complete feature with encryption, UI, and
18 unit tests in one focused push...
## Team Breakdown
### Alice
12 commits focused on app/services/. Every PR under 200 LOC — disciplined.
Opportunity: test ratio at 12% — worth investing before payment gets more complex.
### Bob
3 commits — fixed the N+1 query on dashboard. Small but high-impact.
Opportunity: only 1 active day this week — check if blocked on anything.
[Top 3 team wins, 3 things to improve, 3 habits for next week]
It saves a JSON snapshot to .context/retros/ so the next run can show trends.
/document-releaseThis is my technical writer mode.
After /ship creates the PR but before it merges, /document-release reads every documentation file in the project and cross-references it against the diff. It updates file paths, command lists, project structure trees, and anything else that drifted. Risky or subjective changes get surfaced as questions — everything else is handled automatically.
You: /document-release
Claude: Analyzing 21 files changed across 3 commits. Found 8 documentation files.
README.md: updated skill count from 9 to 10, added new skill to table
CLAUDE.md: added new directory to project structure
CONTRIBUTING.md: current — no changes needed
TODOS.md: marked 2 items complete, added 1 new item
All docs updated and committed. PR body updated with doc diff.
It also polishes CHANGELOG voice (without ever overwriting entries), cleans up completed TODOS, checks cross-doc consistency, and asks about VERSION bumps only when appropriate.
Greptile is a YC company that reviews your PRs automatically. It catches real bugs — race conditions, security issues, things that pass CI and blow up in production. It has genuinely saved my ass more than once. I love these guys.
Install Greptile on your GitHub repo at greptile.com — it takes about 30 seconds. Once it's reviewing your PRs, gstack picks up its comments automatically. No additional configuration.
The problem with any automated reviewer is triage. Greptile is good, but not every comment is a real issue. Some are false positives. Some flag things you already fixed three commits ago. Without a triage layer, the comments pile up and you start ignoring them — which defeats the purpose.
gstack solves this. /review and /ship are now Greptile-aware. They read Greptile's comments, classify each one, and take action:
The result is a two-layer review: Greptile catches things asynchronously on the PR, then /review and /ship triage those findings as part of the normal workflow. Nothing falls through the cracks.
Every false positive you confirm gets saved to ~/.gstack/greptile-history.md. Future runs auto-skip known FP patterns for your codebase. And /retro tracks Greptile's batting average over time — so you can see whether the signal-to-noise ratio is improving.
You: /ship
Claude: [syncs main, runs tests, pre-landing review...]
Greptile found 3 comments on this PR:
[VALID] app/services/payment_service.rb:47 — Race condition:
concurrent charges can double-debit. Recommend DB-level advisory
lock around the charge block.
[ALREADY FIXED] app/models/user.rb:12 — Missing null check
on email before downcase.
→ Already fixed in commit abc1234. Auto-replying.
[FALSE POSITIVE] lib/auth.rb:88 — "Token comparison should
use constant-time comparison." We already use
ActiveSupport::SecurityUtils.secure_compare here.
Fixing the race condition in payment_service.rb...
The auth token comment is a false positive.
Options: A) Reply to Greptile explaining B) Fix anyway C) Ignore
You: A
Claude: Replied to Greptile. All tests pass.
PR: github.com/you/app/pull/42
Three Greptile comments. One real fix. One auto-acknowledged. One false positive pushed back with a reply. Total extra time: about 30 seconds.