feat(quick-dev): improve checkpoint 1 UX#2217
feat(quick-dev): improve checkpoint 1 UX#2217alexeyv wants to merge 2 commits intorefactor/eliminate-wip-filefrom
Conversation
Write directly to spec-{slug}.md with status: draft instead of using
a shared spec-wip.md file. Use draft status for resume detection in
step-01. Removes wipFile variable from all step frontmatter and
workflow initialization.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
…l editing note, and change detection Display spec file path as clickable CWD-relative link alongside the summary. Inform users they can open the spec in another session with any tool before approving. On approval, re-read the spec from disk and acknowledge any external edits before proceeding.
alexeyv
force-pushed
the
refactor/eliminate-wip-file
branch
from
6e052c9 to
9a26c0d
Compare
🤖 Augment PR SummarySummary: Improves Quick-Dev Step 2 Checkpoint 1 by showing the spec path as a clickable CWD-relative link and adding guidance about externally editing the spec before approval. 🤖 Was this summary useful? React with 👍 or 👎 |
![augmentcode[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1027498?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| Present summary. Display the spec file path as a CWD-relative path (no leading `/`) so it is clickable in the terminal. If token count exceeded 1600 and user chose [K], include the token count and explain why it may be a problem. | ||
|
|
||
| - **A**: Rename `{wipFile}` to `{spec_file}`, set status `ready-for-dev`. Everything inside `<frozen-after-approval>` is now locked — only the human can change it. Display the finalized spec path to the user as a CWD-relative path (no leading `/`) so it is clickable in the terminal. → Step 3. | ||
| After presenting the summary and options, add this note: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
After presenting the summary and options, add this note: reads like the note should come after the [A]/[E] menu, but the menu is shown later; this ambiguity could lead to the note being displayed in the wrong order or the options being presented twice.
Severity: low
🤖 Was this useful? React with 👍 or 👎, or 🚀 if it prevented an incident/outage.
|
|
||
| HALT and ask human: `[A] Approve` | `[E] Edit` | ||
|
|
||
| - **A**: Re-read `{spec_file}` from disk. Compare the content to what you wrote. If the file has changed since you wrote it, acknowledge the external edits — show a brief summary of what changed — and proceed with the updated version. If the file is missing, HALT and tell the user. Set status `ready-for-dev` in `{spec_file}`. Everything inside `<frozen-after-approval>` is now locked — only the human can change it. → Step 3. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the A flow, If the file is missing, HALT and tell the user. is followed by actions that modify {spec_file}; consider making it unambiguous that nothing (including status updates) should run after the missing-file HALT to avoid accidentally recreating/overwriting the spec.
Severity: medium
🤖 Was this useful? React with 👍 or 👎, or 🚀 if it prevented an incident/outage.
alexeyv
force-pushed
the
refactor/eliminate-wip-file
branch
from
9a26c0d to
100bb2c
Compare
1 participant
Summary
Test plan