feat(templates): add GCP best practices guide #100
Conversation
commands/conductor/review.toml
Outdated
| 2. **Guides Compliance:** | ||
| - Does it follow `product-guidelines.md`? | ||
| - Does it strictly follow `conductor/code_styleguides/*.md`? | ||
| - Does it adhere to `conductor/platform_guides/*.md` (if applicable)? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
change to (if exists and is applicable) otherwise it might try to search for that file
commands/conductor/newTrack.toml
Outdated
| * Check for the existence of `conductor/platform_guides/google-cloud-platform.md`. | ||
|
|
||
| 2. **Conditional Offer:** | ||
| * **IF** (GCP is mentioned) **AND** (the guide is MISSING): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would change to GCP keywords are mentioned to ensure the earlier words are included
commands/conductor/setup.toml
Outdated
| - Create the directory `conductor/platform_guides/`. | ||
| - Copy `~/.gemini/extensions/conductor/templates/platform_guides/google-cloud-platform.md` to `conductor/platform_guides/google-cloud-platform.md`. | ||
| - Announce: "Added GCP Best Practices guide to `conductor/platform_guides/`." | ||
| - **Commit State:** After handling the guides (Code Style + Platform), you MUST immediately write to `conductor/setup_state.json` with the exact content: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can we split the style guides and platform guides into two sections? they dont have overlap, and i think here it doesnt make sense to combine them
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lgtm. are these recommendations from a source?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Responded in the internal chat thread.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we append the source like we do for the code style guides? Overall, this documents LGTM.
commands/conductor/review.toml
Outdated
| ## Verification Checks | ||
| - [ ] **Plan Compliance**: [Yes/No/Partial] - [Comment] | ||
| - [ ] **Style Compliance**: [Pass/Fail] | ||
| - [ ] **Guides Compliance**: [Pass/Fail] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
same here and in other places, i think style and platform guides should be separate
commands/conductor/review.toml
Outdated
| ## Verification Checks | ||
| - [ ] **Plan Compliance**: [Yes/No/Partial] - [Comment] | ||
| - [ ] **Style Compliance**: [Pass/Fail] | ||
| - [ ] **Guides Compliance**: [Pass/Fail] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
same here and in other places, i think style and platform guides should be separate
| - If `STEP` is "2.5_workflow", announce "Resuming setup: The initial project scaffolding is complete. Next, we will generate the first track." and proceed to **Phase 2 (3.0)**. | ||
| - If `STEP` is "2.4_code_styleguides", announce "Resuming setup: Code Styleguides are configured. Next, we will check for Platform Guides." and proceed to **Section 2.5**. | ||
| - If `STEP` is "2.5_platform_guides", announce "Resuming setup: Platform Guides are checked. Next, we will define the project workflow." and proceed to **Section 2.6**. | ||
| - If `STEP` is "2.6_workflow", announce "Resuming setup: The initial project scaffolding is complete. Next, we will generate the first track." and proceed to **Section 2.7**. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@mahimashanware @moisgobg ptal at the reference. I will them to be fixed in the separate ticket, but wanted to make sure this one is still correct semantically.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is better, because by saying "go to 3.0" before, we might've skipped the 2.7 step.
LGTM
3 participants
Fixes #98.
Ran local tests:
https://screenshot.googleplex.com/rEQXuha8i38tBnE
https://screenshot.googleplex.com/3bRkuzoUMpzRt8Q