All AI agents MUST follow this file AND
CLAUDE.md. Quality gates, TDD cycle, and git basics are in CLAUDE.md (single source of truth). This file covers: development process, competitive research, design resources, and red lines.
main— Stable. Only updated via PR merge. Never push directly.- Manual branches:
feat/v0.0.X-xxx,fix/v0.0.X-xxx,test/v0.0.X-system-test - Automated branches:
fix/issue-NUMBER(created bylaunch-dev.shper issue)
git fetch origin && git checkout main && git pull --ff-only origin main
git checkout -b feat/v0.0.X-feature-name
→ Develop + test + fix → push → Create PR → review → merge
→ git tag -a v0.0.X -m "release notes" && git push origin main --tags
→ Create GitHub Release (with deep-tested GIF demos)
Hotfix exception: fix/ branches may skip competitive research, but code review + testing are mandatory.
- Detailed changelog (every feature + fix)
- Deep-tested GIF demos (full user workflows)
- Test coverage report
- Known issues list + next steps
- Read competitor docs at interaction-detail level (parameter ranges, edge cases, shortcuts, error handling)
- Bad: "Ableton has Group Tracks"
- Good: "Ableton Group Track: nestable, shows sub-clip overview when folded, Cmd+Click for multi-select, color applies to all sub-tracks"
- Output: file findings as GitHub Issues with detailed competitive references
- Write dev tasks with competitive references
- Decide: copy / improve / skip per feature
- Design UI before coding. Check colors, spacing, hierarchy, density
- Follow
.claude/references/interaction-design.md
| Model | Role |
|---|---|
| Claude Opus (1M) | Planning, review, test analysis |
| Claude Code CLI | Precise coding, adaptation, refactoring |
| Codex | Bulk coding, PR review, testing |
Two independent reviewers, both mandatory:
- GitHub Copilot: Automatically reviews PRs — check via
gh pr view <num> --json reviews - Codex review: Run
/codex reviewfor independent structural analysis - Post Codex results:
gh pr comment <num> --body "<codex findings>"for visibility - Cross-reference: Both reviewers' feedback must be addressed before merge
Manual checks (in addition to automated review):
- Quality gates (see CLAUDE.md) + scan for: unused imports, console.log, untyped
any
- Full user workflows (not just clicking around). Compare against competitors.
- Dark theme consistency, WCAG contrast, DAW color conventions
- Push → PR → Copilot reviews → Codex review → post findings → address both → merge → tag → GitHub Release → Discord
- v0.0.15, v0.0.20, v0.0.25...
- Cold start, full user journey, edge cases, visual audit, audio stability
- Interaction Design:
.claude/references/interaction-design.md - Design Guide:
docs/design/INTERACTION_DESIGN_GUIDE.md - UX Checklist:
docs/design/UX_IMPROVEMENT_CHECKLIST.md - Research Notes: filed as GitHub Issues with competitive references
As a [human user / AI agent], I want to [action], so that [outcome].
Every plan must contain: Problem → Root Cause → Solution → Verification → Files to Touch. Write plans as GitHub Issue bodies, not as separate files.
- All project files MUST be in English (source, comments, docs, commits, PRs, releases)
- Exception: research notes in
.llm/research/(session-local) may contain bilingual content - Conversations may be in Chinese; all repo output must be English
Deep focus alone finds local maxima. Exploration alone finds nothing. Agents must combine both:
- Research before coding: When facing unfamiliar APIs, patterns, or competitor behavior, search first
- Explore multiple approaches: For architecture decisions, generate 2-3 options before committing
- Verify assumptions: Don't code based on guesses — a 30-second search beats a 30-minute debug
| Trigger | Action |
|---|---|
| Unfamiliar API or library | /quick-research — search docs + examples |
| 2+ viable approaches | /brainstorm — score and select |
| Competitor behavior needed | WebSearch for interaction-detail level info |
| Error after 2 failed attempts | Stop guessing, search the error |
| New UI pattern | Search for best practices + competitor screenshots |
/quick-research: Lightweight inline research (2-3 searches, extract key insight, move on)/brainstorm: Multi-approach exploration (generate options, score, select, document decision)@researcher: Full competitive research cycle (for epics and new feature areas)
- Coding blind: Implementing an unfamiliar API without reading docs first
- First-solution lock: Committing to the first approach without considering alternatives
- Research rabbit hole: Spending 20 minutes researching a 5-minute task
- Confirmation bias: Searching only for evidence that supports your current approach
- Never push directly to main
- Never merge a PR before CI passes
- Never publish a release without deep-tested GIF demos
- Never code without competitive research (except hotfixes)
- Never skip browser testing before release
- Never push to personal fork (org repo only)
- Never use wrong git identity (ChuxiJ / junmin@acestudio.ai)
- Always check Copilot review feedback before merge
This document is the law. Violating any rule requires stopping and correcting.