From 11d0426b3bd80da8ecd844b7f11f4947818cde23 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: garrytan <garrytan@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2026 02:19:47 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] test: CEO completeness posture check covers the
 accepted-scope bound

Co-authored-by: capy-ai[bot] <230910855+capy-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
---
 test/ceo-workflow-clarity.test.ts | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/test/ceo-workflow-clarity.test.ts b/test/ceo-workflow-clarity.test.ts
index 712d12bd2..619412958 100644
--- a/test/ceo-workflow-clarity.test.ts
+++ b/test/ceo-workflow-clarity.test.ts
@@ -95,9 +95,12 @@ for (const source of sources) describe(`CEO clarity routing — ${source.label}`
 });
 
 describe('CEO completeness posture', () => {
+  // Value: protects=CEO Philosophy bullet bounds extra code by the accepted scope, so SCOPE/SELECTIVE EXPANSION still build accepted items;
+  // fails_when=the bullet says "no code beyond the requirement" again, contradicting EXPANSION; why_new=the rule group lacked 'accepted scope';
+  // seam=none; no_claim=model behavior in a real CEO review (keyword check on the template only)
   test('the Philosophy bullet measures completeness in coverage, not code', () => {
     const philosophy = readFileSync(resolve(root, 'plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl'), 'utf8').split('## Philosophy')[1]!.split('## Prime Directives')[0]!;
-    expectMentions(philosophy, [['whole requirement', '90% shortcut', 'no code beyond', 'equal coverage', 'smaller diff']], 'philosophy');
+    expectMentions(philosophy, [['whole requirement', '90% shortcut', 'no code beyond', 'accepted scope', 'equal coverage', 'smaller diff']], 'philosophy');
     expectAbsent(philosophy, ['COMPLETENESS IS CHEAP', '~150 LOC'], 'philosophy');
   });
 });