---
phase: 01.3-context-lifecycle-coaching-workflow-decomposition
plan: 04
type: execute
wave: 2
depends_on: []
files_modified:
  - eval/ANALYSIS.md
autonomous: true

must_haves:
  truths:
    - "Eval findings analyzed through coaching lens"
    - "Eval findings analyzed through architectural lens"
    - "GSD-lite vs OG GSD comprehensive architectural differences documented (not just eval context)"
    - "Protocol gaps identified with specific evidence"
    - "Architectural differences table covers: orchestration, context strategy, workflow scope, artifact depth, planning mode, promotion model"
  artifacts:
    - path: "eval/ANALYSIS.md"
      provides: "Comprehensive eval analysis"
      contains: "Coaching Analysis"
  key_links:
    - from: "eval/ANALYSIS.md"
      to: "eval/eval_claude.md"
      via: "References Claude eval evidence"
      pattern: "eval_claude"
    - from: "eval/ANALYSIS.md"
      to: "eval/eval_gemini.md"
      via: "References Gemini eval evidence"
      pattern: "eval_gemini"
---

<objective>
Analyze eval findings through coaching and architectural lenses.

Purpose: Create ANALYSIS.md that examines Claude Sonnet and Gemini 3.0 Pro evaluation traces to identify coaching violations (agent overstepped/undershot autonomy) and architectural gaps (protocol structure enabled failures). Document GSD-lite vs OG GSD differences.

Output: eval/ANALYSIS.md with structured analysis and actionable insights for protocol improvement.
</objective>

<execution_context>
@/Users/luutuankiet/.claude/get-shit-done/workflows/execute-plan.md
@/Users/luutuankiet/.claude/get-shit-done/templates/summary.md
</execution_context>

<context>
@.planning/PROJECT.md
@.planning/ROADMAP.md
@.planning/STATE.md
@.planning/phases/01.3-context-lifecycle-coaching-workflow-decomposition/01.3-RESEARCH.md
@eval/eval_claude.md
@eval/eval_gemini.md
@eval/another_eval_gsd_gemini.md
</context>

<tasks>

<task type="auto">
  <name>Task 1: Create ANALYSIS.md with coaching and architectural analysis</name>
  <files>eval/ANALYSIS.md</files>
  <action>
Create eval/ANALYSIS.md with the following structure:

```markdown
# GSD-Lite Evaluation Analysis

**Analyzed:** [date]
**Evaluations:** eval_claude.md (Claude Sonnet 4), eval_gemini.md (Gemini 3.0 Pro), another_eval_gsd_gemini.md

## Executive Summary

[3-5 bullets summarizing key findings across both lenses]

---

## Coaching Analysis

Coaching violations = agent overstepped or undershot autonomy boundaries.

### Governance Framework Reference

| Decision Type | Owner | Agent Role | Example |
|---------------|-------|------------|---------|
| Vision/Outcome | User | Extract via questioning | "What should this feel like?" |
| Scope boundary | User | Clarify, redirect creep | "That's new capability - defer?" |
| Implementation choice | User (if affects UX) | Present options | "Cards vs timeline?" |
| Technical detail | Agent | Auto-fix with log | "Missing null check - adding" |
| Architectural change | User | Pause, present | "Requires new table" |

### Claude Sonnet Findings

**Session:** eval_claude.md

**Coaching Violations:**

| Turn | Violation | Type | Expected Behavior |
|------|-----------|------|-------------------|
| T9 | Jumped directly to implementation without moodboard | Overstepped | Should have interviewed user first |
| T2-T8 | Read multiple files to understand problem | Correct (technical detail) | - |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

**Pattern:** Claude treated "troubleshooting" as technical detail, but scope was unclear. Should have asked user for context before implementing fix.

### Gemini 3.0 Pro Findings

**Session:** eval_gemini.md

**Coaching Violations:**

| Turn | Violation | Type | Expected Behavior |
|------|-----------|------|-------------------|
| T78 | Applied fix without discussion | Overstepped | Should have presented hypothesis first |
| T94 | Applied regex fix without user confirmation | Overstepped | Technical detail, but risky - should have asked |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

**Pattern:** Gemini applied fixes iteratively without checkpoints. User had to challenge assumptions (T116, T125).

### another_eval_gsd_gemini.md Findings

**Key Issues:**

1. **Hallucination (T4-T6):** Agent claimed to write files without executing tool calls
2. **Missing Research Mode (T9-T16):** User initiated /discuss but protocol had no research phase

**Coaching Violations:**

| Issue | Type | Expected Behavior |
|-------|------|-------------------|
| Claimed file writes without execution | Hallucination (not coaching) | Self-check protocol needed |
| Jumped to implementation after /discuss | Undershot | Should have verified before planning |

---

## Architectural Analysis

Architectural gaps = protocol structure enabled failures.

### Gap 1: Monolithic Protocol

**Evidence:** 929-line PROTOCOL.md
**Failure Mode:** Agents skip critical sections (moodboard, questioning)
**Observed in:** Claude Sonnet (T9 - jumped to implementation)
**Resolution:** Decompose into workflows (Phase 1.3 deliverable)

### Gap 2: No Anti-Hallucination Protocol

**Evidence:** another_eval_gsd_gemini.md T4-T6
**Failure Mode:** Agent claims file writes without tool execution
**Observed in:** Gemini 3.0 Pro
**Resolution:** Self-check section in sticky notes (Phase 1.3 deliverable)

### Gap 3: Implicit Coaching Model

**Evidence:** No governance table in original PROTOCOL.md
**Failure Mode:** Inconsistent ask vs decide behavior
**Observed in:** Both Claude and Gemini
**Resolution:** Explicit coaching philosophy in each workflow (Phase 1.3 deliverable)

### Gap 4: No Research/Verification Mode

**Evidence:** another_eval_gsd_gemini.md T9-T16
**Failure Mode:** User initiates /discuss but protocol jumps to implementation
**Observed in:** Gemini 3.0 Pro
**Resolution:** Moodboard workflow covers questioning; consider explicit /research trigger

### Gap 5: No Context Lifecycle

**Evidence:** Sessions accumulate bloat, no clear resume mechanism
**Failure Mode:** User had to manually prompt /debug after multiple failed attempts
**Observed in:** Gemini 3.0 Pro
**Resolution:** Checkpoint -> clear -> resume documented in checkpoint.md (Phase 1.3 deliverable)

---

## GSD-Lite vs OG GSD Architectural Differences

This section provides COMPREHENSIVE architectural documentation, not just eval-related differences.

### Architecture Comparison Table

| Dimension | OG GSD | GSD-lite | Rationale |
|-----------|--------|----------|-----------|
| **Orchestration** | Multi-agent (spawns subagents via Task tool) | Single-agent sessions | GSD-lite targets weaker models in chat apps without orchestration capabilities |
| **Context strategy** | Fresh windows via Task tool spawning | Checkpoint -> clear -> resume (manual) | No programmatic spawning available in chat interfaces |
| **Workflow scope** | Project/milestone/phase hierarchy | Single phase only | Incremental work focus, simpler mental model |
| **Protocol location** | .claude/get-shit-done/workflows/ | gsd-lite/workflows/ | Namespace separation, independent versioning |
| **Artifact depth** | Deep (RESEARCH, PLAN, SUMMARY, UAT) | Minimal (STATE, WORK, INBOX, HISTORY) | Weak agent optimization, aggressive trimming |
| **Planning mode** | Separate discuss-phase workflow | Embedded moodboard/whiteboard in main protocol | Fewer files to load, simpler routing |
| **Promotion** | Automatic after phase complete | User-controlled | Prevent data loss, user extracts outcomes first |
| **Model target** | Claude Opus via Claude Code CLI | Any model (Claude Sonnet, Gemini, etc.) via chat apps | Weaker reasoning requires more explicit instructions |
| **Tool access** | Full MCP tools + file system | File-based only (copy-paste or limited MCP) | Works in constrained environments |
| **Verification** | Automated via gsd-verifier agent | Manual human verification | No subagent spawning available |

### Design Philosophy Differences

**OG GSD philosophy:** "Spawn specialized agents for each concern, coordinate via orchestrator, fresh context per agent."

**GSD-lite philosophy:** "Single agent does everything, user manages context lifecycle, artifacts survive session boundaries."

### When to Use Which

| Scenario | Recommendation |
|----------|----------------|
| Claude Code CLI available | Use OG GSD |
| Chat interface only (ChatGPT, Claude.ai, Gemini) | Use GSD-lite |
| Opus-level model | OG GSD preferred |
| Sonnet/Gemini-level model | GSD-lite preferred |
| Multi-day project with clear milestones | OG GSD preferred |
| Single-session incremental work | GSD-lite preferred |

**Key Insight:** GSD-lite is NOT simplified GSD. It's a single-session pattern optimized for weak agents in constrained environments, using GSD's workflow decomposition principles but with fundamentally different architectural constraints.

---

## Recommendations

### Immediate (Phase 1.3)

1. Decompose PROTOCOL.md into workflows - DONE (this phase)
2. Add self-check to all sticky notes - DONE (this phase)
3. Document coaching philosophy in each workflow - DONE (this phase)
4. Document context lifecycle - DONE (this phase)

### Future Consideration

1. Add explicit /research trigger for verification mode
2. Consider model-specific guidance (weaker models need more explicit instructions)
3. Re-evaluate with Gemini after Phase 1.3 implementation

---

## Evidence Index

| Source | Key Turns | Findings |
|--------|-----------|----------|
| eval_claude.md | T9 | Premature implementation |
| eval_gemini.md | T78, T94, T116 | Iterative fixes without checkpoint |
| another_eval_gsd_gemini.md | T4-T6 | Hallucination |
| another_eval_gsd_gemini.md | T9-T16 | Missing research mode |

---
*Analysis completed: [date]*
```

Fill in specific turn references and patterns by reading the eval files carefully.
  </action>
  <verify>
- File exists at eval/ANALYSIS.md
- Contains "Coaching Analysis" section with governance table
- Contains "Architectural Analysis" section with gaps
- Contains "GSD-Lite vs OG GSD" comprehensive comparison (table + philosophy + when-to-use)
- References specific turns from eval files
  </verify>
  <done>
ANALYSIS.md provides comprehensive eval analysis through coaching and architectural lenses.
  </done>
</task>

</tasks>

<verification>
1. eval/ANALYSIS.md exists
2. Contains coaching analysis with specific violations
3. Contains architectural analysis with specific gaps
4. Contains GSD-lite vs OG GSD comparison
5. References evidence from eval files
6. Provides actionable recommendations
</verification>

<success_criteria>
- Eval findings analyzed through both coaching and architectural lenses
- Specific evidence cited from eval traces
- Clear mapping between failures and protocol gaps
- GSD-lite vs OG GSD differences documented
- Recommendations linked to Phase 1.3 deliverables
</success_criteria>

<output>
After completion, create `.planning/phases/01.3-context-lifecycle-coaching-workflow-decomposition/01.3-04-SUMMARY.md`
</output>
