abhigyanpatwari/gitnexus-lfg

gitnexus-lfg — plan → gate → work → review

Thin orchestrator over three existing skills. It adds no engineering logic of its own — it sequences gitnexus-plan, gitnexus-work, and gitnexus-review, with the user deciding at the plan gate. Run every lane by actually invoking the named skill (read its SKILL.md and follow it); never inline a summary of what the skill would have done.

/gitnexus-lfg <task description>
/gitnexus-lfg docs/plans/<existing-plan>.md    # skip lane 1, start at the gate

Lane 1 — Plan

Boundary triage first. If the task is plainly below the planning boundary — trivial or small-bounded work an agent finishes in well under ~35 turns (the measured regime where a planning pass costs more than it returns; measured in the GitNexus repository's eval/workflow_bench/) — say so and offer gitnexus-work direct mode as an alternative to the full pipeline before spending the plan lane. Honor the user's choice.

The threshold is a promoted benchmark policy measured offline, not a timeless heuristic — never self-edit it from a live task. Its re-evaluation governance lives in this skill's README.

Otherwise invoke gitnexus-plan with the task (knob overrides pass through verbatim; gitnexus-plan owns the up-front depth question — never ask it again here). If the input is already a plan file path, skip to Lane 2. The plan lands in docs/plans/ — record its path; every later lane consumes it.

Lane 2 — The plan gate (user choice, blocking)

Present the plan's chat summary (objective, proposed changes, sequence, top risks, open questions, plan path), then ask the user — as a blocking question (AskUserQuestion in Claude Code; a numbered list in chat on CLIs without a blocking tool):

1. Proceed to work — continue to Lane 3.
2. Stop here — the plan file is the deliverable; end the pipeline.

Depth was the user's up-front choice in Lane 1, so deepening is not offered by default — but honor an explicit request for it at the gate: run gitnexus-plan Deepen mode on the plan file and return here with the strengthened plan, as many times as the user asks. Do not proceed past the gate without an explicit choice — the gate is the pipeline's only checkpoint and exists precisely because execution is expensive to unwind.

Headless / non-interactive runs: no one can answer the gate, so end the pipeline after Lane 1 — the plan file is the deliverable (gate option 2) — and say so in the final report. Never auto-proceed to execution.

Lane 3 — Work

Invoke gitnexus-work with the plan path. It re-anchors the plan at HEAD, executes the Implementation Sequence as verified atomic commits, refreshes the knowledge graph when done (its Phase 4), and reports deviations. If it routes back for re-planning (structural drift), run the Deepen pass and return to the Lane 2 gate rather than pushing through.

Lane 4 — Review

Invoke gitnexus-review on the completed work. Pass an open PR URL/number when one exists; otherwise pass the current branch. The review skill owns target resolution, exact-SHA checkout/index alignment, and merge-base selection. Do not duplicate that logic here. If work left local changes, pass local as a second, separately labeled review surface.

Surface the review verdict and findings to the user. Findings the user wants fixed: those within gitnexus-work's direct-mode bounds (1–2 files, no architectural decisions) → hand to gitnexus-work direct mode; anything larger → offer the plan gate instead (Deepen the plan with the findings, or stop). Then re-run this lane's review once. On that re-run, do not start another fix cycle even if findings remain — report them and point the user at /gitnexus-work (or the plan gate) to continue deliberately.

Final report

One message: plan path, deepen cycles run, commits produced, verification status, review verdict with unresolved findings, and what (if anything) was explicitly left undone. The pipeline does not push or open a PR on its own — offer both as next steps.