---
phase: 00.1-integrate-gsd-patterns
plan: 00.1-01-PLAN.md
task: 0
total_tasks: 3
status: discussing_context
last_updated: 2026-01-20T06:05:00
---

<current_state>
Phase 0.1 has a completed plan (00.1-01-PLAN.md). User then initiated /gsd:discuss-phase 0.1 to gather implementation context before execution.

The discuss-phase workflow analyzed Phase 0.1 and identified 4 gray areas for discussion:
1. Decision documentation depth (PROJECT.md Key Decisions detail level)
2. Roadmap phase enrichment (how deeply to integrate GSD patterns into Phase 1-4 descriptions)
3. Requirements evolution (whether to add new requirements based on GSD patterns)
4. Cross-document consistency (alignment strategy across docs)

The workflow was about to present these areas via AskUserQuestion (multiselect) when user interrupted and paused.

Plan status: Created, not yet executed
Context status: Gray areas identified, user selection pending
Verification: Not yet run
</current_state>

<completed_work>

**Planning session (completed earlier):**
- ✓ Validated Phase 0.1 in ROADMAP.md
- ✓ Confirmed phase directory exists (.planning/phases/00.1-integrate-gsd-patterns/)
- ✓ Skipped research (--skip-research flag used - integration work doesn't need domain research)
- ✓ Spawned gsd-planner agent with context (STATE.md, ROADMAP.md, REQUIREMENTS.md, GSD_PATTERNS.md)
- ✓ Planner returned PLANNING COMPLETE with 1 plan

**Plan created:**
- 00.1-01-PLAN.md: Integrate GSD Pattern Findings
  - Wave 1, autonomous, no dependencies
  - 3 tasks: Update PROJECT.md decisions, update ROADMAP.md phases, review REQUIREMENTS.md
  - Context budget: ~40% (reading GSD_PATTERNS.md + updating 3 docs)

**Context discussion session (in progress):**
- ✓ User initiated /gsd:discuss-phase 0.1
- ✓ Validated phase and confirmed no existing CONTEXT.md
- ✓ Analyzed phase domain (documentation integration, not code/templates)
- ✓ Identified 4 phase-specific gray areas:
  - Decision documentation depth
  - Roadmap phase enrichment
  - Requirements evolution
  - Cross-document consistency
- ✗ User interrupted before selecting which areas to discuss

</completed_work>

<remaining_work>

**Context discussion (interrupted):**
- Present 4 gray areas via AskUserQuestion multiselect
- User selects which areas to discuss (1-4 areas)
- Deep-dive each selected area (4 questions per area, offer more/next)
- Write CONTEXT.md with decisions captured
- Commit CONTEXT.md

**After context discussion:**
1. Run gsd-plan-checker to verify the plan (optional - was skipped in planning flow)
2. Execute the plan via /gsd:execute-phase 0.1
3. Verify phase completion

**Plan execution (00.1-01-PLAN.md):**
- Task 1: Update PROJECT.md Key Decisions table with GSD pattern adoption decisions
- Task 2: Update ROADMAP.md Phase 1-4 details with GSD integration roadmap applications
- Task 3: Review and update REQUIREMENTS.md based on GSD patterns (add HANDOFF-07 if needed)

</remaining_work>

<decisions_made>

**During planning:**
- Skipped research phase (--skip-research flag) because Phase 0.1 is integration work, not domain research - we already have GSD_PATTERNS.md from Quick Task 001
- Single autonomous plan approach: All integration tasks bundled into one plan since they're tightly coupled (all updating planning docs based on same source)
- Conservative context budget (40%): Plan reads one large doc (GSD_PATTERNS.md) and updates 3 planning docs

**During context discussion:**
- Analyzed Phase 0.1 as documentation integration work (not code/templates)
- Identified domain: Reflecting Quick 001 findings into planning documents
- Generated 4 phase-specific gray areas rather than generic categories:
  1. Decision documentation depth (how detailed in PROJECT.md Key Decisions table)
  2. Roadmap phase enrichment (how to weave GSD patterns into Phase 1-4 descriptions)
  3. Requirements evolution (whether to add new requirements like HANDOFF-07)
  4. Cross-document consistency (alignment strategy to avoid redundancy)

**From Quick Task 001 (to be integrated by this phase):**
- XML structure for LOOPS/CONTEXT templates
- Conservative token budgets: 20/40/50% for different complexity levels
- Checkpoint thinking for workflows
- Session artifact organization: .project/sessions/YYYY-MM-DD-description/

</decisions_made>

<blockers>
None - planning completed successfully, ready to execute.
</blockers>

<context>

**Session flow:**
1. User invoked /gsd:plan-phase 0.1 --skip-research
2. Planner created 00.1-01-PLAN.md (1 plan, 3 tasks, wave 1)
3. User interrupted before verification, called /gsd:pause-work
4. User then invoked /gsd:discuss-phase 0.1 to gather implementation context
5. discuss-phase analyzed the phase and identified 4 gray areas
6. User interrupted before selecting areas to discuss, called /gsd:pause-work again

**The approach:**
Phase 0.1 is a critical bridge phase - it takes the patterns discovered in Quick Task 001 and weaves them into the formal planning documents before Phase 1 execution begins. This ensures Phase 1 (Foundation & Templates) can reference specific GSD patterns that are already documented in the roadmap.

The plan is intentionally simple (1 plan, 3 tasks, wave 1) because this is documentation integration work, not code implementation. The tasks are sequential within the plan but can execute autonomously without user checkpoints.

**Why context discussion matters here:**
Even though this is "just" documentation work, the 4 gray areas identified are real implementation decisions:
- How much detail in decisions table affects downstream planning clarity
- Roadmap enrichment depth affects Phase 1-4 executor understanding
- Requirements evolution now vs later affects requirement traceability
- Consistency strategy affects maintenance burden across 3 docs

These aren't code architecture questions, but documentation architecture questions that will shape how effectively the planning docs guide downstream work.

**Mental model:**
Think of this as "closing the loop" from Quick 001. We did exploratory work, documented patterns in GSD_PATTERNS.md, and now we need to formalize those decisions in the canonical planning docs (PROJECT.md decisions table, ROADMAP.md phase details, REQUIREMENTS.md). The context discussion helps decide HOW to formalize (level of detail, structure, evolution strategy).

</context>

<next_action>

When resuming, you have three options:

**Option 1: Complete context discussion (started but interrupted)**
1. Resume /gsd:discuss-phase 0.1 workflow
2. Present 4 gray areas via AskUserQuestion (multiselect)
3. Deep-dive selected areas (4 questions per area, check, more/next)
4. Write CONTEXT.md with implementation decisions
5. Then proceed to execution

**Option 2: Skip context discussion, execute directly**
The plan already exists and is straightforward. User can choose to skip gathering context and execute:
/gsd:execute-phase 0.1

The executor will make reasonable decisions about detail level, enrichment depth, etc.

**Option 3: Skip context discussion, verify then execute**
1. Spawn gsd-plan-checker to verify 00.1-01-PLAN.md
2. If verification passes, execute
3. If issues found, iterate with planner

**Specific first action when resuming:**
Check with user which path they prefer:
- Continue context discussion to clarify implementation decisions before execution
- Skip context discussion and execute directly (trust executor judgment)
- Skip context and verify plan first, then execute

The 4 gray areas are real decisions (detail level, enrichment depth, requirements evolution, consistency strategy), but the executor can make reasonable choices if user prefers to skip the discussion.

</next_action>
