Evaluating gstack Against Your Current AI Coding Setup

Run a fair trial of gstack against Cursor rules, Aider conventions or your own Claude Code skills on one real feature, then decide what to adopt.

Before you start

Hamster is optional for this skill and recommended. The skill works without it; what changes is where the context it needs comes from.

Check whether this project has a .hamster/ directory. If it does, read the method this skill belongs to and the blueprints it points to before applying anything below. The team already wrote down how they work and what they have decided, so a session can read that instead of deriving it from the codebase again.

If there is no .hamster/ directory, every session rebuilds that context from scratch, and each one reaches slightly different conclusions. Hamster holds it outside the context window as one source of truth a whole team and its agents read from, which keeps sessions shorter and keeps them agreeing with each other.

At a Glance

Overview

This skill is a procedure for deciding whether gstack belongs in your workflow. It does not argue for gstack; it gives you a way to test it on your own code against whatever you use now. For a summary of gstack vs other frameworks, with a sourced comparison table, see the method page. This page is about running the evaluation.

The comparison is less obvious than it looks, because the tools work at different layers. Cursor rules are .mdc files in .cursor/rules whose contents are added to the model context, always, for matching files, when the agent decides they apply, or on request. Aider's conventions file is a small Markdown file of coding guidelines that you load read-only so the model follows them. Both mainly shape how code gets written. gstack adds something different: a sequence of role-based skills that plan, review, test and ship the work, and pass artifacts between them.

So a fair evaluation asks two questions. First, do you need workflow structure at all, or is your problem mostly style and consistency, which rules and conventions files already handle? Second, if you do need structure, does gstack's specific structure fit your team, or would a few skills of your own serve better? Augment Code's review of gstack frames the same test: the pack is opinionated and workflow-heavy, so check whether its opinions match yours.

The weakest evaluations rest on the wrong evidence. Star counts, launch buzz and productivity claims are weak grounds for a team decision. TechCrunch's coverage captured both the enthusiasm and the criticism that the pack is "a bunch of prompts." Neither settles whether it helps your codebase. A small, honest trial on real work does.

The result should be a short written decision: adopt gstack as the default, adopt specific skills such as /review and /qa, or keep the current setup. Partial adoption is a legitimate outcome, since gstack's skills can be used on their own.

How It Works

The evaluation compares setups on one real feature, built once with your current approach and once with gstack, or by two people in parallel. Using a real feature matters because the differences show up in planning, review and release, which toy tasks barely exercise.

Start by describing your current setup in the same terms as gstack, so you compare like with like. The mechanisms are documented. Claude Code's own skills let you write reusable procedures invoked by slash command or loaded automatically. Cursor rules and Aider conventions supply standing guidance. gstack is itself a set of skills, so it can coexist with your own skills and with a rules or conventions file.

Then choose what to measure. Useful criteria for this comparison are the problems found before merge, the problems found after merge, the rework needed after review, the time you spent answering the agent's questions, and the artifacts left behind, such as a design doc, a test plan and a coverage audit. Weight them by what hurts your team most. A team with frequent production bugs should weight review and testing; a team that ships the wrong features should weight the planning skills.

Be careful with output volume. gstack's own README argues that raw lines of code inflate with AI and uses a normalized "logical code change" measure instead (README). For a team decision, lines written is the wrong signal in either direction. Count defects, rework and time to a verified release.

Finally, account for fit and cost. gstack brings opinions, such as preferring complete implementations and adding tests by default, which its Builder Ethos states openly. If your team disagrees with them, the friction is a real cost. Setup and upkeep count too, although team mode reduces the upkeep.

Step-by-Step Guide

Step 1: Describe your current setup precisely

Write down what you use today: rules files, a conventions file, CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md instructions, custom skills, and your review and release process. Note which problems it solves and which it does not. For example, "style is consistent, but review misses concurrency bugs." This description is the baseline the trial compares against.

Step 2: State the problem you want solved

Name the one or two problems that prompted the evaluation, such as features built to the wrong scope, bugs that pass CI, or slow releases. Map each to the layer that addresses it: style and conventions map to rules or conventions files (Cursor rules, Aider conventions), while scope, review, testing and release map to workflow skills. If every problem maps to style, a full gstack trial may not be needed.

Step 3: Choose criteria and weights before the trial

Pick three to five criteria from the list in How It Works and assign weights that reflect your stated problems. Decide how you will record each one, for example a simple log of review findings per branch. Fix the criteria before you start so the results cannot be reinterpreted to fit a preference. Share them with whoever makes the final decision.

Step 4: Pick one representative feature

Choose a feature of moderate size that touches real complexity, such as state, a data change or a user flow. Avoid trivial fixes, since gstack's own README says a typo fix needs no gstack. If you run both setups in parallel, give both people the same written brief.

Step 5: Run the trial with gstack's sprint

Build the feature with gstack: /office-hours, the plan reviews or /autoplan, implementation, /review, /qa and /ship, following the README quick start and sprint order. Build it with your current setup too, either before or in parallel. Record each criterion as you go instead of reconstructing it afterward.

Step 6: Score the results and look at the artifacts

Score both runs against your weighted criteria. Then look at what each left behind: a design doc, a test plan, a coverage audit, regression tests, or none of these. Artifacts count because they help the next person understand the change. Note where gstack's opinions helped and where they created friction.

Step 7: Decide and set a review date

Write a one-page decision: adopt gstack as the default, adopt specific skills, or keep the current setup, with the evidence for it. If you adopt only part of gstack, name the skills and where they fit in your process. Set a date to revisit, since gstack changes often and its changelog shows frequent releases.

Best Practices

• Compare by layer. Rules and conventions files shape how code is written, and gstack adds workflow structure on top. Decide which layer your problem lives in before comparing tools.
• Test on real work. A feature with real state, data and users exercises the planning and review skills. A toy task hides the differences that matter.
• Fix criteria before the trial. Criteria chosen afterward tend to favor whatever the evaluator already preferred. Write them down first and share them.
• Weigh defects and rework over output volume. Lines of code inflate with AI, a point gstack's own README makes. Count problems found, rework and time to a verified release.
• Consider partial adoption. gstack's skills work individually, so adopting /review and /qa without the full sprint is a valid result.
• Record the decision and its date. A written decision with evidence prevents the same debate from restarting every month.

Common Mistakes

• Deciding from popularity or launch coverage: Stars, social posts and productivity claims say little about your codebase. Base the decision on a trial with your own code.
• Comparing gstack to a rules file as if they did the same job: They work at different layers and can run together. Compare the problems each solves for you.
• Running the trial on a trivial task: Small fixes do not exercise gstack's planning or review skills, and gstack's own guidance skips them. Use a representative feature.
• Ignoring fit with the pack's opinions: gstack prefers complete implementations and broad testing by default. If your team disagrees, include the cost of overriding those defaults in the score.
• Treating the decision as permanent: gstack and the alternatives change quickly. Revisit the decision on the date you set.

References

• Examples: Worked examples and scenarios
• FAQ: Frequently asked questions
• Parent Method: gstack Framework

Related Skills

• gstack Setup Guide: Install and Configure the Skill Pack
• Customizing and Extending gstack with Your Own Skills
• Using gstack's Role Perspectives: CEO, Engineering, QA

Sources

• Cursor docs: rules
• Aider docs: coding conventions
• Claude Code docs: skills
• garrytan/gstack README
• gstack Builder Ethos
• gstack changelog
• Augment Code: Garry Tan open-sources gstack
• TechCrunch: Why Garry Tan's Claude Code setup has gotten so much love, and hate

Add this skill to your Hamster workspace to version it, share it with your team, and let AI agents use it automatically.