webgpt-todo-response

WebGPT Todo Response

Purpose

Generate the message to send back to WebGPT after we have read its previous analysis and drafted or updated docs/todolist.md.

Use this skill when the user asks:

• whether we have rebuttals or questions for WebGPT
• what to include when sending our todo back to WebGPT for another pass
• to prepare a response asking WebGPT to evaluate, improve, or challenge our todo
• to compare WebGPT's recommendations against our chosen implementation scope

Inputs To Inspect

Read only the files needed for the current handoff:

• WebGPT response, usually under repomix-output/
• current todo, usually docs/todolist.md
• relevant canonical docs under docs/contracts/*, docs/frontend/*, or other explicitly governing docs when the todo depends on them
• optional other LLM replies if the user asks for a multi-model synthesis

Do not re-run broad repository analysis unless the todo or WebGPT response depends on code facts that are unclear.

Workflow

1. Identify WebGPT's strongest recommendations.
2. Mark which ones are adopted in the todo.
3. Mark which ones are intentionally deferred.
4. Mark which ones are rejected or still need clarification.

1. Check the todo against Formax boundaries.
2. Canonical semantics belong in docs/contracts/* and canonical runtime layers, not only UI.
3. Web reference UI should reflect runtime/platform truth, not invent it.
4. Do not move thread/runtime state ownership into ad hoc component-local logic when the task is structurally runtime-driven.
5. Preserve parity-sensitive behavior when relevant: transcript surface semantics, URL/thread sync, prompt/tool exposure boundaries, permissions flow, and active-thread canonical gating.
6. Avoid turning a focused task into a broad cleanup or cross-subsystem redesign unless explicitly requested.

1. Find weak spots in the todo.
2. Missing canonical-doc step
3. Missing data/type/interface step before UI
4. Runtime state ownership drift
5. Welcome/draft/thread semantics being mixed together
6. Scope creep into unrelated app-server, terminal, diff, approval, or desktop integration work
7. Missing tests or review gates
8. Missing statement of protocol constraints or non-atomic failure boundaries

1. Write a concise message for WebGPT.
2. Assume WebGPT has no hidden context beyond the attached todo and bundle.
3. Be explicit about decisions already made.
4. Ask targeted questions instead of open-ended “any thoughts?”
5. Request concrete todo edits or challenges, not generic feedback.

Output Shape

Produce a copy-ready Markdown response with these sections:

# Response To WebGPT

## What We Adopted
- ...

## Where We Differ / Pushback
- ...

## My Current Leaning
1. ...

## Highest-Value Review Points
1. ...

## Specific Questions For You
1. ...

## Please Review The Todo For
- ...

## Constraints To Preserve
- ...

Keep it short enough to paste into WebGPT with the todo. Prefer 5-10 specific questions/checks over a long essay.

Use My Current Leaning to distinguish default decisions from genuinely open questions. WebGPT may challenge these, but should not treat them as blank slate.

Use Highest-Value Review Points to focus WebGPT on the few risks most likely to improve the todo. These should be sharper than the broader checklist.

Good Question Patterns

• “Does this todo still hide new semantics inside !activeThreadId, or is the draft state truly first-class?”
• “Are we separating selectedCwd from draftCwd cleanly enough to avoid left-rail/runtime state drift?”
• “Is the proposed first-send flow realistic given thread/start and turn/start are non-atomic?”
• “Are we over-expanding the task into unrelated desktop/add-project behavior instead of keeping the mainline on new-thread draft semantics?”
• “Do the loops lock runtime ownership first, then UI, then tests, or is there still UI-first drift?”

Avoid

• Do not ask WebGPT to implement patches unless the user explicitly wants that.
• Do not ask WebGPT to run commands.
• Do not include local absolute paths.
• Do not send vague requests like “please improve this.”
• Do not restate the whole todo; reference it and ask for specific audit points.