Spaces:
Sleeping
Sleeping
| # Model Selection Playbook | |
| > Guidance for choosing models by phase and task type. | |
| > | |
| > **No model is required.** These are recommendations, not requirements. | |
| --- | |
| ## Selection by Phase | |
| ### Planning & Architecture | |
| **Recommended capabilities:** | |
| - Extended reasoning / thinking mode | |
| - Large context window (analyze multiple files) | |
| - Strong at structured output (specs, plans) | |
| **Why:** Planning requires understanding full system context and making architectural decisions. | |
| **Examples:** Models with "thinking" or "reasoning" modes, larger context variants. | |
| --- | |
| ### Code Implementation | |
| **Recommended capabilities:** | |
| - Fast iteration speed | |
| - Good at code completion | |
| - Tool/function calling (for verification commands) | |
| **Why:** Implementation involves many small changes with frequent verification cycles. | |
| **Examples:** Speed-tier models, code-specialized variants. | |
| --- | |
| ### Refactoring | |
| **Recommended capabilities:** | |
| - Large context window (see before/after) | |
| - Pattern recognition | |
| - Consistent style application | |
| **Why:** Refactoring requires maintaining consistency across large code changes. | |
| **Examples:** Standard or long-context variants. | |
| --- | |
| ### Debugging | |
| **Recommended capabilities:** | |
| - Extended reasoning (hypothesis generation) | |
| - Good at reading stack traces | |
| - Context for error patterns | |
| **Why:** Debugging requires hypothesis testing and pattern matching. | |
| **Examples:** Reasoning-focused models. | |
| --- | |
| ### Code Review | |
| **Recommended capabilities:** | |
| - Large context (review full PR diff) | |
| - Security pattern knowledge | |
| - Style consistency checking | |
| **Why:** Review requires seeing both code and context together. | |
| **Examples:** Long-context variants. | |
| --- | |
| ## Capability Tiers | |
| | Tier | Characteristics | Best For | | |
| |------|-----------------|----------| | |
| | **Fast** | Quick responses, lower cost | Implementation, iteration | | |
| | **Standard** | Balanced speed/quality | Most tasks | | |
| | **Reasoning** | Extended thinking, slower | Planning, debugging, architecture | | |
| | **Long-context** | >100k tokens | Review, refactoring | | |
| --- | |
| ## Anti-Patterns | |
| β **Using reasoning models for simple edits** β Overkill, slow, expensive | |
| β **Using fast models for architecture** β Insufficient depth for complex decisions | |
| β **Ignoring context limits** β Leads to quality degradation | |
| β **Forcing a specific model** β Breaks model-agnosticism | |
| --- | |
| ## Model Switching Mid-Session | |
| **When to switch:** | |
| - Context is getting polluted (approaching 50%) | |
| - Task type changes significantly (planning β implementation) | |
| - Current model struggling with task type | |
| **How to switch:** | |
| 1. Create state snapshot | |
| 2. Update STATE.md with current position | |
| 3. Start fresh session with appropriate model | |
| 4. Load STATE.md to resume | |
| --- | |
| ## GSD Model-Agnostic Principle | |
| GSD works with any capable LLM. The methodology compensates for model differences through: | |
| 1. **Structured plans** β Reduce ambiguity | |
| 2. **Explicit verification** β Catch errors regardless of model | |
| 3. **State persistence** β Enable model switching | |
| 4. **Fresh context** β Prevent accumulation issues | |
| Choose models based on task needs, not methodology requirements. | |
| --- | |
| *See PROJECT_RULES.md for canonical rules.* | |
| *See docs/runbook.md for operational procedures.* | |