Skip to content

fix(roadmap): mark individual plan checkboxes when summaries exist#922

Open
j2h4u wants to merge 1 commit intogsd-build:mainfrom
j2h4u:fix/plan-checkboxes-progress
Open

fix(roadmap): mark individual plan checkboxes when summaries exist#922
j2h4u wants to merge 1 commit intogsd-build:mainfrom
j2h4u:fix/plan-checkboxes-progress

Conversation

@j2h4u
Copy link
Contributor

@j2h4u j2h4u commented Mar 3, 2026

What

cmdRoadmapUpdatePlanProgress now marks plan-level checkboxes (e.g. - [ ] 50-01-PLAN.md) as complete when a matching summary file exists.

Why

Only phase-level checkboxes (- [ ] Phase 50: Build) were updated. Plan-level entries were skipped, leaving them unchecked even after all plans in a phase were completed.

Testing

  • Tested on Linux
  • Tested on macOS
  • Tested on Windows

Checklist

  • Follows GSD style (no enterprise patterns, no filler)
  • Updates CHANGELOG.md for user-facing changes
  • No unnecessary dependencies added
  • Works on Windows (no path-sensitive changes)

Breaking Changes

None

`cmdRoadmapUpdatePlanProgress` only marked phase-level checkboxes
(e.g. `- [ ] Phase 50: Build`) but skipped plan-level entries
(e.g. `- [ ] 50-01-PLAN.md`). Now iterates phase summaries and
marks matching plan checkboxes as complete.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@tylyp
Copy link

tylyp commented Mar 5, 2026

This fixes one of the drift patterns I've been tracking across a production project (18 phases). After completing phases 14 and 17, the individual plan checkboxes stayed [ ] in ROADMAP.md even though the phases were marked Complete in the progress table. Created a visual disconnect — the phase looked done at the top level but incomplete in the plan list.

Would love to see this merged. Documented as part of a broader planning document drift analysis in #956.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants