mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-05-01 19:25:10 +02:00
feat: test coverage gate + plan completion audit + auto-verification (v0.11.13.0) (#428)
* feat: test coverage gate + plan completion audit + auto-verification Three new gates in /ship and /review: 1. Test coverage gate: configurable thresholds (60%/80% default), hard stop below minimum with user override 2. Plan completion audit: discovers plan file, extracts actionable items, cross-references against diff, gates on NOT DONE items 3. Auto-verification: invokes /qa-only inline with plan's verification section, conditional on localhost reachability Also: coverage warning in /review, plan completion data in /retro, shared plan file discovery helper (DRY), ship metrics logging. * chore: regenerate SKILL.md files * chore: bump version and changelog (v0.11.13.0) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ import { generateTestFailureTriage } from './preamble';
|
||||
import { generateCommandReference, generateSnapshotFlags, generateBrowseSetup } from './browse';
|
||||
import { generateDesignMethodology, generateDesignHardRules, generateDesignOutsideVoices, generateDesignReviewLite, generateDesignSketch } from './design';
|
||||
import { generateTestBootstrap, generateTestCoverageAuditPlan, generateTestCoverageAuditShip, generateTestCoverageAuditReview } from './testing';
|
||||
import { generateReviewDashboard, generatePlanFileReviewReport, generateSpecReviewLoop, generateBenefitsFrom, generateCodexSecondOpinion, generateAdversarialStep, generateCodexPlanReview } from './review';
|
||||
import { generateReviewDashboard, generatePlanFileReviewReport, generateSpecReviewLoop, generateBenefitsFrom, generateCodexSecondOpinion, generateAdversarialStep, generateCodexPlanReview, generatePlanCompletionAuditShip, generatePlanCompletionAuditReview, generatePlanVerificationExec } from './review';
|
||||
import { generateSlugEval, generateSlugSetup, generateBaseBranchDetect, generateDeployBootstrap, generateQAMethodology } from './utility';
|
||||
|
||||
export const RESOLVERS: Record<string, (ctx: TemplateContext) => string> = {
|
||||
@@ -41,4 +41,7 @@ export const RESOLVERS: Record<string, (ctx: TemplateContext) => string> = {
|
||||
ADVERSARIAL_STEP: generateAdversarialStep,
|
||||
DEPLOY_BOOTSTRAP: generateDeployBootstrap,
|
||||
CODEX_PLAN_REVIEW: generateCodexPlanReview,
|
||||
PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT_SHIP: generatePlanCompletionAuditShip,
|
||||
PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT_REVIEW: generatePlanCompletionAuditReview,
|
||||
PLAN_VERIFICATION_EXEC: generatePlanVerificationExec,
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -592,3 +592,236 @@ SOURCE = "codex" if Codex ran, "claude" if subagent ran.
|
||||
|
||||
---`;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// ─── Plan File Discovery (shared helper) ──────────────────────────────
|
||||
|
||||
function generatePlanFileDiscovery(): string {
|
||||
return `### Plan File Discovery
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Conversation context (primary):** Check if there is an active plan file in this conversation — Claude Code system messages include plan file paths when in plan mode. Look for references like \`~/.claude/plans/*.md\` in system messages. If found, use it directly — this is the most reliable signal.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Content-based search (fallback):** If no plan file is referenced in conversation context, search by content:
|
||||
|
||||
\`\`\`bash
|
||||
BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null | tr '/' '-')
|
||||
REPO=$(basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null)")
|
||||
# Try branch name match first (most specific)
|
||||
PLAN=$(ls -t ~/.claude/plans/*.md 2>/dev/null | xargs grep -l "$BRANCH" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
|
||||
# Fall back to repo name match
|
||||
[ -z "$PLAN" ] && PLAN=$(ls -t ~/.claude/plans/*.md 2>/dev/null | xargs grep -l "$REPO" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
|
||||
# Last resort: most recent plan modified in the last 24 hours
|
||||
[ -z "$PLAN" ] && PLAN=$(find ~/.claude/plans -name '*.md' -mmin -1440 -maxdepth 1 2>/dev/null | xargs ls -t 2>/dev/null | head -1)
|
||||
[ -n "$PLAN" ] && echo "PLAN_FILE: $PLAN" || echo "NO_PLAN_FILE"
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Validation:** If a plan file was found via content-based search (not conversation context), read the first 20 lines and verify it is relevant to the current branch's work. If it appears to be from a different project or feature, treat as "no plan file found."
|
||||
|
||||
**Error handling:**
|
||||
- No plan file found → skip with "No plan file detected — skipping."
|
||||
- Plan file found but unreadable (permissions, encoding) → skip with "Plan file found but unreadable — skipping."`;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// ─── Plan Completion Audit ────────────────────────────────────────────
|
||||
|
||||
type PlanCompletionMode = 'ship' | 'review';
|
||||
|
||||
function generatePlanCompletionAuditInner(mode: PlanCompletionMode): string {
|
||||
const sections: string[] = [];
|
||||
|
||||
// ── Plan file discovery (shared) ──
|
||||
sections.push(generatePlanFileDiscovery());
|
||||
|
||||
// ── Item extraction ──
|
||||
sections.push(`
|
||||
### Actionable Item Extraction
|
||||
|
||||
Read the plan file. Extract every actionable item — anything that describes work to be done. Look for:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Checkbox items:** \`- [ ] ...\` or \`- [x] ...\`
|
||||
- **Numbered steps** under implementation headings: "1. Create ...", "2. Add ...", "3. Modify ..."
|
||||
- **Imperative statements:** "Add X to Y", "Create a Z service", "Modify the W controller"
|
||||
- **File-level specifications:** "New file: path/to/file.ts", "Modify path/to/existing.rb"
|
||||
- **Test requirements:** "Test that X", "Add test for Y", "Verify Z"
|
||||
- **Data model changes:** "Add column X to table Y", "Create migration for Z"
|
||||
|
||||
**Ignore:**
|
||||
- Context/Background sections (\`## Context\`, \`## Background\`, \`## Problem\`)
|
||||
- Questions and open items (marked with ?, "TBD", "TODO: decide")
|
||||
- Review report sections (\`## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\`)
|
||||
- Explicitly deferred items ("Future:", "Out of scope:", "NOT in scope:", "P2:", "P3:", "P4:")
|
||||
- CEO Review Decisions sections (these record choices, not work items)
|
||||
|
||||
**Cap:** Extract at most 50 items. If the plan has more, note: "Showing top 50 of N plan items — full list in plan file."
|
||||
|
||||
**No items found:** If the plan contains no extractable actionable items, skip with: "Plan file contains no actionable items — skipping completion audit."
|
||||
|
||||
For each item, note:
|
||||
- The item text (verbatim or concise summary)
|
||||
- Its category: CODE | TEST | MIGRATION | CONFIG | DOCS`);
|
||||
|
||||
// ── Cross-reference against diff ──
|
||||
sections.push(`
|
||||
### Cross-Reference Against Diff
|
||||
|
||||
Run \`git diff origin/<base>...HEAD\` and \`git log origin/<base>..HEAD --oneline\` to understand what was implemented.
|
||||
|
||||
For each extracted plan item, check the diff and classify:
|
||||
|
||||
- **DONE** — Clear evidence in the diff that this item was implemented. Cite the specific file(s) changed.
|
||||
- **PARTIAL** — Some work toward this item exists in the diff but it's incomplete (e.g., model created but controller missing, function exists but edge cases not handled).
|
||||
- **NOT DONE** — No evidence in the diff that this item was addressed.
|
||||
- **CHANGED** — The item was implemented using a different approach than the plan described, but the same goal is achieved. Note the difference.
|
||||
|
||||
**Be conservative with DONE** — require clear evidence in the diff. A file being touched is not enough; the specific functionality described must be present.
|
||||
**Be generous with CHANGED** — if the goal is met by different means, that counts as addressed.`);
|
||||
|
||||
// ── Output format ──
|
||||
sections.push(`
|
||||
### Output Format
|
||||
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
PLAN COMPLETION AUDIT
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════
|
||||
Plan: {plan file path}
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Items
|
||||
[DONE] Create UserService — src/services/user_service.rb (+142 lines)
|
||||
[PARTIAL] Add validation — model validates but missing controller checks
|
||||
[NOT DONE] Add caching layer — no cache-related changes in diff
|
||||
[CHANGED] "Redis queue" → implemented with Sidekiq instead
|
||||
|
||||
## Test Items
|
||||
[DONE] Unit tests for UserService — test/services/user_service_test.rb
|
||||
[NOT DONE] E2E test for signup flow
|
||||
|
||||
## Migration Items
|
||||
[DONE] Create users table — db/migrate/20240315_create_users.rb
|
||||
|
||||
─────────────────────────────────
|
||||
COMPLETION: 4/7 DONE, 1 PARTIAL, 1 NOT DONE, 1 CHANGED
|
||||
─────────────────────────────────
|
||||
\`\`\``);
|
||||
|
||||
// ── Gate logic (mode-specific) ──
|
||||
if (mode === 'ship') {
|
||||
sections.push(`
|
||||
### Gate Logic
|
||||
|
||||
After producing the completion checklist:
|
||||
|
||||
- **All DONE or CHANGED:** Pass. "Plan completion: PASS — all items addressed." Continue.
|
||||
- **Only PARTIAL items (no NOT DONE):** Continue with a note in the PR body. Not blocking.
|
||||
- **Any NOT DONE items:** Use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
- Show the completion checklist above
|
||||
- "{N} items from the plan are NOT DONE. These were part of the original plan but are missing from the implementation."
|
||||
- RECOMMENDATION: depends on item count and severity. If 1-2 minor items (docs, config), recommend B. If core functionality is missing, recommend A.
|
||||
- Options:
|
||||
A) Stop — implement the missing items before shipping
|
||||
B) Ship anyway — defer these to a follow-up (will create P1 TODOs in Step 5.5)
|
||||
C) These items were intentionally dropped — remove from scope
|
||||
- If A: STOP. List the missing items for the user to implement.
|
||||
- If B: Continue. For each NOT DONE item, create a P1 TODO in Step 5.5 with "Deferred from plan: {plan file path}".
|
||||
- If C: Continue. Note in PR body: "Plan items intentionally dropped: {list}."
|
||||
|
||||
**No plan file found:** Skip entirely. "No plan file detected — skipping plan completion audit."
|
||||
|
||||
**Include in PR body (Step 8):** Add a \`## Plan Completion\` section with the checklist summary.`);
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
// review mode
|
||||
sections.push(`
|
||||
### Integration with Scope Drift Detection
|
||||
|
||||
The plan completion results augment the existing Scope Drift Detection. If a plan file is found:
|
||||
|
||||
- **NOT DONE items** become additional evidence for **MISSING REQUIREMENTS** in the scope drift report.
|
||||
- **Items in the diff that don't match any plan item** become evidence for **SCOPE CREEP** detection.
|
||||
|
||||
This is **INFORMATIONAL** — does not block the review (consistent with existing scope drift behavior).
|
||||
|
||||
Update the scope drift output to include plan file context:
|
||||
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
Scope Check: [CLEAN / DRIFT DETECTED / REQUIREMENTS MISSING]
|
||||
Intent: <from plan file — 1-line summary>
|
||||
Plan: <plan file path>
|
||||
Delivered: <1-line summary of what the diff actually does>
|
||||
Plan items: N DONE, M PARTIAL, K NOT DONE
|
||||
[If NOT DONE: list each missing item]
|
||||
[If scope creep: list each out-of-scope change not in the plan]
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
**No plan file found:** Fall back to existing scope drift behavior (check TODOS.md and PR description only).`);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return sections.join('\n');
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
export function generatePlanCompletionAuditShip(_ctx: TemplateContext): string {
|
||||
return generatePlanCompletionAuditInner('ship');
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
export function generatePlanCompletionAuditReview(_ctx: TemplateContext): string {
|
||||
return generatePlanCompletionAuditInner('review');
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// ─── Plan Verification Execution ──────────────────────────────────────
|
||||
|
||||
export function generatePlanVerificationExec(_ctx: TemplateContext): string {
|
||||
return `## Step 3.47: Plan Verification
|
||||
|
||||
Automatically verify the plan's testing/verification steps using the \`/qa-only\` skill.
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Check for verification section
|
||||
|
||||
Using the plan file already discovered in Step 3.45, look for a verification section. Match any of these headings: \`## Verification\`, \`## Test plan\`, \`## Testing\`, \`## How to test\`, \`## Manual testing\`, or any section with verification-flavored items (URLs to visit, things to check visually, interactions to test).
|
||||
|
||||
**If no verification section found:** Skip with "No verification steps found in plan — skipping auto-verification."
|
||||
**If no plan file was found in Step 3.45:** Skip (already handled).
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Check for running dev server
|
||||
|
||||
Before invoking browse-based verification, check if a dev server is reachable:
|
||||
|
||||
\`\`\`bash
|
||||
curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:3000 2>/dev/null || \\
|
||||
curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:8080 2>/dev/null || \\
|
||||
curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:5173 2>/dev/null || \\
|
||||
curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:4000 2>/dev/null || echo "NO_SERVER"
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
**If NO_SERVER:** Skip with "No dev server detected — skipping plan verification. Run /qa separately after deploying."
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Invoke /qa-only inline
|
||||
|
||||
Read the \`/qa-only\` skill from disk:
|
||||
|
||||
\`\`\`bash
|
||||
cat \${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../qa-only/SKILL.md
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
**If unreadable:** Skip with "Could not load /qa-only — skipping plan verification."
|
||||
|
||||
Follow the /qa-only workflow with these modifications:
|
||||
- **Skip the preamble** (already handled by /ship)
|
||||
- **Use the plan's verification section as the primary test input** — treat each verification item as a test case
|
||||
- **Use the detected dev server URL** as the base URL
|
||||
- **Skip the fix loop** — this is report-only verification during /ship
|
||||
- **Cap at the verification items from the plan** — do not expand into general site QA
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Gate logic
|
||||
|
||||
- **All verification items PASS:** Continue silently. "Plan verification: PASS."
|
||||
- **Any FAIL:** Use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
- Show the failures with screenshot evidence
|
||||
- RECOMMENDATION: Choose A if failures indicate broken functionality. Choose B if cosmetic only.
|
||||
- Options:
|
||||
A) Fix the failures before shipping (recommended for functional issues)
|
||||
B) Ship anyway — known issues (acceptable for cosmetic issues)
|
||||
- **No verification section / no server / unreadable skill:** Skip (non-blocking).
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Include in PR body
|
||||
|
||||
Add a \`## Verification Results\` section to the PR body (Step 8):
|
||||
- If verification ran: summary of results (N PASS, M FAIL, K SKIPPED)
|
||||
- If skipped: reason for skipping (no plan, no server, no verification section)`;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -454,7 +454,40 @@ find . -name '*.test.*' -o -name '*.spec.*' -o -name '*_test.*' -o -name '*_spec
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
For PR body: \`Tests: {before} → {after} (+{delta} new)\`
|
||||
Coverage line: \`Test Coverage Audit: N new code paths. M covered (X%). K tests generated, J committed.\``);
|
||||
Coverage line: \`Test Coverage Audit: N new code paths. M covered (X%). K tests generated, J committed.\`
|
||||
|
||||
**7. Coverage gate:**
|
||||
|
||||
Before proceeding, check CLAUDE.md for a \`## Test Coverage\` section with \`Minimum:\` and \`Target:\` fields. If found, use those percentages. Otherwise use defaults: Minimum = 60%, Target = 80%.
|
||||
|
||||
Using the coverage percentage from the diagram in substep 4 (the \`COVERAGE: X/Y (Z%)\` line):
|
||||
|
||||
- **>= target:** Pass. "Coverage gate: PASS ({X}%)." Continue.
|
||||
- **>= minimum, < target:** Use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
- "AI-assessed coverage is {X}%. {N} code paths are untested. Target is {target}%."
|
||||
- RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because untested code paths are where production bugs hide.
|
||||
- Options:
|
||||
A) Generate more tests for remaining gaps (recommended)
|
||||
B) Ship anyway — I accept the coverage risk
|
||||
C) These paths don't need tests — mark as intentionally uncovered
|
||||
- If A: Loop back to substep 5 (generate tests) targeting the remaining gaps. After second pass, if still below target, present AskUserQuestion again with updated numbers. Maximum 2 generation passes total.
|
||||
- If B: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: {X}% — user accepted risk."
|
||||
- If C: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: {X}% — {N} paths intentionally uncovered."
|
||||
|
||||
- **< minimum:** Use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
- "AI-assessed coverage is critically low ({X}%). {N} of {M} code paths have no tests. Minimum threshold is {minimum}%."
|
||||
- RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because less than {minimum}% means more code is untested than tested.
|
||||
- Options:
|
||||
A) Generate tests for remaining gaps (recommended)
|
||||
B) Override — ship with low coverage (I understand the risk)
|
||||
- If A: Loop back to substep 5. Maximum 2 passes. If still below minimum after 2 passes, present the override choice again.
|
||||
- If B: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: OVERRIDDEN at {X}%."
|
||||
|
||||
**Coverage percentage undetermined:** If the coverage diagram doesn't produce a clear numeric percentage (ambiguous output, parse error), **skip the gate** with: "Coverage gate: could not determine percentage — skipping." Do not default to 0% or block.
|
||||
|
||||
**Test-only diffs:** Skip the gate (same as the existing fast-path).
|
||||
|
||||
**100% coverage:** "Coverage gate: PASS (100%)." Continue.`);
|
||||
|
||||
// ── Test plan artifact (ship mode) ──
|
||||
sections.push(`
|
||||
@@ -504,7 +537,22 @@ If test framework is detected and gaps were identified:
|
||||
|
||||
If no test framework detected → include gaps as INFORMATIONAL findings only, no generation.
|
||||
|
||||
**Diff is test-only changes:** Skip Step 4.75 entirely: "No new application code paths to audit."`);
|
||||
**Diff is test-only changes:** Skip Step 4.75 entirely: "No new application code paths to audit."
|
||||
|
||||
### Coverage Warning
|
||||
|
||||
After producing the coverage diagram, check the coverage percentage. Read CLAUDE.md for a \`## Test Coverage\` section with a \`Minimum:\` field. If not found, use default: 60%.
|
||||
|
||||
If coverage is below the minimum threshold, output a prominent warning **before** the regular review findings:
|
||||
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
⚠️ COVERAGE WARNING: AI-assessed coverage is {X}%. {N} code paths untested.
|
||||
Consider writing tests before running /ship.
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
This is INFORMATIONAL — does not block /review. But it makes low coverage visible early so the developer can address it before reaching the /ship coverage gate.
|
||||
|
||||
If coverage percentage cannot be determined, skip the warning silently.`);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return sections.join('\n');
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user