feat: test coverage catalog — shared audit across plan/ship/review (v0.10.1.0) (#259)

* refactor: extract {{TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT}} shared resolver DRY extraction of the test coverage audit methodology into a shared generator function with three explicit placeholders: - TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT_PLAN (plan-eng-review) - TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT_SHIP (ship) - TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT_REVIEW (review) Shared across all modes: codepath tracing, ASCII diagram format, quality scoring rubric, E2E test decision matrix, regression rule, and test framework detection via CLAUDE.md. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * refactor: plan-eng-review uses shared test coverage audit Replace the thin 6-line Section 3 test review with the full shared methodology via {{TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT_PLAN}}. Plan mode now: - Traces every codepath with full ASCII diagrams - Adds missing tests to the plan (not just "check for tests") - Writes test plan artifact for /qa consumption - Includes E2E/eval recommendations and regression detection Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * refactor: ship uses shared test coverage audit Replace 135 lines of inline Step 3.4 methodology with {{TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT_SHIP}}. Functionally identical output plus: - E2E test decision matrix (marks paths needing E2E vs unit) - Eval recommendations for LLM prompt changes - Regression detection iron rule - Test framework detection via CLAUDE.md first - Test plan artifact for /qa consumption Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * feat: /review Step 4.75 test coverage diagram Add codepath tracing to the pre-landing review via {{TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT_REVIEW}}. Review mode: - Produces ASCII coverage diagram (same methodology as plan/ship) - Generates tests for gaps via Fix-First (ASK user) - Subsumes Pass 2 "Test Gaps" checklist category - Gaps are INFORMATIONAL findings Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * test: mode differentiation + regression guard for coverage audit 10 new tests verifying the three TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT placeholders: - All modes share: codepath tracing, E2E matrix, regression rule - Plan mode: adds to plan + artifact, no ship-specific content - Ship mode: auto-generates + before/after count + coverage summary - Review mode: Fix-First ASK + INFORMATIONAL, no artifact - Regression guard: ship SKILL.md preserves all key phrases Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * test: extract shared coverage audit fixture + review E2E - Extract billing.ts fixture into coverage-audit-fixture.ts (DRY) - Refactor ship-coverage-audit E2E to use shared fixture - Add review-coverage-audit E2E for Step 4.75 - Update touchfiles: both E2Es depend on shared fixture Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * fix: strengthen E2E assertions for coverage audit tests The coverage audit E2E tests (ship + review) were only asserting exitReason === 'success' and readCalls > 0 — they passed even if the agent produced no coverage diagram. Add assertion that the output contains either GAP or TESTED markers. Found during /review. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * fix: plan mode traces the plan, not the git diff Codex adversarial review caught that plan-eng-review was inheriting "git diff origin/<base>...HEAD" from the shared resolver, but plan mode reviews a plan document, not a code diff. Plan mode now says: "Trace every codepath in the plan" and "Read the plan document." Ship and review modes keep the git diff instruction. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * chore: bump version and changelog (v0.9.5.0) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> * feat: test coverage catalog + failure triage (merged branches) (#285) * feat: add bin/gstack-repo-mode — solo vs collaborative detection with caching Detects whether a repo is solo-dev (one person does 80%+ of recent commits) or collaborative. Uses 90-day git shortlog window with 7-day cache in ~/.gstack/projects/{SLUG}/repo-mode.json. Config override via `gstack-config set repo_mode solo|collaborative` takes precedence over the heuristic. Minimum 5 commits required to classify (otherwise unknown). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * feat: test failure ownership triage — see something say something Adds two new preamble sections to all gstack skills: - Repo Ownership Mode: explains solo vs collaborative behavior - See Something, Say Something: proactive issue flagging principle Adds {{TEST_FAILURE_TRIAGE}} template variable (opt-in, used by /ship): - Classifies test failures as in-branch vs pre-existing - Solo mode defaults to "investigate and fix now" - Collaborative mode offers "blame + assign GitHub issue" option - Also offers P0 TODO and skip options /ship Step 3 now triages test failures instead of hard-stopping on all failures. In-branch failures still block shipping. Pre-existing failures get user-directed triage based on repo mode. Adds P2 TODO for gstack notes system (deferred lightweight reminder). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * chore: regenerate SKILL.md files for Claude and Codex hosts All 22 Claude skills and 21 Codex skills regenerated with new preamble sections (Repo Ownership Mode, See Something Say Something) and {{TEST_FAILURE_TRIAGE}} resolved in ship/SKILL.md. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * fix: validate repo mode values to prevent shell injection Codex adversarial review found that unvalidated config/cache values could be injected into shell via source <(gstack-repo-mode). Added validate_mode() that only allows solo|collaborative|unknown — anything else becomes "unknown". Prevents persistent code execution through malicious config.yaml or tampered cache JSON. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * fix: shell injection via branch names + feature-branch sampling bias Codex code review found two issues: P1: eval $(gstack-slug) in gstack-repo-mode executes branch names as shell. Branch names like foo$(touch${IFS}pwned) are valid git refs and would execute arbitrary commands. Fix: compute SLUG directly with sed instead of eval'ing gstack-slug output. P2: git shortlog HEAD only sees current branch history. On feature branches that haven't merged main recently, other contributors disappear from the sample. Fix: use git shortlog on the default branch (origin/main) instead of HEAD. Also improved blame lookup in collaborative triage to check both the test file and the production code it covers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * fix: broaden codex-host stripping test to accommodate triage section "Investigate and fix" now appears in TEST_FAILURE_TRIAGE (not just the Codex review step). Use CODEX_REVIEWS config string as a more specific marker for detecting the Codex review step in Codex-hosted skills. * fix: replace template placeholder in TODOS.md with readable text {{TEST_FAILURE_TRIAGE}} is template syntax but TODOS.md is not processed by gen-skill-docs — replaced with human-readable reference. * chore: bump version and changelog (v0.9.5.0) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> * docs: add bin/ directory to project structure in CLAUDE.md * test: add triage resolver unit tests, plan-eng coverage audit E2E, and triage E2E - TEST_FAILURE_TRIAGE resolver: 6 unit tests verifying all triage steps (T1-T4), REPO_MODE branching, and safety default for ambiguous failures - plan-eng-coverage-audit E2E: tests /plan-eng-review coverage audit codepath (gap identified during eng review — existed on neither branch) - ship-triage E2E: planted-bug fixture with in-branch (truncate null) and pre-existing (divide-by-zero) failures; verifies correct classification - Touchfile entries for diff-based test selection Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * chore: regenerate stale Codex SKILL.md for retro Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * fix: gstack-repo-mode handles repos without origin remote Split `git remote get-url origin` into a separate variable with `|| true` so the script doesn't crash under `set -euo pipefail` in local-only repos. Falls back to REPO_MODE=unknown gracefully. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * fix: REPO_MODE defaults to unknown when helper emits nothing Changed preamble from `source <(...) || REPO_MODE=unknown` (which doesn't catch empty output) to `source <(...) || true` followed by `REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}`. Regenerated all SKILL.md files. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * fix: triage E2E runs both test files in subprocesses math.test.js called process.exit(1) which killed the runner before string.test.js could execute. Changed test runner to use child_process so each test runs independently and both failure classes are exercised. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * fix: gstack-repo-mode handles repos without origin remote Fall back through origin/main → origin/master → HEAD when git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD is not set. Prevents shortlog crash in repos where origin/HEAD isn't configured. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * fix: triage E2E runs both test files in subprocesses Add assertions verifying both math.test.js (pre-existing failure) and string.test.js (in-branch failure) actually executed during triage. Prevents false passes where only one failure class is exercised. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * fix: REPO_MODE defaults to unknown when helper emits nothing - Remove head -20 truncation that biased solo classification by dropping low-volume contributors from the denominator - Use atomic write (mktemp + mv) for cache to prevent concurrent preamble reads from seeing partial JSON Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * docs: add test coverage catalog to CHANGELOG + update project structure - CHANGELOG: add 6 entries for coverage audit, review Step 4.75, E2E recommendations, regression iron rule, failure triage, repo-mode fix - CLAUDE.md: add missing skill directories (autoplan, benchmark, canary, codex, land-and-deploy, setup-deploy) to project structure Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * chore: bump version and changelog (v0.10.1.0) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * docs: CHANGELOG rules — branch-scoped versions, never fold into old entries Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-05-01 19:25:10 +02:00 · 2026-03-22 11:28:16 -07:00
parent 407b156920
commit 7ff0f84b1e
54 changed files with 5949 additions and 205 deletions
@@ -24,6 +24,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -124,6 +127,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -25,6 +25,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -125,6 +128,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -24,6 +24,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -124,6 +127,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -26,6 +26,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -126,6 +129,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -26,6 +26,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -126,6 +129,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -24,6 +24,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -124,6 +127,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -27,6 +27,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -127,6 +130,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -23,6 +23,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -123,6 +126,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -28,6 +28,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -128,6 +131,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -27,6 +27,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -127,6 +130,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -26,6 +26,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -126,6 +129,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -25,6 +25,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -125,6 +128,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -380,15 +395,174 @@ Evaluate:
 **STOP.** For each issue found in this section, call AskUserQuestion individually. One issue per call. Present options, state your recommendation, explain WHY. Do NOT batch multiple issues into one AskUserQuestion. Only proceed to the next section after ALL issues in this section are resolved.

 ### 3. Test review
-Make a diagram of all new UX, new data flow, new codepaths, and new branching if statements or outcomes. For each, note what is new about the features discussed in this branch and plan. Then, for each new item in the diagram, make sure there is a corresponding test.

-For LLM/prompt changes: check the "Prompt/LLM changes" file patterns listed in CLAUDE.md. If this plan touches ANY of those patterns, state which eval suites must be run, which cases should be added, and what baselines to compare against. Then use AskUserQuestion to confirm the eval scope with the user.
+100% coverage is the goal. Evaluate every codepath in the plan and ensure the plan includes tests for each one. If the plan is missing tests, add them — the plan should be complete enough that implementation includes full test coverage from the start.

-**STOP.** For each issue found in this section, call AskUserQuestion individually. One issue per call. Present options, state your recommendation, explain WHY. Do NOT batch multiple issues into one AskUserQuestion. Only proceed to the next section after ALL issues in this section are resolved.
+### Test Framework Detection
+
+Before analyzing coverage, detect the project's test framework:
+
+1. **Read CLAUDE.md** — look for a `## Testing` section with test command and framework name. If found, use that as the authoritative source.
+2. **If CLAUDE.md has no testing section, auto-detect:**
+
+```bash
+# Detect project runtime
+[ -f Gemfile ] && echo "RUNTIME:ruby"
+[ -f package.json ] && echo "RUNTIME:node"
+[ -f requirements.txt ] || [ -f pyproject.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:python"
+[ -f go.mod ] && echo "RUNTIME:go"
+[ -f Cargo.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:rust"
+# Check for existing test infrastructure
+ls jest.config.* vitest.config.* playwright.config.* cypress.config.* .rspec pytest.ini phpunit.xml 2>/dev/null
+ls -d test/ tests/ spec/ __tests__/ cypress/ e2e/ 2>/dev/null
+```
+
+3. **If no framework detected:** still produce the coverage diagram, but skip test generation.
+
+**Step 1. Trace every codepath in the plan:**
+
+Read the plan document. For each new feature, service, endpoint, or component described, trace how data will flow through the code — don't just list planned functions, actually follow the planned execution:
+
+1. **Read the plan.** For each planned component, understand what it does and how it connects to existing code.
+2. **Trace data flow.** Starting from each entry point (route handler, exported function, event listener, component render), follow the data through every branch:
+   - Where does input come from? (request params, props, database, API call)
+   - What transforms it? (validation, mapping, computation)
+   - Where does it go? (database write, API response, rendered output, side effect)
+   - What can go wrong at each step? (null/undefined, invalid input, network failure, empty collection)
+3. **Diagram the execution.** For each changed file, draw an ASCII diagram showing:
+   - Every function/method that was added or modified
+   - Every conditional branch (if/else, switch, ternary, guard clause, early return)
+   - Every error path (try/catch, rescue, error boundary, fallback)
+   - Every call to another function (trace into it — does IT have untested branches?)
+   - Every edge: what happens with null input? Empty array? Invalid type?
+
+This is the critical step — you're building a map of every line of code that can execute differently based on input. Every branch in this diagram needs a test.
+
+**Step 2. Map user flows, interactions, and error states:**
+
+Code coverage isn't enough — you need to cover how real users interact with the changed code. For each changed feature, think through:
+
+- **User flows:** What sequence of actions does a user take that touches this code? Map the full journey (e.g., "user clicks 'Pay' → form validates → API call → success/failure screen"). Each step in the journey needs a test.
+- **Interaction edge cases:** What happens when the user does something unexpected?
+  - Double-click/rapid resubmit
+  - Navigate away mid-operation (back button, close tab, click another link)
+  - Submit with stale data (page sat open for 30 minutes, session expired)
+  - Slow connection (API takes 10 seconds — what does the user see?)
+  - Concurrent actions (two tabs, same form)
+- **Error states the user can see:** For every error the code handles, what does the user actually experience?
+  - Is there a clear error message or a silent failure?
+  - Can the user recover (retry, go back, fix input) or are they stuck?
+  - What happens with no network? With a 500 from the API? With invalid data from the server?
+- **Empty/zero/boundary states:** What does the UI show with zero results? With 10,000 results? With a single character input? With maximum-length input?
+
+Add these to your diagram alongside the code branches. A user flow with no test is just as much a gap as an untested if/else.
+
+**Step 3. Check each branch against existing tests:**
+
+Go through your diagram branch by branch — both code paths AND user flows. For each one, search for a test that exercises it:
+- Function `processPayment()` → look for `billing.test.ts`, `billing.spec.ts`, `test/billing_test.rb`
+- An if/else → look for tests covering BOTH the true AND false path
+- An error handler → look for a test that triggers that specific error condition
+- A call to `helperFn()` that has its own branches → those branches need tests too
+- A user flow → look for an integration or E2E test that walks through the journey
+- An interaction edge case → look for a test that simulates the unexpected action
+
+Quality scoring rubric:
+- ★★★  Tests behavior with edge cases AND error paths
+- ★★   Tests correct behavior, happy path only
+- ★    Smoke test / existence check / trivial assertion (e.g., "it renders", "it doesn't throw")
+
+### E2E Test Decision Matrix
+
+When checking each branch, also determine whether a unit test or E2E/integration test is the right tool:
+
+**RECOMMEND E2E (mark as [→E2E] in the diagram):**
+- Common user flow spanning 3+ components/services (e.g., signup → verify email → first login)
+- Integration point where mocking hides real failures (e.g., API → queue → worker → DB)
+- Auth/payment/data-destruction flows — too important to trust unit tests alone
+
+**RECOMMEND EVAL (mark as [→EVAL] in the diagram):**
+- Critical LLM call that needs a quality eval (e.g., prompt change → test output still meets quality bar)
+- Changes to prompt templates, system instructions, or tool definitions
+
+**STICK WITH UNIT TESTS:**
+- Pure function with clear inputs/outputs
+- Internal helper with no side effects
+- Edge case of a single function (null input, empty array)
+- Obscure/rare flow that isn't customer-facing
+
+### REGRESSION RULE (mandatory)
+
+**IRON RULE:** When the coverage audit identifies a REGRESSION — code that previously worked but the diff broke — a regression test is added to the plan as a critical requirement. No AskUserQuestion. No skipping. Regressions are the highest-priority test because they prove something broke.
+
+A regression is when:
+- The diff modifies existing behavior (not new code)
+- The existing test suite (if any) doesn't cover the changed path
+- The change introduces a new failure mode for existing callers
+
+When uncertain whether a change is a regression, err on the side of writing the test.
+
+**Step 4. Output ASCII coverage diagram:**
+
+Include BOTH code paths and user flows in the same diagram. Mark E2E-worthy and eval-worthy paths:
+
+```
+CODE PATH COVERAGE
+===========================
+[+] src/services/billing.ts
+    │
+    ├── processPayment()
+    │   ├── [★★★ TESTED] Happy path + card declined + timeout — billing.test.ts:42
+    │   ├── [GAP]         Network timeout — NO TEST
+    │   └── [GAP]         Invalid currency — NO TEST
+    │
+    └── refundPayment()
+        ├── [★★  TESTED] Full refund — billing.test.ts:89
+        └── [★   TESTED] Partial refund (checks non-throw only) — billing.test.ts:101
+
+USER FLOW COVERAGE
+===========================
+[+] Payment checkout flow
+    │
+    ├── [★★★ TESTED] Complete purchase — checkout.e2e.ts:15
+    ├── [GAP] [→E2E] Double-click submit — needs E2E, not just unit
+    ├── [GAP]         Navigate away during payment — unit test sufficient
+    └── [★   TESTED]  Form validation errors (checks render only) — checkout.test.ts:40
+
+[+] Error states
+    │
+    ├── [★★  TESTED] Card declined message — billing.test.ts:58
+    ├── [GAP]         Network timeout UX (what does user see?) — NO TEST
+    └── [GAP]         Empty cart submission — NO TEST
+
+[+] LLM integration
+    │
+    └── [GAP] [→EVAL] Prompt template change — needs eval test
+
+─────────────────────────────────
+COVERAGE: 5/13 paths tested (38%)
+  Code paths: 3/5 (60%)
+  User flows: 2/8 (25%)
+QUALITY:  ★★★: 2  ★★: 2  ★: 1
+GAPS: 8 paths need tests (2 need E2E, 1 needs eval)
+─────────────────────────────────
+```
+
+**Fast path:** All paths covered → "Test review: All new code paths have test coverage ✓" Continue.
+
+**Step 5. Add missing tests to the plan:**
+
+For each GAP identified in the diagram, add a test requirement to the plan. Be specific:
+- What test file to create (match existing naming conventions)
+- What the test should assert (specific inputs → expected outputs/behavior)
+- Whether it's a unit test, E2E test, or eval (use the decision matrix)
+- For regressions: flag as **CRITICAL** and explain what broke
+
+The plan should be complete enough that when implementation begins, every test is written alongside the feature code — not deferred to a follow-up.

 ### Test Plan Artifact

-After producing the test diagram, write a test plan artifact to the project directory so `/qa` and `/qa-only` can consume it as primary test input (replacing the lossy git-diff heuristic):
+After producing the coverage diagram, write a test plan artifact to the project directory so `/qa` and `/qa-only` can consume it as primary test input:

 ```bash
 source <(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null) && mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG
@@ -396,7 +570,7 @@ USER=$(whoami)
 DATETIME=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)
 ```

-Write to `~/.gstack/projects/{slug}/{user}-{branch}-test-plan-{datetime}.md`:
+Write to `~/.gstack/projects/{slug}/{user}-{branch}-eng-review-test-plan-{datetime}.md`:

 ```markdown
 # Test Plan
@@ -419,6 +593,10 @@ Repo: {owner/repo}

 This file is consumed by `/qa` and `/qa-only` as primary test input. Include only the information that helps a QA tester know **what to test and where** — not implementation details.

+For LLM/prompt changes: check the "Prompt/LLM changes" file patterns listed in CLAUDE.md. If this plan touches ANY of those patterns, state which eval suites must be run, which cases should be added, and what baselines to compare against. Then use AskUserQuestion to confirm the eval scope with the user.
+
+**STOP.** For each issue found in this section, call AskUserQuestion individually. One issue per call. Present options, state your recommendation, explain WHY. Do NOT batch multiple issues into one AskUserQuestion. Only proceed to the next section after ALL issues in this section are resolved.
+
 ### 4. Performance review
 Evaluate:
 * N+1 queries and database access patterns.
@@ -24,6 +24,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -124,6 +127,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -27,6 +27,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -127,6 +130,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -24,6 +24,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -124,6 +127,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -23,6 +23,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -123,6 +126,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -389,6 +404,183 @@ Include any design findings alongside the findings from Step 4. They follow the

 ---

+## Step 4.75: Test Coverage Diagram
+
+100% coverage is the goal. Evaluate every codepath changed in the diff and identify test gaps. Gaps become INFORMATIONAL findings that follow the Fix-First flow.
+
+### Test Framework Detection
+
+Before analyzing coverage, detect the project's test framework:
+
+1. **Read CLAUDE.md** — look for a `## Testing` section with test command and framework name. If found, use that as the authoritative source.
+2. **If CLAUDE.md has no testing section, auto-detect:**
+
+```bash
+# Detect project runtime
+[ -f Gemfile ] && echo "RUNTIME:ruby"
+[ -f package.json ] && echo "RUNTIME:node"
+[ -f requirements.txt ] || [ -f pyproject.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:python"
+[ -f go.mod ] && echo "RUNTIME:go"
+[ -f Cargo.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:rust"
+# Check for existing test infrastructure
+ls jest.config.* vitest.config.* playwright.config.* cypress.config.* .rspec pytest.ini phpunit.xml 2>/dev/null
+ls -d test/ tests/ spec/ __tests__/ cypress/ e2e/ 2>/dev/null
+```
+
+3. **If no framework detected:** still produce the coverage diagram, but skip test generation.
+
+**Step 1. Trace every codepath changed** using `git diff origin/<base>...HEAD`:
+
+Read every changed file. For each one, trace how data flows through the code — don't just list functions, actually follow the execution:
+
+1. **Read the diff.** For each changed file, read the full file (not just the diff hunk) to understand context.
+2. **Trace data flow.** Starting from each entry point (route handler, exported function, event listener, component render), follow the data through every branch:
+   - Where does input come from? (request params, props, database, API call)
+   - What transforms it? (validation, mapping, computation)
+   - Where does it go? (database write, API response, rendered output, side effect)
+   - What can go wrong at each step? (null/undefined, invalid input, network failure, empty collection)
+3. **Diagram the execution.** For each changed file, draw an ASCII diagram showing:
+   - Every function/method that was added or modified
+   - Every conditional branch (if/else, switch, ternary, guard clause, early return)
+   - Every error path (try/catch, rescue, error boundary, fallback)
+   - Every call to another function (trace into it — does IT have untested branches?)
+   - Every edge: what happens with null input? Empty array? Invalid type?
+
+This is the critical step — you're building a map of every line of code that can execute differently based on input. Every branch in this diagram needs a test.
+
+**Step 2. Map user flows, interactions, and error states:**
+
+Code coverage isn't enough — you need to cover how real users interact with the changed code. For each changed feature, think through:
+
+- **User flows:** What sequence of actions does a user take that touches this code? Map the full journey (e.g., "user clicks 'Pay' → form validates → API call → success/failure screen"). Each step in the journey needs a test.
+- **Interaction edge cases:** What happens when the user does something unexpected?
+  - Double-click/rapid resubmit
+  - Navigate away mid-operation (back button, close tab, click another link)
+  - Submit with stale data (page sat open for 30 minutes, session expired)
+  - Slow connection (API takes 10 seconds — what does the user see?)
+  - Concurrent actions (two tabs, same form)
+- **Error states the user can see:** For every error the code handles, what does the user actually experience?
+  - Is there a clear error message or a silent failure?
+  - Can the user recover (retry, go back, fix input) or are they stuck?
+  - What happens with no network? With a 500 from the API? With invalid data from the server?
+- **Empty/zero/boundary states:** What does the UI show with zero results? With 10,000 results? With a single character input? With maximum-length input?
+
+Add these to your diagram alongside the code branches. A user flow with no test is just as much a gap as an untested if/else.
+
+**Step 3. Check each branch against existing tests:**
+
+Go through your diagram branch by branch — both code paths AND user flows. For each one, search for a test that exercises it:
+- Function `processPayment()` → look for `billing.test.ts`, `billing.spec.ts`, `test/billing_test.rb`
+- An if/else → look for tests covering BOTH the true AND false path
+- An error handler → look for a test that triggers that specific error condition
+- A call to `helperFn()` that has its own branches → those branches need tests too
+- A user flow → look for an integration or E2E test that walks through the journey
+- An interaction edge case → look for a test that simulates the unexpected action
+
+Quality scoring rubric:
+- ★★★  Tests behavior with edge cases AND error paths
+- ★★   Tests correct behavior, happy path only
+- ★    Smoke test / existence check / trivial assertion (e.g., "it renders", "it doesn't throw")
+
+### E2E Test Decision Matrix
+
+When checking each branch, also determine whether a unit test or E2E/integration test is the right tool:
+
+**RECOMMEND E2E (mark as [→E2E] in the diagram):**
+- Common user flow spanning 3+ components/services (e.g., signup → verify email → first login)
+- Integration point where mocking hides real failures (e.g., API → queue → worker → DB)
+- Auth/payment/data-destruction flows — too important to trust unit tests alone
+
+**RECOMMEND EVAL (mark as [→EVAL] in the diagram):**
+- Critical LLM call that needs a quality eval (e.g., prompt change → test output still meets quality bar)
+- Changes to prompt templates, system instructions, or tool definitions
+
+**STICK WITH UNIT TESTS:**
+- Pure function with clear inputs/outputs
+- Internal helper with no side effects
+- Edge case of a single function (null input, empty array)
+- Obscure/rare flow that isn't customer-facing
+
+### REGRESSION RULE (mandatory)
+
+**IRON RULE:** When the coverage audit identifies a REGRESSION — code that previously worked but the diff broke — a regression test is written immediately. No AskUserQuestion. No skipping. Regressions are the highest-priority test because they prove something broke.
+
+A regression is when:
+- The diff modifies existing behavior (not new code)
+- The existing test suite (if any) doesn't cover the changed path
+- The change introduces a new failure mode for existing callers
+
+When uncertain whether a change is a regression, err on the side of writing the test.
+
+Format: commit as `test: regression test for {what broke}`
+
+**Step 4. Output ASCII coverage diagram:**
+
+Include BOTH code paths and user flows in the same diagram. Mark E2E-worthy and eval-worthy paths:
+
+```
+CODE PATH COVERAGE
+===========================
+[+] src/services/billing.ts
+    │
+    ├── processPayment()
+    │   ├── [★★★ TESTED] Happy path + card declined + timeout — billing.test.ts:42
+    │   ├── [GAP]         Network timeout — NO TEST
+    │   └── [GAP]         Invalid currency — NO TEST
+    │
+    └── refundPayment()
+        ├── [★★  TESTED] Full refund — billing.test.ts:89
+        └── [★   TESTED] Partial refund (checks non-throw only) — billing.test.ts:101
+
+USER FLOW COVERAGE
+===========================
+[+] Payment checkout flow
+    │
+    ├── [★★★ TESTED] Complete purchase — checkout.e2e.ts:15
+    ├── [GAP] [→E2E] Double-click submit — needs E2E, not just unit
+    ├── [GAP]         Navigate away during payment — unit test sufficient
+    └── [★   TESTED]  Form validation errors (checks render only) — checkout.test.ts:40
+
+[+] Error states
+    │
+    ├── [★★  TESTED] Card declined message — billing.test.ts:58
+    ├── [GAP]         Network timeout UX (what does user see?) — NO TEST
+    └── [GAP]         Empty cart submission — NO TEST
+
+[+] LLM integration
+    │
+    └── [GAP] [→EVAL] Prompt template change — needs eval test
+
+─────────────────────────────────
+COVERAGE: 5/13 paths tested (38%)
+  Code paths: 3/5 (60%)
+  User flows: 2/8 (25%)
+QUALITY:  ★★★: 2  ★★: 2  ★: 1
+GAPS: 8 paths need tests (2 need E2E, 1 needs eval)
+─────────────────────────────────
+```
+
+**Fast path:** All paths covered → "Step 4.75: All new code paths have test coverage ✓" Continue.
+
+**Step 5. Generate tests for gaps (Fix-First):**
+
+If test framework is detected and gaps were identified:
+- Classify each gap as AUTO-FIX or ASK per the Fix-First Heuristic:
+  - **AUTO-FIX:** Simple unit tests for pure functions, edge cases of existing tested functions
+  - **ASK:** E2E tests, tests requiring new test infrastructure, tests for ambiguous behavior
+- For AUTO-FIX gaps: generate the test, run it, commit as `test: coverage for {feature}`
+- For ASK gaps: include in the Fix-First batch question with the other review findings
+- For paths marked [→E2E]: always ASK (E2E tests are higher-effort and need user confirmation)
+- For paths marked [→EVAL]: always ASK (eval tests need user confirmation on quality criteria)
+
+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."
+
+This step subsumes the "Test Gaps" category from Pass 2 — do not duplicate findings between the checklist Test Gaps item and this coverage diagram. Include any coverage gaps alongside the findings from Step 4 and Step 4.5. They follow the same Fix-First flow — gaps are INFORMATIONAL findings.
+
+---
+
 ## Step 5: Fix-First Review

 **Every finding gets action — not just critical ones.**
@@ -23,6 +23,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -123,6 +126,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -25,6 +25,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -125,6 +128,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -21,6 +21,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -121,6 +124,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -257,7 +272,7 @@ You are running the `/ship` workflow. This is a **non-interactive, fully automat
 **Only stop for:**
 - On the base branch (abort)
 - Merge conflicts that can't be auto-resolved (stop, show conflicts)
- Test failures (stop, show failures)
+- In-branch test failures (pre-existing failures are triaged, not auto-blocking)
 - Pre-landing review finds ASK items that need user judgment
 - MINOR or MAJOR version bump needed (ask — see Step 4)
 - Greptile review comments that need user decision (complex fixes, false positives)
@@ -541,7 +556,105 @@ wait

 After both complete, read the output files and check pass/fail.

-**If any test fails:** Show the failures and **STOP**. Do not proceed.
+**If any test fails:** Do NOT immediately stop. Apply the Test Failure Ownership Triage:
+
+## Test Failure Ownership Triage
+
+When tests fail, do NOT immediately stop. First, determine ownership:
+
+### Step T1: Classify each failure
+
+For each failing test:
+
+1. **Get the files changed on this branch:**
+   ```bash
+   git diff origin/<base>...HEAD --name-only
+   ```
+
+2. **Classify the failure:**
+   - **In-branch** if: the failing test file itself was modified on this branch, OR the test output references code that was changed on this branch, OR you can trace the failure to a change in the branch diff.
+   - **Likely pre-existing** if: neither the test file nor the code it tests was modified on this branch, AND the failure is unrelated to any branch change you can identify.
+   - **When ambiguous, default to in-branch.** It is safer to stop the developer than to let a broken test ship. Only classify as pre-existing when you are confident.
+
+   This classification is heuristic — use your judgment reading the diff and the test output. You do not have a programmatic dependency graph.
+
+### Step T2: Handle in-branch failures
+
+**STOP.** These are your failures. Show them and do not proceed. The developer must fix their own broken tests before shipping.
+
+### Step T3: Handle pre-existing failures
+
+Check `REPO_MODE` from the preamble output.
+
+**If REPO_MODE is `solo`:**
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+
+> These test failures appear pre-existing (not caused by your branch changes):
+>
+> [list each failure with file:line and brief error description]
+>
+> Since this is a solo repo, you're the only one who will fix these.
+>
+> RECOMMENDATION: Choose A — fix now while the context is fresh. Completeness: 9/10.
+> A) Investigate and fix now (human: ~2-4h / CC: ~15min) — Completeness: 10/10
+> B) Add as P0 TODO — fix after this branch lands — Completeness: 7/10
+> C) Skip — I know about this, ship anyway — Completeness: 3/10
+
+**If REPO_MODE is `collaborative` or `unknown`:**
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+
+> These test failures appear pre-existing (not caused by your branch changes):
+>
+> [list each failure with file:line and brief error description]
+>
+> This is a collaborative repo — these may be someone else's responsibility.
+>
+> RECOMMENDATION: Choose B — assign it to whoever broke it so the right person fixes it. Completeness: 9/10.
+> A) Investigate and fix now anyway — Completeness: 10/10
+> B) Blame + assign GitHub issue to the author — Completeness: 9/10
+> C) Add as P0 TODO — Completeness: 7/10
+> D) Skip — ship anyway — Completeness: 3/10
+
+### Step T4: Execute the chosen action
+
+**If "Investigate and fix now":**
+- Switch to /investigate mindset: root cause first, then minimal fix.
+- Fix the pre-existing failure.
+- Commit the fix separately from the branch's changes: `git commit -m "fix: pre-existing test failure in <test-file>"`
+- Continue with the workflow.
+
+**If "Add as P0 TODO":**
+- If `TODOS.md` exists, add the entry following the format in `review/TODOS-format.md` (or `.agents/skills/gstack/review/TODOS-format.md`).
+- If `TODOS.md` does not exist, create it with the standard header and add the entry.
+- Entry should include: title, the error output, which branch it was noticed on, and priority P0.
+- Continue with the workflow — treat the pre-existing failure as non-blocking.
+
+**If "Blame + assign GitHub issue" (collaborative only):**
+- Find who likely broke it. Check BOTH the test file AND the production code it tests:
+  ```bash
+  # Who last touched the failing test?
+  git log --format="%an (%ae)" -1 -- <failing-test-file>
+  # Who last touched the production code the test covers? (often the actual breaker)
+  git log --format="%an (%ae)" -1 -- <source-file-under-test>
+  ```
+  If these are different people, prefer the production code author — they likely introduced the regression.
+- Create a GitHub issue assigned to that person:
+  ```bash
+  gh issue create \
+    --title "Pre-existing test failure: <test-name>" \
+    --body "Found failing on branch <current-branch>. Failure is pre-existing.\n\n**Error:**\n```\n<first 10 lines>\n```\n\n**Last modified by:** <author>\n**Noticed by:** gstack /ship on <date>" \
+    --assignee "<github-username>"
+  ```
+- If `gh` is not available or `--assignee` fails (user not in org, etc.), create the issue without assignee and note who should look at it in the body.
+- Continue with the workflow.
+
+**If "Skip":**
+- Continue with the workflow.
+- Note in output: "Pre-existing test failure skipped: <test-name>"
+
+**After triage:** If any in-branch failures remain unfixed, **STOP**. Do not proceed. If all failures were pre-existing and handled (fixed, TODOed, assigned, or skipped), continue to Step 3.25.

 **If all pass:** Continue silently — just note the counts briefly.

@@ -613,6 +726,27 @@ If multiple suites need to run, run them sequentially (each needs a test lane).

 100% coverage is the goal — every untested path is a path where bugs hide and vibe coding becomes yolo coding. Evaluate what was ACTUALLY coded (from the diff), not what was planned.

+### Test Framework Detection
+
+Before analyzing coverage, detect the project's test framework:
+
+1. **Read CLAUDE.md** — look for a `## Testing` section with test command and framework name. If found, use that as the authoritative source.
+2. **If CLAUDE.md has no testing section, auto-detect:**
+
+```bash
+# Detect project runtime
+[ -f Gemfile ] && echo "RUNTIME:ruby"
+[ -f package.json ] && echo "RUNTIME:node"
+[ -f requirements.txt ] || [ -f pyproject.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:python"
+[ -f go.mod ] && echo "RUNTIME:go"
+[ -f Cargo.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:rust"
+# Check for existing test infrastructure
+ls jest.config.* vitest.config.* playwright.config.* cypress.config.* .rspec pytest.ini phpunit.xml 2>/dev/null
+ls -d test/ tests/ spec/ __tests__/ cypress/ e2e/ 2>/dev/null
+```
+
+3. **If no framework detected:** falls through to the Test Framework Bootstrap step (Step 2.5) which handles full setup.
+
 **0. Before/after test count:**

 ```bash
@@ -675,9 +809,41 @@ Quality scoring rubric:
 - ★★   Tests correct behavior, happy path only
 - ★    Smoke test / existence check / trivial assertion (e.g., "it renders", "it doesn't throw")

+### E2E Test Decision Matrix
+
+When checking each branch, also determine whether a unit test or E2E/integration test is the right tool:
+
+**RECOMMEND E2E (mark as [→E2E] in the diagram):**
+- Common user flow spanning 3+ components/services (e.g., signup → verify email → first login)
+- Integration point where mocking hides real failures (e.g., API → queue → worker → DB)
+- Auth/payment/data-destruction flows — too important to trust unit tests alone
+
+**RECOMMEND EVAL (mark as [→EVAL] in the diagram):**
+- Critical LLM call that needs a quality eval (e.g., prompt change → test output still meets quality bar)
+- Changes to prompt templates, system instructions, or tool definitions
+
+**STICK WITH UNIT TESTS:**
+- Pure function with clear inputs/outputs
+- Internal helper with no side effects
+- Edge case of a single function (null input, empty array)
+- Obscure/rare flow that isn't customer-facing
+
+### REGRESSION RULE (mandatory)
+
+**IRON RULE:** When the coverage audit identifies a REGRESSION — code that previously worked but the diff broke — a regression test is written immediately. No AskUserQuestion. No skipping. Regressions are the highest-priority test because they prove something broke.
+
+A regression is when:
+- The diff modifies existing behavior (not new code)
+- The existing test suite (if any) doesn't cover the changed path
+- The change introduces a new failure mode for existing callers
+
+When uncertain whether a change is a regression, err on the side of writing the test.
+
+Format: commit as `test: regression test for {what broke}`
+
 **4. Output ASCII coverage diagram:**

-Include BOTH code paths and user flows in the same diagram:
+Include BOTH code paths and user flows in the same diagram. Mark E2E-worthy and eval-worthy paths:

 ```
 CODE PATH COVERAGE
@@ -698,9 +864,9 @@ USER FLOW COVERAGE
 [+] Payment checkout flow
    │
    ├── [★★★ TESTED] Complete purchase — checkout.e2e.ts:15
-    ├── [GAP]         Double-click submit — NO TEST
-    ├── [GAP]         Navigate away during payment — NO TEST
-    └── [★   TESTED] Form validation errors (checks render only) — checkout.test.ts:40
+    ├── [GAP] [→E2E] Double-click submit — needs E2E, not just unit
+    ├── [GAP]         Navigate away during payment — unit test sufficient
+    └── [★   TESTED]  Form validation errors (checks render only) — checkout.test.ts:40

 [+] Error states
    │
@@ -708,12 +874,16 @@ USER FLOW COVERAGE
    ├── [GAP]         Network timeout UX (what does user see?) — NO TEST
    └── [GAP]         Empty cart submission — NO TEST

+[+] LLM integration
+    │
+    └── [GAP] [→EVAL] Prompt template change — needs eval test
+
 ─────────────────────────────────
-COVERAGE: 5/12 paths tested (42%)
+COVERAGE: 5/13 paths tested (38%)
  Code paths: 3/5 (60%)
-  User flows: 2/7 (29%)
+  User flows: 2/8 (25%)
 QUALITY:  ★★★: 2  ★★: 2  ★: 1
-GAPS: 7 paths need tests
+GAPS: 8 paths need tests (2 need E2E, 1 needs eval)
 ─────────────────────────────────
 ```

@@ -725,6 +895,8 @@ If test framework detected (or bootstrapped in Step 2.5):
 - Prioritize error handlers and edge cases first (happy paths are more likely already tested)
 - Read 2-3 existing test files to match conventions exactly
 - Generate unit tests. Mock all external dependencies (DB, API, Redis).
+- For paths marked [→E2E]: generate integration/E2E tests using the project's E2E framework (Playwright, Cypress, Capybara, etc.)
+- For paths marked [→EVAL]: generate eval tests using the project's eval framework, or flag for manual eval if none exists
 - Write tests that exercise the specific uncovered path with real assertions
 - Run each test. Passes → commit as `test: coverage for {feature}`
 - Fails → fix once. Still fails → revert, note gap in diagram.
@@ -745,6 +917,37 @@ 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.`

+### Test Plan Artifact
+
+After producing the coverage diagram, write a test plan artifact so `/qa` and `/qa-only` can consume it:
+
+```bash
+source <(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null) && mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG
+USER=$(whoami)
+DATETIME=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)
+```
+
+Write to `~/.gstack/projects/{slug}/{user}-{branch}-ship-test-plan-{datetime}.md`:
+
+```markdown
+# Test Plan
+Generated by /ship on {date}
+Branch: {branch}
+Repo: {owner/repo}
+
+## Affected Pages/Routes
+- {URL path} — {what to test and why}
+
+## Key Interactions to Verify
+- {interaction description} on {page}
+
+## Edge Cases
+- {edge case} on {page}
+
+## Critical Paths
+- {end-to-end flow that must work}
+```
+
 ---

 ## Step 3.5: Pre-Landing Review
@@ -57,6 +57,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.codex/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -157,6 +160,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.codex/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -1,5 +1,21 @@
 # Changelog

+## [0.10.1.0] - 2026-03-22 — Test Coverage Catalog
+
+### Added
+
+- **Test coverage audit now works everywhere — plan, ship, and review.** The codepath tracing methodology (ASCII diagrams, quality scoring, gap detection) is shared across `/plan-eng-review`, `/ship`, and `/review` via a single `{{TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT}}` resolver. Plan mode adds missing tests to your plan before you write code. Ship mode auto-generates tests for gaps. Review mode finds untested paths during pre-landing review. One methodology, three contexts, zero copy-paste.
+- **`/review` Step 4.75 — test coverage diagram.** Before landing code, `/review` now traces every changed codepath and produces an ASCII coverage map showing what's tested (★★★/★★/★) and what's not (GAP). Gaps become INFORMATIONAL findings that follow the Fix-First flow — you can generate the missing tests right there.
+- **E2E test recommendations built in.** The coverage audit knows when to recommend E2E tests (common user flows, tricky integrations where unit tests can't cover it) vs unit tests, and flags LLM prompt changes that need eval coverage. No more guessing whether something needs an integration test.
+- **Regression detection iron rule.** When a code change modifies existing behavior, gstack always writes a regression test — no asking, no skipping. If you changed it, you test it.
+- **`/ship` failure triage.** When tests fail during ship, the coverage audit classifies each failure and recommends next steps instead of just dumping the error output.
+- **Test framework auto-detection.** Reads your CLAUDE.md for test commands first, then auto-detects from project files (package.json, Gemfile, pyproject.toml, etc.). Works with any framework.
+
+### Fixed
+
+- **gstack no longer crashes in repos without an `origin` remote.** The `gstack-repo-mode` helper now gracefully handles missing remotes, bare repos, and empty git output — defaulting to `unknown` mode instead of crashing the preamble.
+- **`REPO_MODE` defaults correctly when the helper emits nothing.** Previously an empty response from `gstack-repo-mode` left `REPO_MODE` unset, causing downstream template errors.
+
 ## [0.10.0.0] - 2026-03-22 — Autoplan

 ### Added
@@ -71,10 +71,17 @@ gstack/
 ├── review/          # PR review skill
 ├── plan-ceo-review/ # /plan-ceo-review skill
 ├── plan-eng-review/ # /plan-eng-review skill
+├── autoplan/        # /autoplan skill (auto-review pipeline: CEO → design → eng)
+├── benchmark/       # /benchmark skill (performance regression detection)
+├── canary/          # /canary skill (post-deploy monitoring loop)
+├── codex/           # /codex skill (multi-AI second opinion via OpenAI Codex CLI)
+├── land-and-deploy/ # /land-and-deploy skill (merge → deploy → canary verify)
 ├── office-hours/    # /office-hours skill (YC Office Hours — startup diagnostic + builder brainstorm)
 ├── investigate/     # /investigate skill (systematic root-cause debugging)
 ├── retro/           # Retrospective skill
 ├── document-release/ # /document-release skill (post-ship doc updates)
+├── setup-deploy/    # /setup-deploy skill (one-time deploy config)
+├── bin/             # CLI utilities (gstack-repo-mode, gstack-slug, gstack-config, etc.)
 ├── setup            # One-time setup: build binary + symlink skills
 ├── SKILL.md         # Generated from SKILL.md.tmpl (don't edit directly)
 ├── SKILL.md.tmpl    # Template: edit this, run gen:skill-docs
@@ -169,7 +176,24 @@ Examples of good bisection:
 When the user says "bisect commit" or "bisect and push," split staged/unstaged
 changes into logical commits and push.

-## CHANGELOG style
+## CHANGELOG + VERSION style
+
+**VERSION and CHANGELOG are branch-scoped.** Every feature branch that ships gets its
+own version bump and CHANGELOG entry. The entry describes what THIS branch adds —
+not what was already on main.
+
+**When to write the CHANGELOG entry:**
+- At `/ship` time (Step 5), not during development or mid-branch.
+- The entry covers ALL commits on this branch vs the base branch.
+- Never fold new work into an existing CHANGELOG entry from a prior version that
+  already landed on main. If main has v0.10.0.0 and your branch adds features,
+  bump to v0.10.1.0 with a new entry — don't edit the v0.10.0.0 entry.
+
+**Key questions before writing:**
+1. What branch am I on? What did THIS branch change?
+2. Is the base branch version already released? (If yes, bump and create new entry.)
+3. Does an existing entry on this branch already cover earlier work? (If yes, replace
+   it with one unified entry for the final version.)

 CHANGELOG.md is **for users**, not contributors. Write it like product release notes:

@@ -63,6 +63,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -163,6 +166,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -1 +1 @@
-0.10.0.0
+0.10.1.0
@@ -31,6 +31,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -131,6 +134,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env bash
+# gstack-repo-mode — detect solo vs collaborative repo mode
+# Usage: source <(gstack-repo-mode)  → sets REPO_MODE variable
+# Or:    gstack-repo-mode           → prints REPO_MODE=... line
+#
+# Detection heuristic (90-day window):
+#   Solo:          top author >= 80% of commits
+#   Collaborative: top author < 80%
+#
+# Override: gstack-config set repo_mode solo|collaborative
+# Cache:    ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/repo-mode.json (7-day TTL)
+set -euo pipefail
+
+SCRIPT_DIR="$(cd "$(dirname "$0")" && pwd)"
+# Compute SLUG directly (avoid eval of gstack-slug — branch names can contain shell metacharacters)
+REMOTE_URL=$(git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null || true)
+if [ -z "$REMOTE_URL" ]; then
+  echo "REPO_MODE=unknown"
+  exit 0
+fi
+SLUG=$(echo "$REMOTE_URL" | sed 's|.*[:/]\([^/]*/[^/]*\)\.git$|\1|;s|.*[:/]\([^/]*/[^/]*\)$|\1|' | tr '/' '-')
+[ -z "${SLUG:-}" ] && { echo "REPO_MODE=unknown"; exit 0; }
+
+# Validate: only allow known values (prevent shell injection via source <(...))
+validate_mode() {
+  case "$1" in solo|collaborative|unknown) echo "$1" ;; *) echo "unknown" ;; esac
+}
+
+# Config override takes precedence
+OVERRIDE=$("$SCRIPT_DIR/gstack-config" get repo_mode 2>/dev/null || true)
+if [ -n "$OVERRIDE" ] && [ "$OVERRIDE" != "null" ]; then
+  echo "REPO_MODE=$(validate_mode "$OVERRIDE")"
+  exit 0
+fi
+
+# Check cache (7-day TTL)
+CACHE_DIR="$HOME/.gstack/projects/$SLUG"
+CACHE_FILE="$CACHE_DIR/repo-mode.json"
+if [ -f "$CACHE_FILE" ]; then
+  CACHE_AGE=$(( $(date +%s) - $(stat -f %m "$CACHE_FILE" 2>/dev/null || stat -c %Y "$CACHE_FILE" 2>/dev/null || echo 0) ))
+  if [ "$CACHE_AGE" -lt 604800 ]; then  # 7 days in seconds
+    MODE=$(grep -o '"mode":"[^"]*"' "$CACHE_FILE" | head -1 | cut -d'"' -f4)
+    [ -n "$MODE" ] && echo "REPO_MODE=$(validate_mode "$MODE")" && exit 0
+  fi
+fi
+
+# Compute from git history (90-day window)
+# Use default branch (not HEAD) to avoid feature-branch sampling bias
+DEFAULT_BRANCH=$(git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's|refs/remotes/||' || true)
+# Fallback: try origin/main, then origin/master, then HEAD
+if [ -z "$DEFAULT_BRANCH" ]; then
+  if git rev-parse --verify origin/main &>/dev/null; then
+    DEFAULT_BRANCH="origin/main"
+  elif git rev-parse --verify origin/master &>/dev/null; then
+    DEFAULT_BRANCH="origin/master"
+  else
+    DEFAULT_BRANCH="HEAD"
+  fi
+fi
+SHORTLOG=$(git shortlog -sn --since="90 days ago" --no-merges "$DEFAULT_BRANCH" 2>/dev/null)
+if [ -z "$SHORTLOG" ]; then
+  echo "REPO_MODE=unknown"
+  exit 0
+fi
+
+# Compute TOTAL from ALL authors (not truncated) to avoid solo bias
+TOTAL=$(echo "$SHORTLOG" | awk '{s+=$1} END {print s}')
+TOP=$(echo "$SHORTLOG" | head -1 | awk '{print $1}')
+AUTHORS=$(echo "$SHORTLOG" | wc -l | tr -d ' ')
+
+# Minimum sample: need at least 5 commits to classify
+if [ "$TOTAL" -lt 5 ]; then
+  echo "REPO_MODE=unknown"
+  exit 0
+fi
+
+TOP_PCT=$(( TOP * 100 / TOTAL ))
+
+# Solo: top author >= 80% of commits (occasional outside PRs don't change mode)
+if [ "$TOP_PCT" -ge 80 ]; then
+  MODE=solo
+else
+  MODE=collaborative
+fi
+
+# Cache result atomically (fail silently if ~/.gstack is unwritable)
+mkdir -p "$CACHE_DIR" 2>/dev/null || true
+CACHE_TMP=$(mktemp "$CACHE_DIR/.repo-mode-XXXXXX" 2>/dev/null || true)
+if [ -n "$CACHE_TMP" ]; then
+  echo "{\"mode\":\"$MODE\",\"top_pct\":$TOP_PCT,\"authors\":$AUTHORS,\"total\":$TOTAL,\"computed\":\"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)\"}" > "$CACHE_TMP" 2>/dev/null && mv "$CACHE_TMP" "$CACHE_FILE" 2>/dev/null || rm -f "$CACHE_TMP" 2>/dev/null
+fi
+
+echo "REPO_MODE=$MODE"
@@ -31,6 +31,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -131,6 +134,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -31,6 +31,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -131,6 +134,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -32,6 +32,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -132,6 +135,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -36,6 +36,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -136,6 +139,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -36,6 +36,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -136,6 +139,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -33,6 +33,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -133,6 +136,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -47,6 +47,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -147,6 +150,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -30,6 +30,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -130,6 +133,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -38,6 +38,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -138,6 +141,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -36,6 +36,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -136,6 +139,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -34,6 +34,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -134,6 +137,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -35,6 +35,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -135,6 +138,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -390,15 +405,174 @@ Evaluate:
 **STOP.** For each issue found in this section, call AskUserQuestion individually. One issue per call. Present options, state your recommendation, explain WHY. Do NOT batch multiple issues into one AskUserQuestion. Only proceed to the next section after ALL issues in this section are resolved.

 ### 3. Test review
-Make a diagram of all new UX, new data flow, new codepaths, and new branching if statements or outcomes. For each, note what is new about the features discussed in this branch and plan. Then, for each new item in the diagram, make sure there is a corresponding test.

-For LLM/prompt changes: check the "Prompt/LLM changes" file patterns listed in CLAUDE.md. If this plan touches ANY of those patterns, state which eval suites must be run, which cases should be added, and what baselines to compare against. Then use AskUserQuestion to confirm the eval scope with the user.
+100% coverage is the goal. Evaluate every codepath in the plan and ensure the plan includes tests for each one. If the plan is missing tests, add them — the plan should be complete enough that implementation includes full test coverage from the start.

-**STOP.** For each issue found in this section, call AskUserQuestion individually. One issue per call. Present options, state your recommendation, explain WHY. Do NOT batch multiple issues into one AskUserQuestion. Only proceed to the next section after ALL issues in this section are resolved.
+### Test Framework Detection
+
+Before analyzing coverage, detect the project's test framework:
+
+1. **Read CLAUDE.md** — look for a `## Testing` section with test command and framework name. If found, use that as the authoritative source.
+2. **If CLAUDE.md has no testing section, auto-detect:**
+
+```bash
+# Detect project runtime
+[ -f Gemfile ] && echo "RUNTIME:ruby"
+[ -f package.json ] && echo "RUNTIME:node"
+[ -f requirements.txt ] || [ -f pyproject.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:python"
+[ -f go.mod ] && echo "RUNTIME:go"
+[ -f Cargo.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:rust"
+# Check for existing test infrastructure
+ls jest.config.* vitest.config.* playwright.config.* cypress.config.* .rspec pytest.ini phpunit.xml 2>/dev/null
+ls -d test/ tests/ spec/ __tests__/ cypress/ e2e/ 2>/dev/null
+```
+
+3. **If no framework detected:** still produce the coverage diagram, but skip test generation.
+
+**Step 1. Trace every codepath in the plan:**
+
+Read the plan document. For each new feature, service, endpoint, or component described, trace how data will flow through the code — don't just list planned functions, actually follow the planned execution:
+
+1. **Read the plan.** For each planned component, understand what it does and how it connects to existing code.
+2. **Trace data flow.** Starting from each entry point (route handler, exported function, event listener, component render), follow the data through every branch:
+   - Where does input come from? (request params, props, database, API call)
+   - What transforms it? (validation, mapping, computation)
+   - Where does it go? (database write, API response, rendered output, side effect)
+   - What can go wrong at each step? (null/undefined, invalid input, network failure, empty collection)
+3. **Diagram the execution.** For each changed file, draw an ASCII diagram showing:
+   - Every function/method that was added or modified
+   - Every conditional branch (if/else, switch, ternary, guard clause, early return)
+   - Every error path (try/catch, rescue, error boundary, fallback)
+   - Every call to another function (trace into it — does IT have untested branches?)
+   - Every edge: what happens with null input? Empty array? Invalid type?
+
+This is the critical step — you're building a map of every line of code that can execute differently based on input. Every branch in this diagram needs a test.
+
+**Step 2. Map user flows, interactions, and error states:**
+
+Code coverage isn't enough — you need to cover how real users interact with the changed code. For each changed feature, think through:
+
+- **User flows:** What sequence of actions does a user take that touches this code? Map the full journey (e.g., "user clicks 'Pay' → form validates → API call → success/failure screen"). Each step in the journey needs a test.
+- **Interaction edge cases:** What happens when the user does something unexpected?
+  - Double-click/rapid resubmit
+  - Navigate away mid-operation (back button, close tab, click another link)
+  - Submit with stale data (page sat open for 30 minutes, session expired)
+  - Slow connection (API takes 10 seconds — what does the user see?)
+  - Concurrent actions (two tabs, same form)
+- **Error states the user can see:** For every error the code handles, what does the user actually experience?
+  - Is there a clear error message or a silent failure?
+  - Can the user recover (retry, go back, fix input) or are they stuck?
+  - What happens with no network? With a 500 from the API? With invalid data from the server?
+- **Empty/zero/boundary states:** What does the UI show with zero results? With 10,000 results? With a single character input? With maximum-length input?
+
+Add these to your diagram alongside the code branches. A user flow with no test is just as much a gap as an untested if/else.
+
+**Step 3. Check each branch against existing tests:**
+
+Go through your diagram branch by branch — both code paths AND user flows. For each one, search for a test that exercises it:
+- Function `processPayment()` → look for `billing.test.ts`, `billing.spec.ts`, `test/billing_test.rb`
+- An if/else → look for tests covering BOTH the true AND false path
+- An error handler → look for a test that triggers that specific error condition
+- A call to `helperFn()` that has its own branches → those branches need tests too
+- A user flow → look for an integration or E2E test that walks through the journey
+- An interaction edge case → look for a test that simulates the unexpected action
+
+Quality scoring rubric:
+- ★★★  Tests behavior with edge cases AND error paths
+- ★★   Tests correct behavior, happy path only
+- ★    Smoke test / existence check / trivial assertion (e.g., "it renders", "it doesn't throw")
+
+### E2E Test Decision Matrix
+
+When checking each branch, also determine whether a unit test or E2E/integration test is the right tool:
+
+**RECOMMEND E2E (mark as [→E2E] in the diagram):**
+- Common user flow spanning 3+ components/services (e.g., signup → verify email → first login)
+- Integration point where mocking hides real failures (e.g., API → queue → worker → DB)
+- Auth/payment/data-destruction flows — too important to trust unit tests alone
+
+**RECOMMEND EVAL (mark as [→EVAL] in the diagram):**
+- Critical LLM call that needs a quality eval (e.g., prompt change → test output still meets quality bar)
+- Changes to prompt templates, system instructions, or tool definitions
+
+**STICK WITH UNIT TESTS:**
+- Pure function with clear inputs/outputs
+- Internal helper with no side effects
+- Edge case of a single function (null input, empty array)
+- Obscure/rare flow that isn't customer-facing
+
+### REGRESSION RULE (mandatory)
+
+**IRON RULE:** When the coverage audit identifies a REGRESSION — code that previously worked but the diff broke — a regression test is added to the plan as a critical requirement. No AskUserQuestion. No skipping. Regressions are the highest-priority test because they prove something broke.
+
+A regression is when:
+- The diff modifies existing behavior (not new code)
+- The existing test suite (if any) doesn't cover the changed path
+- The change introduces a new failure mode for existing callers
+
+When uncertain whether a change is a regression, err on the side of writing the test.
+
+**Step 4. Output ASCII coverage diagram:**
+
+Include BOTH code paths and user flows in the same diagram. Mark E2E-worthy and eval-worthy paths:
+
+```
+CODE PATH COVERAGE
+===========================
+[+] src/services/billing.ts
+    │
+    ├── processPayment()
+    │   ├── [★★★ TESTED] Happy path + card declined + timeout — billing.test.ts:42
+    │   ├── [GAP]         Network timeout — NO TEST
+    │   └── [GAP]         Invalid currency — NO TEST
+    │
+    └── refundPayment()
+        ├── [★★  TESTED] Full refund — billing.test.ts:89
+        └── [★   TESTED] Partial refund (checks non-throw only) — billing.test.ts:101
+
+USER FLOW COVERAGE
+===========================
+[+] Payment checkout flow
+    │
+    ├── [★★★ TESTED] Complete purchase — checkout.e2e.ts:15
+    ├── [GAP] [→E2E] Double-click submit — needs E2E, not just unit
+    ├── [GAP]         Navigate away during payment — unit test sufficient
+    └── [★   TESTED]  Form validation errors (checks render only) — checkout.test.ts:40
+
+[+] Error states
+    │
+    ├── [★★  TESTED] Card declined message — billing.test.ts:58
+    ├── [GAP]         Network timeout UX (what does user see?) — NO TEST
+    └── [GAP]         Empty cart submission — NO TEST
+
+[+] LLM integration
+    │
+    └── [GAP] [→EVAL] Prompt template change — needs eval test
+
+─────────────────────────────────
+COVERAGE: 5/13 paths tested (38%)
+  Code paths: 3/5 (60%)
+  User flows: 2/8 (25%)
+QUALITY:  ★★★: 2  ★★: 2  ★: 1
+GAPS: 8 paths need tests (2 need E2E, 1 needs eval)
+─────────────────────────────────
+```
+
+**Fast path:** All paths covered → "Test review: All new code paths have test coverage ✓" Continue.
+
+**Step 5. Add missing tests to the plan:**
+
+For each GAP identified in the diagram, add a test requirement to the plan. Be specific:
+- What test file to create (match existing naming conventions)
+- What the test should assert (specific inputs → expected outputs/behavior)
+- Whether it's a unit test, E2E test, or eval (use the decision matrix)
+- For regressions: flag as **CRITICAL** and explain what broke
+
+The plan should be complete enough that when implementation begins, every test is written alongside the feature code — not deferred to a follow-up.

 ### Test Plan Artifact

-After producing the test diagram, write a test plan artifact to the project directory so `/qa` and `/qa-only` can consume it as primary test input (replacing the lossy git-diff heuristic):
+After producing the coverage diagram, write a test plan artifact to the project directory so `/qa` and `/qa-only` can consume it as primary test input:

 ```bash
 source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null) && mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG
@@ -406,7 +580,7 @@ USER=$(whoami)
 DATETIME=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)
 ```

-Write to `~/.gstack/projects/{slug}/{user}-{branch}-test-plan-{datetime}.md`:
+Write to `~/.gstack/projects/{slug}/{user}-{branch}-eng-review-test-plan-{datetime}.md`:

 ```markdown
 # Test Plan
@@ -429,6 +603,10 @@ Repo: {owner/repo}

 This file is consumed by `/qa` and `/qa-only` as primary test input. Include only the information that helps a QA tester know **what to test and where** — not implementation details.

+For LLM/prompt changes: check the "Prompt/LLM changes" file patterns listed in CLAUDE.md. If this plan touches ANY of those patterns, state which eval suites must be run, which cases should be added, and what baselines to compare against. Then use AskUserQuestion to confirm the eval scope with the user.
+
+**STOP.** For each issue found in this section, call AskUserQuestion individually. One issue per call. Present options, state your recommendation, explain WHY. Do NOT batch multiple issues into one AskUserQuestion. Only proceed to the next section after ALL issues in this section are resolved.
+
 ### 4. Performance review
 Evaluate:
 * N+1 queries and database access patterns.
@@ -149,45 +149,13 @@ Evaluate:
 **STOP.** For each issue found in this section, call AskUserQuestion individually. One issue per call. Present options, state your recommendation, explain WHY. Do NOT batch multiple issues into one AskUserQuestion. Only proceed to the next section after ALL issues in this section are resolved.

 ### 3. Test review
-Make a diagram of all new UX, new data flow, new codepaths, and new branching if statements or outcomes. For each, note what is new about the features discussed in this branch and plan. Then, for each new item in the diagram, make sure there is a corresponding test.
+
+{{TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT_PLAN}}

 For LLM/prompt changes: check the "Prompt/LLM changes" file patterns listed in CLAUDE.md. If this plan touches ANY of those patterns, state which eval suites must be run, which cases should be added, and what baselines to compare against. Then use AskUserQuestion to confirm the eval scope with the user.

 **STOP.** For each issue found in this section, call AskUserQuestion individually. One issue per call. Present options, state your recommendation, explain WHY. Do NOT batch multiple issues into one AskUserQuestion. Only proceed to the next section after ALL issues in this section are resolved.

-### Test Plan Artifact
-
-After producing the test diagram, write a test plan artifact to the project directory so `/qa` and `/qa-only` can consume it as primary test input (replacing the lossy git-diff heuristic):
-
-```bash
-source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null) && mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG
-USER=$(whoami)
-DATETIME=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)
-```
-
-Write to `~/.gstack/projects/{slug}/{user}-{branch}-test-plan-{datetime}.md`:
-
-```markdown
-# Test Plan
-Generated by /plan-eng-review on {date}
-Branch: {branch}
-Repo: {owner/repo}
-
-## Affected Pages/Routes
- {URL path} — {what to test and why}
-
-## Key Interactions to Verify
- {interaction description} on {page}
-
-## Edge Cases
- {edge case} on {page}
-
-## Critical Paths
- {end-to-end flow that must work}
-```
-
-This file is consumed by `/qa` and `/qa-only` as primary test input. Include only the information that helps a QA tester know **what to test and where** — not implementation details.
-
 ### 4. Performance review
 Evaluate:
 * N+1 queries and database access patterns.
@@ -31,6 +31,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -131,6 +134,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -37,6 +37,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -137,6 +140,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -31,6 +31,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -131,6 +134,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -34,6 +34,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -134,6 +137,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -400,6 +415,183 @@ Include any design findings alongside the findings from Step 4. They follow the

 ---

+## Step 4.75: Test Coverage Diagram
+
+100% coverage is the goal. Evaluate every codepath changed in the diff and identify test gaps. Gaps become INFORMATIONAL findings that follow the Fix-First flow.
+
+### Test Framework Detection
+
+Before analyzing coverage, detect the project's test framework:
+
+1. **Read CLAUDE.md** — look for a `## Testing` section with test command and framework name. If found, use that as the authoritative source.
+2. **If CLAUDE.md has no testing section, auto-detect:**
+
+```bash
+# Detect project runtime
+[ -f Gemfile ] && echo "RUNTIME:ruby"
+[ -f package.json ] && echo "RUNTIME:node"
+[ -f requirements.txt ] || [ -f pyproject.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:python"
+[ -f go.mod ] && echo "RUNTIME:go"
+[ -f Cargo.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:rust"
+# Check for existing test infrastructure
+ls jest.config.* vitest.config.* playwright.config.* cypress.config.* .rspec pytest.ini phpunit.xml 2>/dev/null
+ls -d test/ tests/ spec/ __tests__/ cypress/ e2e/ 2>/dev/null
+```
+
+3. **If no framework detected:** still produce the coverage diagram, but skip test generation.
+
+**Step 1. Trace every codepath changed** using `git diff origin/<base>...HEAD`:
+
+Read every changed file. For each one, trace how data flows through the code — don't just list functions, actually follow the execution:
+
+1. **Read the diff.** For each changed file, read the full file (not just the diff hunk) to understand context.
+2. **Trace data flow.** Starting from each entry point (route handler, exported function, event listener, component render), follow the data through every branch:
+   - Where does input come from? (request params, props, database, API call)
+   - What transforms it? (validation, mapping, computation)
+   - Where does it go? (database write, API response, rendered output, side effect)
+   - What can go wrong at each step? (null/undefined, invalid input, network failure, empty collection)
+3. **Diagram the execution.** For each changed file, draw an ASCII diagram showing:
+   - Every function/method that was added or modified
+   - Every conditional branch (if/else, switch, ternary, guard clause, early return)
+   - Every error path (try/catch, rescue, error boundary, fallback)
+   - Every call to another function (trace into it — does IT have untested branches?)
+   - Every edge: what happens with null input? Empty array? Invalid type?
+
+This is the critical step — you're building a map of every line of code that can execute differently based on input. Every branch in this diagram needs a test.
+
+**Step 2. Map user flows, interactions, and error states:**
+
+Code coverage isn't enough — you need to cover how real users interact with the changed code. For each changed feature, think through:
+
+- **User flows:** What sequence of actions does a user take that touches this code? Map the full journey (e.g., "user clicks 'Pay' → form validates → API call → success/failure screen"). Each step in the journey needs a test.
+- **Interaction edge cases:** What happens when the user does something unexpected?
+  - Double-click/rapid resubmit
+  - Navigate away mid-operation (back button, close tab, click another link)
+  - Submit with stale data (page sat open for 30 minutes, session expired)
+  - Slow connection (API takes 10 seconds — what does the user see?)
+  - Concurrent actions (two tabs, same form)
+- **Error states the user can see:** For every error the code handles, what does the user actually experience?
+  - Is there a clear error message or a silent failure?
+  - Can the user recover (retry, go back, fix input) or are they stuck?
+  - What happens with no network? With a 500 from the API? With invalid data from the server?
+- **Empty/zero/boundary states:** What does the UI show with zero results? With 10,000 results? With a single character input? With maximum-length input?
+
+Add these to your diagram alongside the code branches. A user flow with no test is just as much a gap as an untested if/else.
+
+**Step 3. Check each branch against existing tests:**
+
+Go through your diagram branch by branch — both code paths AND user flows. For each one, search for a test that exercises it:
+- Function `processPayment()` → look for `billing.test.ts`, `billing.spec.ts`, `test/billing_test.rb`
+- An if/else → look for tests covering BOTH the true AND false path
+- An error handler → look for a test that triggers that specific error condition
+- A call to `helperFn()` that has its own branches → those branches need tests too
+- A user flow → look for an integration or E2E test that walks through the journey
+- An interaction edge case → look for a test that simulates the unexpected action
+
+Quality scoring rubric:
+- ★★★  Tests behavior with edge cases AND error paths
+- ★★   Tests correct behavior, happy path only
+- ★    Smoke test / existence check / trivial assertion (e.g., "it renders", "it doesn't throw")
+
+### E2E Test Decision Matrix
+
+When checking each branch, also determine whether a unit test or E2E/integration test is the right tool:
+
+**RECOMMEND E2E (mark as [→E2E] in the diagram):**
+- Common user flow spanning 3+ components/services (e.g., signup → verify email → first login)
+- Integration point where mocking hides real failures (e.g., API → queue → worker → DB)
+- Auth/payment/data-destruction flows — too important to trust unit tests alone
+
+**RECOMMEND EVAL (mark as [→EVAL] in the diagram):**
+- Critical LLM call that needs a quality eval (e.g., prompt change → test output still meets quality bar)
+- Changes to prompt templates, system instructions, or tool definitions
+
+**STICK WITH UNIT TESTS:**
+- Pure function with clear inputs/outputs
+- Internal helper with no side effects
+- Edge case of a single function (null input, empty array)
+- Obscure/rare flow that isn't customer-facing
+
+### REGRESSION RULE (mandatory)
+
+**IRON RULE:** When the coverage audit identifies a REGRESSION — code that previously worked but the diff broke — a regression test is written immediately. No AskUserQuestion. No skipping. Regressions are the highest-priority test because they prove something broke.
+
+A regression is when:
+- The diff modifies existing behavior (not new code)
+- The existing test suite (if any) doesn't cover the changed path
+- The change introduces a new failure mode for existing callers
+
+When uncertain whether a change is a regression, err on the side of writing the test.
+
+Format: commit as `test: regression test for {what broke}`
+
+**Step 4. Output ASCII coverage diagram:**
+
+Include BOTH code paths and user flows in the same diagram. Mark E2E-worthy and eval-worthy paths:
+
+```
+CODE PATH COVERAGE
+===========================
+[+] src/services/billing.ts
+    │
+    ├── processPayment()
+    │   ├── [★★★ TESTED] Happy path + card declined + timeout — billing.test.ts:42
+    │   ├── [GAP]         Network timeout — NO TEST
+    │   └── [GAP]         Invalid currency — NO TEST
+    │
+    └── refundPayment()
+        ├── [★★  TESTED] Full refund — billing.test.ts:89
+        └── [★   TESTED] Partial refund (checks non-throw only) — billing.test.ts:101
+
+USER FLOW COVERAGE
+===========================
+[+] Payment checkout flow
+    │
+    ├── [★★★ TESTED] Complete purchase — checkout.e2e.ts:15
+    ├── [GAP] [→E2E] Double-click submit — needs E2E, not just unit
+    ├── [GAP]         Navigate away during payment — unit test sufficient
+    └── [★   TESTED]  Form validation errors (checks render only) — checkout.test.ts:40
+
+[+] Error states
+    │
+    ├── [★★  TESTED] Card declined message — billing.test.ts:58
+    ├── [GAP]         Network timeout UX (what does user see?) — NO TEST
+    └── [GAP]         Empty cart submission — NO TEST
+
+[+] LLM integration
+    │
+    └── [GAP] [→EVAL] Prompt template change — needs eval test
+
+─────────────────────────────────
+COVERAGE: 5/13 paths tested (38%)
+  Code paths: 3/5 (60%)
+  User flows: 2/8 (25%)
+QUALITY:  ★★★: 2  ★★: 2  ★: 1
+GAPS: 8 paths need tests (2 need E2E, 1 needs eval)
+─────────────────────────────────
+```
+
+**Fast path:** All paths covered → "Step 4.75: All new code paths have test coverage ✓" Continue.
+
+**Step 5. Generate tests for gaps (Fix-First):**
+
+If test framework is detected and gaps were identified:
+- Classify each gap as AUTO-FIX or ASK per the Fix-First Heuristic:
+  - **AUTO-FIX:** Simple unit tests for pure functions, edge cases of existing tested functions
+  - **ASK:** E2E tests, tests requiring new test infrastructure, tests for ambiguous behavior
+- For AUTO-FIX gaps: generate the test, run it, commit as `test: coverage for {feature}`
+- For ASK gaps: include in the Fix-First batch question with the other review findings
+- For paths marked [→E2E]: always ASK (E2E tests are higher-effort and need user confirmation)
+- For paths marked [→EVAL]: always ASK (eval tests need user confirmation on quality criteria)
+
+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."
+
+This step subsumes the "Test Gaps" category from Pass 2 — do not duplicate findings between the checklist Test Gaps item and this coverage diagram. Include any coverage gaps alongside the findings from Step 4 and Step 4.5. They follow the same Fix-First flow — gaps are INFORMATIONAL findings.
+
+---
+
 ## Step 5: Fix-First Review

 **Every finding gets action — not just critical ones.**
@@ -128,6 +128,14 @@ Include any design findings alongside the findings from Step 4. They follow the

 ---

+## Step 4.75: Test Coverage Diagram
+
+{{TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT_REVIEW}}
+
+This step subsumes the "Test Gaps" category from Pass 2 — do not duplicate findings between the checklist Test Gaps item and this coverage diagram. Include any coverage gaps alongside the findings from Step 4 and Step 4.5. They follow the same Fix-First flow — gaps are INFORMATIONAL findings.
+
+---
+
 ## Step 5: Fix-First Review

 **Every finding gets action — not just critical ones.**
@@ -152,6 +152,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(${ctx.paths.binDir}/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null || echo
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(${ctx.paths.binDir}/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=\${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -263,6 +266,118 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")`;
 }

+function generateRepoModeSection(): string {
+  return `## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+\`REPO_MODE\` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **\`solo\`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **\`collaborative\`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **\`unknown\`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.`;
+}
+
+function generateTestFailureTriage(): string {
+  return `## Test Failure Ownership Triage
+
+When tests fail, do NOT immediately stop. First, determine ownership:
+
+### Step T1: Classify each failure
+
+For each failing test:
+
+1. **Get the files changed on this branch:**
+   \`\`\`bash
+   git diff origin/<base>...HEAD --name-only
+   \`\`\`
+
+2. **Classify the failure:**
+   - **In-branch** if: the failing test file itself was modified on this branch, OR the test output references code that was changed on this branch, OR you can trace the failure to a change in the branch diff.
+   - **Likely pre-existing** if: neither the test file nor the code it tests was modified on this branch, AND the failure is unrelated to any branch change you can identify.
+   - **When ambiguous, default to in-branch.** It is safer to stop the developer than to let a broken test ship. Only classify as pre-existing when you are confident.
+
+   This classification is heuristic — use your judgment reading the diff and the test output. You do not have a programmatic dependency graph.
+
+### Step T2: Handle in-branch failures
+
+**STOP.** These are your failures. Show them and do not proceed. The developer must fix their own broken tests before shipping.
+
+### Step T3: Handle pre-existing failures
+
+Check \`REPO_MODE\` from the preamble output.
+
+**If REPO_MODE is \`solo\`:**
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+
+> These test failures appear pre-existing (not caused by your branch changes):
+>
+> [list each failure with file:line and brief error description]
+>
+> Since this is a solo repo, you're the only one who will fix these.
+>
+> RECOMMENDATION: Choose A — fix now while the context is fresh. Completeness: 9/10.
+> A) Investigate and fix now (human: ~2-4h / CC: ~15min) — Completeness: 10/10
+> B) Add as P0 TODO — fix after this branch lands — Completeness: 7/10
+> C) Skip — I know about this, ship anyway — Completeness: 3/10
+
+**If REPO_MODE is \`collaborative\` or \`unknown\`:**
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+
+> These test failures appear pre-existing (not caused by your branch changes):
+>
+> [list each failure with file:line and brief error description]
+>
+> This is a collaborative repo — these may be someone else's responsibility.
+>
+> RECOMMENDATION: Choose B — assign it to whoever broke it so the right person fixes it. Completeness: 9/10.
+> A) Investigate and fix now anyway — Completeness: 10/10
+> B) Blame + assign GitHub issue to the author — Completeness: 9/10
+> C) Add as P0 TODO — Completeness: 7/10
+> D) Skip — ship anyway — Completeness: 3/10
+
+### Step T4: Execute the chosen action
+
+**If "Investigate and fix now":**
+- Switch to /investigate mindset: root cause first, then minimal fix.
+- Fix the pre-existing failure.
+- Commit the fix separately from the branch's changes: \`git commit -m "fix: pre-existing test failure in <test-file>"\`
+- Continue with the workflow.
+
+**If "Add as P0 TODO":**
+- If \`TODOS.md\` exists, add the entry following the format in \`review/TODOS-format.md\` (or \`.claude/skills/review/TODOS-format.md\`).
+- If \`TODOS.md\` does not exist, create it with the standard header and add the entry.
+- Entry should include: title, the error output, which branch it was noticed on, and priority P0.
+- Continue with the workflow — treat the pre-existing failure as non-blocking.
+
+**If "Blame + assign GitHub issue" (collaborative only):**
+- Find who likely broke it. Check BOTH the test file AND the production code it tests:
+  \`\`\`bash
+  # Who last touched the failing test?
+  git log --format="%an (%ae)" -1 -- <failing-test-file>
+  # Who last touched the production code the test covers? (often the actual breaker)
+  git log --format="%an (%ae)" -1 -- <source-file-under-test>
+  \`\`\`
+  If these are different people, prefer the production code author — they likely introduced the regression.
+- Create a GitHub issue assigned to that person:
+  \`\`\`bash
+  gh issue create \\
+    --title "Pre-existing test failure: <test-name>" \\
+    --body "Found failing on branch <current-branch>. Failure is pre-existing.\\n\\n**Error:**\\n\`\`\`\\n<first 10 lines>\\n\`\`\`\\n\\n**Last modified by:** <author>\\n**Noticed by:** gstack /ship on <date>" \\
+    --assignee "<github-username>"
+  \`\`\`
+- If \`gh\` is not available or \`--assignee\` fails (user not in org, etc.), create the issue without assignee and note who should look at it in the body.
+- Continue with the workflow.
+
+**If "Skip":**
+- Continue with the workflow.
+- Note in output: "Pre-existing test failure skipped: <test-name>"`;
+}
+
 function generateSearchBeforeBuildingSection(ctx: TemplateContext): string {
  return `## Search Before Building

@@ -387,6 +502,7 @@ function generatePreamble(ctx: TemplateContext): string {
    generateTelemetryPrompt(ctx),
    generateAskUserFormat(ctx),
    generateCompletenessSection(),
+    generateRepoModeSection(),
    generateSearchBeforeBuildingSection(ctx),
    generateContributorMode(),
    generateCompletionStatus(),
@@ -1354,6 +1470,373 @@ Only commit if there are changes. Stage all bootstrap files (config, test direct
 ---`;
 }

+// ─── Test Coverage Audit ────────────────────────────────────
+//
+// Shared methodology for codepath tracing, ASCII diagrams, and test gap analysis.
+// Three modes, three placeholders, one inner function:
+//
+//   {{TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT_PLAN}}   → plan-eng-review: adds missing tests to the plan
+//   {{TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT_SHIP}}   → ship: auto-generates tests, coverage summary
+//   {{TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT_REVIEW}} → review: generates tests via Fix-First (ASK)
+//
+//   ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+//   │  generateTestCoverageAuditInner(mode)          │
+//   │                                                │
+//   │  SHARED: framework detect, codepath trace,     │
+//   │    ASCII diagram, quality rubric, E2E matrix,  │
+//   │    regression rule                             │
+//   │                                                │
+//   │  plan:   edit plan file, write artifact        │
+//   │  ship:   auto-generate tests, write artifact   │
+//   │  review: Fix-First ASK, INFORMATIONAL gaps     │
+//   └────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+
+type CoverageAuditMode = 'plan' | 'ship' | 'review';
+
+function generateTestCoverageAuditInner(mode: CoverageAuditMode): string {
+  const sections: string[] = [];
+
+  // ── Intro (mode-specific) ──
+  if (mode === 'ship') {
+    sections.push(`100% coverage is the goal — every untested path is a path where bugs hide and vibe coding becomes yolo coding. Evaluate what was ACTUALLY coded (from the diff), not what was planned.`);
+  } else if (mode === 'plan') {
+    sections.push(`100% coverage is the goal. Evaluate every codepath in the plan and ensure the plan includes tests for each one. If the plan is missing tests, add them — the plan should be complete enough that implementation includes full test coverage from the start.`);
+  } else {
+    sections.push(`100% coverage is the goal. Evaluate every codepath changed in the diff and identify test gaps. Gaps become INFORMATIONAL findings that follow the Fix-First flow.`);
+  }
+
+  // ── Test framework detection (shared) ──
+  sections.push(`
+### Test Framework Detection
+
+Before analyzing coverage, detect the project's test framework:
+
+1. **Read CLAUDE.md** — look for a \`## Testing\` section with test command and framework name. If found, use that as the authoritative source.
+2. **If CLAUDE.md has no testing section, auto-detect:**
+
+\`\`\`bash
+# Detect project runtime
+[ -f Gemfile ] && echo "RUNTIME:ruby"
+[ -f package.json ] && echo "RUNTIME:node"
+[ -f requirements.txt ] || [ -f pyproject.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:python"
+[ -f go.mod ] && echo "RUNTIME:go"
+[ -f Cargo.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:rust"
+# Check for existing test infrastructure
+ls jest.config.* vitest.config.* playwright.config.* cypress.config.* .rspec pytest.ini phpunit.xml 2>/dev/null
+ls -d test/ tests/ spec/ __tests__/ cypress/ e2e/ 2>/dev/null
+\`\`\`
+
+3. **If no framework detected:**${mode === 'ship' ? ' falls through to the Test Framework Bootstrap step (Step 2.5) which handles full setup.' : ' still produce the coverage diagram, but skip test generation.'}`);
+
+  // ── Before/after count (ship only) ──
+  if (mode === 'ship') {
+    sections.push(`
+**0. Before/after test count:**
+
+\`\`\`bash
+# Count test files before any generation
+find . -name '*.test.*' -o -name '*.spec.*' -o -name '*_test.*' -o -name '*_spec.*' | grep -v node_modules | wc -l
+\`\`\`
+
+Store this number for the PR body.`);
+  }
+
+  // ── Codepath tracing methodology (shared, with mode-specific source) ──
+  const traceSource = mode === 'plan'
+    ? `**Step 1. Trace every codepath in the plan:**
+
+Read the plan document. For each new feature, service, endpoint, or component described, trace how data will flow through the code — don't just list planned functions, actually follow the planned execution:`
+    : `**${mode === 'ship' ? '1' : 'Step 1'}. Trace every codepath changed** using \`git diff origin/<base>...HEAD\`:
+
+Read every changed file. For each one, trace how data flows through the code — don't just list functions, actually follow the execution:`;
+
+  const traceStep1 = mode === 'plan'
+    ? `1. **Read the plan.** For each planned component, understand what it does and how it connects to existing code.`
+    : `1. **Read the diff.** For each changed file, read the full file (not just the diff hunk) to understand context.`;
+
+  sections.push(`
+${traceSource}
+
+${traceStep1}
+2. **Trace data flow.** Starting from each entry point (route handler, exported function, event listener, component render), follow the data through every branch:
+   - Where does input come from? (request params, props, database, API call)
+   - What transforms it? (validation, mapping, computation)
+   - Where does it go? (database write, API response, rendered output, side effect)
+   - What can go wrong at each step? (null/undefined, invalid input, network failure, empty collection)
+3. **Diagram the execution.** For each changed file, draw an ASCII diagram showing:
+   - Every function/method that was added or modified
+   - Every conditional branch (if/else, switch, ternary, guard clause, early return)
+   - Every error path (try/catch, rescue, error boundary, fallback)
+   - Every call to another function (trace into it — does IT have untested branches?)
+   - Every edge: what happens with null input? Empty array? Invalid type?
+
+This is the critical step — you're building a map of every line of code that can execute differently based on input. Every branch in this diagram needs a test.`);
+
+  // ── User flow coverage (shared) ──
+  sections.push(`
+**${mode === 'ship' ? '2' : 'Step 2'}. Map user flows, interactions, and error states:**
+
+Code coverage isn't enough — you need to cover how real users interact with the changed code. For each changed feature, think through:
+
+- **User flows:** What sequence of actions does a user take that touches this code? Map the full journey (e.g., "user clicks 'Pay' → form validates → API call → success/failure screen"). Each step in the journey needs a test.
+- **Interaction edge cases:** What happens when the user does something unexpected?
+  - Double-click/rapid resubmit
+  - Navigate away mid-operation (back button, close tab, click another link)
+  - Submit with stale data (page sat open for 30 minutes, session expired)
+  - Slow connection (API takes 10 seconds — what does the user see?)
+  - Concurrent actions (two tabs, same form)
+- **Error states the user can see:** For every error the code handles, what does the user actually experience?
+  - Is there a clear error message or a silent failure?
+  - Can the user recover (retry, go back, fix input) or are they stuck?
+  - What happens with no network? With a 500 from the API? With invalid data from the server?
+- **Empty/zero/boundary states:** What does the UI show with zero results? With 10,000 results? With a single character input? With maximum-length input?
+
+Add these to your diagram alongside the code branches. A user flow with no test is just as much a gap as an untested if/else.`);
+
+  // ── Check branches against tests + quality rubric (shared) ──
+  sections.push(`
+**${mode === 'ship' ? '3' : 'Step 3'}. Check each branch against existing tests:**
+
+Go through your diagram branch by branch — both code paths AND user flows. For each one, search for a test that exercises it:
+- Function \`processPayment()\` → look for \`billing.test.ts\`, \`billing.spec.ts\`, \`test/billing_test.rb\`
+- An if/else → look for tests covering BOTH the true AND false path
+- An error handler → look for a test that triggers that specific error condition
+- A call to \`helperFn()\` that has its own branches → those branches need tests too
+- A user flow → look for an integration or E2E test that walks through the journey
+- An interaction edge case → look for a test that simulates the unexpected action
+
+Quality scoring rubric:
+- ★★★  Tests behavior with edge cases AND error paths
+- ★★   Tests correct behavior, happy path only
+- ★    Smoke test / existence check / trivial assertion (e.g., "it renders", "it doesn't throw")`);
+
+  // ── E2E test decision matrix (shared) ──
+  sections.push(`
+### E2E Test Decision Matrix
+
+When checking each branch, also determine whether a unit test or E2E/integration test is the right tool:
+
+**RECOMMEND E2E (mark as [→E2E] in the diagram):**
+- Common user flow spanning 3+ components/services (e.g., signup → verify email → first login)
+- Integration point where mocking hides real failures (e.g., API → queue → worker → DB)
+- Auth/payment/data-destruction flows — too important to trust unit tests alone
+
+**RECOMMEND EVAL (mark as [→EVAL] in the diagram):**
+- Critical LLM call that needs a quality eval (e.g., prompt change → test output still meets quality bar)
+- Changes to prompt templates, system instructions, or tool definitions
+
+**STICK WITH UNIT TESTS:**
+- Pure function with clear inputs/outputs
+- Internal helper with no side effects
+- Edge case of a single function (null input, empty array)
+- Obscure/rare flow that isn't customer-facing`);
+
+  // ── Regression rule (shared) ──
+  sections.push(`
+### REGRESSION RULE (mandatory)
+
+**IRON RULE:** When the coverage audit identifies a REGRESSION — code that previously worked but the diff broke — a regression test is ${mode === 'plan' ? 'added to the plan as a critical requirement' : 'written immediately'}. No AskUserQuestion. No skipping. Regressions are the highest-priority test because they prove something broke.
+
+A regression is when:
+- The diff modifies existing behavior (not new code)
+- The existing test suite (if any) doesn't cover the changed path
+- The change introduces a new failure mode for existing callers
+
+When uncertain whether a change is a regression, err on the side of writing the test.${mode !== 'plan' ? '\n\nFormat: commit as `test: regression test for {what broke}`' : ''}`);
+
+  // ── ASCII coverage diagram (shared) ──
+  sections.push(`
+**${mode === 'ship' ? '4' : 'Step 4'}. Output ASCII coverage diagram:**
+
+Include BOTH code paths and user flows in the same diagram. Mark E2E-worthy and eval-worthy paths:
+
+\`\`\`
+CODE PATH COVERAGE
+===========================
+[+] src/services/billing.ts
+    │
+    ├── processPayment()
+    │   ├── [★★★ TESTED] Happy path + card declined + timeout — billing.test.ts:42
+    │   ├── [GAP]         Network timeout — NO TEST
+    │   └── [GAP]         Invalid currency — NO TEST
+    │
+    └── refundPayment()
+        ├── [★★  TESTED] Full refund — billing.test.ts:89
+        └── [★   TESTED] Partial refund (checks non-throw only) — billing.test.ts:101
+
+USER FLOW COVERAGE
+===========================
+[+] Payment checkout flow
+    │
+    ├── [★★★ TESTED] Complete purchase — checkout.e2e.ts:15
+    ├── [GAP] [→E2E] Double-click submit — needs E2E, not just unit
+    ├── [GAP]         Navigate away during payment — unit test sufficient
+    └── [★   TESTED]  Form validation errors (checks render only) — checkout.test.ts:40
+
+[+] Error states
+    │
+    ├── [★★  TESTED] Card declined message — billing.test.ts:58
+    ├── [GAP]         Network timeout UX (what does user see?) — NO TEST
+    └── [GAP]         Empty cart submission — NO TEST
+
+[+] LLM integration
+    │
+    └── [GAP] [→EVAL] Prompt template change — needs eval test
+
+─────────────────────────────────
+COVERAGE: 5/13 paths tested (38%)
+  Code paths: 3/5 (60%)
+  User flows: 2/8 (25%)
+QUALITY:  ★★★: 2  ★★: 2  ★: 1
+GAPS: 8 paths need tests (2 need E2E, 1 needs eval)
+─────────────────────────────────
+\`\`\`
+
+**Fast path:** All paths covered → "${mode === 'ship' ? 'Step 3.4' : mode === 'review' ? 'Step 4.75' : 'Test review'}: All new code paths have test coverage ✓" Continue.`);
+
+  // ── Mode-specific action section ──
+  if (mode === 'plan') {
+    sections.push(`
+**Step 5. Add missing tests to the plan:**
+
+For each GAP identified in the diagram, add a test requirement to the plan. Be specific:
+- What test file to create (match existing naming conventions)
+- What the test should assert (specific inputs → expected outputs/behavior)
+- Whether it's a unit test, E2E test, or eval (use the decision matrix)
+- For regressions: flag as **CRITICAL** and explain what broke
+
+The plan should be complete enough that when implementation begins, every test is written alongside the feature code — not deferred to a follow-up.`);
+
+    // ── Test plan artifact (plan + ship) ──
+    sections.push(`
+### Test Plan Artifact
+
+After producing the coverage diagram, write a test plan artifact to the project directory so \`/qa\` and \`/qa-only\` can consume it as primary test input:
+
+\`\`\`bash
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null) && mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG
+USER=$(whoami)
+DATETIME=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)
+\`\`\`
+
+Write to \`~/.gstack/projects/{slug}/{user}-{branch}-eng-review-test-plan-{datetime}.md\`:
+
+\`\`\`markdown
+# Test Plan
+Generated by /plan-eng-review on {date}
+Branch: {branch}
+Repo: {owner/repo}
+
+## Affected Pages/Routes
+- {URL path} — {what to test and why}
+
+## Key Interactions to Verify
+- {interaction description} on {page}
+
+## Edge Cases
+- {edge case} on {page}
+
+## Critical Paths
+- {end-to-end flow that must work}
+\`\`\`
+
+This file is consumed by \`/qa\` and \`/qa-only\` as primary test input. Include only the information that helps a QA tester know **what to test and where** — not implementation details.`);
+  } else if (mode === 'ship') {
+    sections.push(`
+**5. Generate tests for uncovered paths:**
+
+If test framework detected (or bootstrapped in Step 2.5):
+- Prioritize error handlers and edge cases first (happy paths are more likely already tested)
+- Read 2-3 existing test files to match conventions exactly
+- Generate unit tests. Mock all external dependencies (DB, API, Redis).
+- For paths marked [→E2E]: generate integration/E2E tests using the project's E2E framework (Playwright, Cypress, Capybara, etc.)
+- For paths marked [→EVAL]: generate eval tests using the project's eval framework, or flag for manual eval if none exists
+- Write tests that exercise the specific uncovered path with real assertions
+- Run each test. Passes → commit as \`test: coverage for {feature}\`
+- Fails → fix once. Still fails → revert, note gap in diagram.
+
+Caps: 30 code paths max, 20 tests generated max (code + user flow combined), 2-min per-test exploration cap.
+
+If no test framework AND user declined bootstrap → diagram only, no generation. Note: "Test generation skipped — no test framework configured."
+
+**Diff is test-only changes:** Skip Step 3.4 entirely: "No new application code paths to audit."
+
+**6. After-count and coverage summary:**
+
+\`\`\`bash
+# Count test files after generation
+find . -name '*.test.*' -o -name '*.spec.*' -o -name '*_test.*' -o -name '*_spec.*' | grep -v node_modules | wc -l
+\`\`\`
+
+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.\``);
+
+    // ── Test plan artifact (ship mode) ──
+    sections.push(`
+### Test Plan Artifact
+
+After producing the coverage diagram, write a test plan artifact so \`/qa\` and \`/qa-only\` can consume it:
+
+\`\`\`bash
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null) && mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG
+USER=$(whoami)
+DATETIME=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)
+\`\`\`
+
+Write to \`~/.gstack/projects/{slug}/{user}-{branch}-ship-test-plan-{datetime}.md\`:
+
+\`\`\`markdown
+# Test Plan
+Generated by /ship on {date}
+Branch: {branch}
+Repo: {owner/repo}
+
+## Affected Pages/Routes
+- {URL path} — {what to test and why}
+
+## Key Interactions to Verify
+- {interaction description} on {page}
+
+## Edge Cases
+- {edge case} on {page}
+
+## Critical Paths
+- {end-to-end flow that must work}
+\`\`\``);
+  } else {
+    // review mode
+    sections.push(`
+**Step 5. Generate tests for gaps (Fix-First):**
+
+If test framework is detected and gaps were identified:
+- Classify each gap as AUTO-FIX or ASK per the Fix-First Heuristic:
+  - **AUTO-FIX:** Simple unit tests for pure functions, edge cases of existing tested functions
+  - **ASK:** E2E tests, tests requiring new test infrastructure, tests for ambiguous behavior
+- For AUTO-FIX gaps: generate the test, run it, commit as \`test: coverage for {feature}\`
+- For ASK gaps: include in the Fix-First batch question with the other review findings
+- For paths marked [→E2E]: always ASK (E2E tests are higher-effort and need user confirmation)
+- For paths marked [→EVAL]: always ASK (eval tests need user confirmation on quality criteria)
+
+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."`);
+  }
+
+  return sections.join('\n');
+}
+
+function generateTestCoverageAuditPlan(_ctx: TemplateContext): string {
+  return generateTestCoverageAuditInner('plan');
+}
+
+function generateTestCoverageAuditShip(_ctx: TemplateContext): string {
+  return generateTestCoverageAuditInner('ship');
+}
+
+function generateTestCoverageAuditReview(_ctx: TemplateContext): string {
+  return generateTestCoverageAuditInner('review');
+}
+
 function generateSpecReviewLoop(_ctx: TemplateContext): string {
  return `## Spec Review Loop

@@ -1696,6 +2179,10 @@ const RESOLVERS: Record<string, (ctx: TemplateContext) => string> = {
  REVIEW_DASHBOARD: generateReviewDashboard,
  PLAN_FILE_REVIEW_REPORT: generatePlanFileReviewReport,
  TEST_BOOTSTRAP: generateTestBootstrap,
+  TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT_PLAN: generateTestCoverageAuditPlan,
+  TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT_SHIP: generateTestCoverageAuditShip,
+  TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT_REVIEW: generateTestCoverageAuditReview,
+  TEST_FAILURE_TRIAGE: generateTestFailureTriage,
  SPEC_REVIEW_LOOP: generateSpecReviewLoop,
  DESIGN_SKETCH: generateDesignSketch,
  BENEFITS_FROM: generateBenefitsFrom,
@@ -28,6 +28,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -128,6 +131,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -34,6 +34,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -134,6 +137,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -32,6 +32,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
 _BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
 echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
 echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
+REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
+echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
 _LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
 echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
 _TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
@@ -132,6 +135,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
 - BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
 - BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")

+## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
+
+`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
+
+- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
+- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
+- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
+
+**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
+
+Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
+
 ## Search Before Building

 Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
@@ -268,7 +283,7 @@ You are running the `/ship` workflow. This is a **non-interactive, fully automat
 **Only stop for:**
 - On the base branch (abort)
 - Merge conflicts that can't be auto-resolved (stop, show conflicts)
- Test failures (stop, show failures)
+- In-branch test failures (pre-existing failures are triaged, not auto-blocking)
 - Pre-landing review finds ASK items that need user judgment
 - MINOR or MAJOR version bump needed (ask — see Step 4)
 - Greptile review comments that need user decision (complex fixes, false positives)
@@ -552,7 +567,105 @@ wait

 After both complete, read the output files and check pass/fail.

-**If any test fails:** Show the failures and **STOP**. Do not proceed.
+**If any test fails:** Do NOT immediately stop. Apply the Test Failure Ownership Triage:
+
+## Test Failure Ownership Triage
+
+When tests fail, do NOT immediately stop. First, determine ownership:
+
+### Step T1: Classify each failure
+
+For each failing test:
+
+1. **Get the files changed on this branch:**
+   ```bash
+   git diff origin/<base>...HEAD --name-only
+   ```
+
+2. **Classify the failure:**
+   - **In-branch** if: the failing test file itself was modified on this branch, OR the test output references code that was changed on this branch, OR you can trace the failure to a change in the branch diff.
+   - **Likely pre-existing** if: neither the test file nor the code it tests was modified on this branch, AND the failure is unrelated to any branch change you can identify.
+   - **When ambiguous, default to in-branch.** It is safer to stop the developer than to let a broken test ship. Only classify as pre-existing when you are confident.
+
+   This classification is heuristic — use your judgment reading the diff and the test output. You do not have a programmatic dependency graph.
+
+### Step T2: Handle in-branch failures
+
+**STOP.** These are your failures. Show them and do not proceed. The developer must fix their own broken tests before shipping.
+
+### Step T3: Handle pre-existing failures
+
+Check `REPO_MODE` from the preamble output.
+
+**If REPO_MODE is `solo`:**
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+
+> These test failures appear pre-existing (not caused by your branch changes):
+>
+> [list each failure with file:line and brief error description]
+>
+> Since this is a solo repo, you're the only one who will fix these.
+>
+> RECOMMENDATION: Choose A — fix now while the context is fresh. Completeness: 9/10.
+> A) Investigate and fix now (human: ~2-4h / CC: ~15min) — Completeness: 10/10
+> B) Add as P0 TODO — fix after this branch lands — Completeness: 7/10
+> C) Skip — I know about this, ship anyway — Completeness: 3/10
+
+**If REPO_MODE is `collaborative` or `unknown`:**
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+
+> These test failures appear pre-existing (not caused by your branch changes):
+>
+> [list each failure with file:line and brief error description]
+>
+> This is a collaborative repo — these may be someone else's responsibility.
+>
+> RECOMMENDATION: Choose B — assign it to whoever broke it so the right person fixes it. Completeness: 9/10.
+> A) Investigate and fix now anyway — Completeness: 10/10
+> B) Blame + assign GitHub issue to the author — Completeness: 9/10
+> C) Add as P0 TODO — Completeness: 7/10
+> D) Skip — ship anyway — Completeness: 3/10
+
+### Step T4: Execute the chosen action
+
+**If "Investigate and fix now":**
+- Switch to /investigate mindset: root cause first, then minimal fix.
+- Fix the pre-existing failure.
+- Commit the fix separately from the branch's changes: `git commit -m "fix: pre-existing test failure in <test-file>"`
+- Continue with the workflow.
+
+**If "Add as P0 TODO":**
+- If `TODOS.md` exists, add the entry following the format in `review/TODOS-format.md` (or `.claude/skills/review/TODOS-format.md`).
+- If `TODOS.md` does not exist, create it with the standard header and add the entry.
+- Entry should include: title, the error output, which branch it was noticed on, and priority P0.
+- Continue with the workflow — treat the pre-existing failure as non-blocking.
+
+**If "Blame + assign GitHub issue" (collaborative only):**
+- Find who likely broke it. Check BOTH the test file AND the production code it tests:
+  ```bash
+  # Who last touched the failing test?
+  git log --format="%an (%ae)" -1 -- <failing-test-file>
+  # Who last touched the production code the test covers? (often the actual breaker)
+  git log --format="%an (%ae)" -1 -- <source-file-under-test>
+  ```
+  If these are different people, prefer the production code author — they likely introduced the regression.
+- Create a GitHub issue assigned to that person:
+  ```bash
+  gh issue create \
+    --title "Pre-existing test failure: <test-name>" \
+    --body "Found failing on branch <current-branch>. Failure is pre-existing.\n\n**Error:**\n```\n<first 10 lines>\n```\n\n**Last modified by:** <author>\n**Noticed by:** gstack /ship on <date>" \
+    --assignee "<github-username>"
+  ```
+- If `gh` is not available or `--assignee` fails (user not in org, etc.), create the issue without assignee and note who should look at it in the body.
+- Continue with the workflow.
+
+**If "Skip":**
+- Continue with the workflow.
+- Note in output: "Pre-existing test failure skipped: <test-name>"
+
+**After triage:** If any in-branch failures remain unfixed, **STOP**. Do not proceed. If all failures were pre-existing and handled (fixed, TODOed, assigned, or skipped), continue to Step 3.25.

 **If all pass:** Continue silently — just note the counts briefly.

@@ -624,6 +737,27 @@ If multiple suites need to run, run them sequentially (each needs a test lane).

 100% coverage is the goal — every untested path is a path where bugs hide and vibe coding becomes yolo coding. Evaluate what was ACTUALLY coded (from the diff), not what was planned.

+### Test Framework Detection
+
+Before analyzing coverage, detect the project's test framework:
+
+1. **Read CLAUDE.md** — look for a `## Testing` section with test command and framework name. If found, use that as the authoritative source.
+2. **If CLAUDE.md has no testing section, auto-detect:**
+
+```bash
+# Detect project runtime
+[ -f Gemfile ] && echo "RUNTIME:ruby"
+[ -f package.json ] && echo "RUNTIME:node"
+[ -f requirements.txt ] || [ -f pyproject.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:python"
+[ -f go.mod ] && echo "RUNTIME:go"
+[ -f Cargo.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:rust"
+# Check for existing test infrastructure
+ls jest.config.* vitest.config.* playwright.config.* cypress.config.* .rspec pytest.ini phpunit.xml 2>/dev/null
+ls -d test/ tests/ spec/ __tests__/ cypress/ e2e/ 2>/dev/null
+```
+
+3. **If no framework detected:** falls through to the Test Framework Bootstrap step (Step 2.5) which handles full setup.
+
 **0. Before/after test count:**

 ```bash
@@ -686,9 +820,41 @@ Quality scoring rubric:
 - ★★   Tests correct behavior, happy path only
 - ★    Smoke test / existence check / trivial assertion (e.g., "it renders", "it doesn't throw")

+### E2E Test Decision Matrix
+
+When checking each branch, also determine whether a unit test or E2E/integration test is the right tool:
+
+**RECOMMEND E2E (mark as [→E2E] in the diagram):**
+- Common user flow spanning 3+ components/services (e.g., signup → verify email → first login)
+- Integration point where mocking hides real failures (e.g., API → queue → worker → DB)
+- Auth/payment/data-destruction flows — too important to trust unit tests alone
+
+**RECOMMEND EVAL (mark as [→EVAL] in the diagram):**
+- Critical LLM call that needs a quality eval (e.g., prompt change → test output still meets quality bar)
+- Changes to prompt templates, system instructions, or tool definitions
+
+**STICK WITH UNIT TESTS:**
+- Pure function with clear inputs/outputs
+- Internal helper with no side effects
+- Edge case of a single function (null input, empty array)
+- Obscure/rare flow that isn't customer-facing
+
+### REGRESSION RULE (mandatory)
+
+**IRON RULE:** When the coverage audit identifies a REGRESSION — code that previously worked but the diff broke — a regression test is written immediately. No AskUserQuestion. No skipping. Regressions are the highest-priority test because they prove something broke.
+
+A regression is when:
+- The diff modifies existing behavior (not new code)
+- The existing test suite (if any) doesn't cover the changed path
+- The change introduces a new failure mode for existing callers
+
+When uncertain whether a change is a regression, err on the side of writing the test.
+
+Format: commit as `test: regression test for {what broke}`
+
 **4. Output ASCII coverage diagram:**

-Include BOTH code paths and user flows in the same diagram:
+Include BOTH code paths and user flows in the same diagram. Mark E2E-worthy and eval-worthy paths:

 ```
 CODE PATH COVERAGE
@@ -709,9 +875,9 @@ USER FLOW COVERAGE
 [+] Payment checkout flow
    │
    ├── [★★★ TESTED] Complete purchase — checkout.e2e.ts:15
-    ├── [GAP]         Double-click submit — NO TEST
-    ├── [GAP]         Navigate away during payment — NO TEST
-    └── [★   TESTED] Form validation errors (checks render only) — checkout.test.ts:40
+    ├── [GAP] [→E2E] Double-click submit — needs E2E, not just unit
+    ├── [GAP]         Navigate away during payment — unit test sufficient
+    └── [★   TESTED]  Form validation errors (checks render only) — checkout.test.ts:40

 [+] Error states
    │
@@ -719,12 +885,16 @@ USER FLOW COVERAGE
    ├── [GAP]         Network timeout UX (what does user see?) — NO TEST
    └── [GAP]         Empty cart submission — NO TEST

+[+] LLM integration
+    │
+    └── [GAP] [→EVAL] Prompt template change — needs eval test
+
 ─────────────────────────────────
-COVERAGE: 5/12 paths tested (42%)
+COVERAGE: 5/13 paths tested (38%)
  Code paths: 3/5 (60%)
-  User flows: 2/7 (29%)
+  User flows: 2/8 (25%)
 QUALITY:  ★★★: 2  ★★: 2  ★: 1
-GAPS: 7 paths need tests
+GAPS: 8 paths need tests (2 need E2E, 1 needs eval)
 ─────────────────────────────────
 ```

@@ -736,6 +906,8 @@ If test framework detected (or bootstrapped in Step 2.5):
 - Prioritize error handlers and edge cases first (happy paths are more likely already tested)
 - Read 2-3 existing test files to match conventions exactly
 - Generate unit tests. Mock all external dependencies (DB, API, Redis).
+- For paths marked [→E2E]: generate integration/E2E tests using the project's E2E framework (Playwright, Cypress, Capybara, etc.)
+- For paths marked [→EVAL]: generate eval tests using the project's eval framework, or flag for manual eval if none exists
 - Write tests that exercise the specific uncovered path with real assertions
 - Run each test. Passes → commit as `test: coverage for {feature}`
 - Fails → fix once. Still fails → revert, note gap in diagram.
@@ -756,6 +928,37 @@ 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.`

+### Test Plan Artifact
+
+After producing the coverage diagram, write a test plan artifact so `/qa` and `/qa-only` can consume it:
+
+```bash
+source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null) && mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG
+USER=$(whoami)
+DATETIME=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)
+```
+
+Write to `~/.gstack/projects/{slug}/{user}-{branch}-ship-test-plan-{datetime}.md`:
+
+```markdown
+# Test Plan
+Generated by /ship on {date}
+Branch: {branch}
+Repo: {owner/repo}
+
+## Affected Pages/Routes
+- {URL path} — {what to test and why}
+
+## Key Interactions to Verify
+- {interaction description} on {page}
+
+## Edge Cases
+- {edge case} on {page}
+
+## Critical Paths
+- {end-to-end flow that must work}
+```
+
 ---

 ## Step 3.5: Pre-Landing Review
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ You are running the `/ship` workflow. This is a **non-interactive, fully automat
 **Only stop for:**
 - On the base branch (abort)
 - Merge conflicts that can't be auto-resolved (stop, show conflicts)
- Test failures (stop, show failures)
+- In-branch test failures (pre-existing failures are triaged, not auto-blocking)
 - Pre-landing review finds ASK items that need user judgment
 - MINOR or MAJOR version bump needed (ask — see Step 4)
 - Greptile review comments that need user decision (complex fixes, false positives)
@@ -119,7 +119,11 @@ wait

 After both complete, read the output files and check pass/fail.

-**If any test fails:** Show the failures and **STOP**. Do not proceed.
+**If any test fails:** Do NOT immediately stop. Apply the Test Failure Ownership Triage:
+
+{{TEST_FAILURE_TRIAGE}}
+
+**After triage:** If any in-branch failures remain unfixed, **STOP**. Do not proceed. If all failures were pre-existing and handled (fixed, TODOed, assigned, or skipped), continue to Step 3.25.

 **If all pass:** Continue silently — just note the counts briefly.

@@ -189,139 +193,7 @@ If multiple suites need to run, run them sequentially (each needs a test lane).

 ## Step 3.4: Test Coverage Audit

-100% coverage is the goal — every untested path is a path where bugs hide and vibe coding becomes yolo coding. Evaluate what was ACTUALLY coded (from the diff), not what was planned.
-
-**0. Before/after test count:**
-
-```bash
-# Count test files before any generation
-find . -name '*.test.*' -o -name '*.spec.*' -o -name '*_test.*' -o -name '*_spec.*' | grep -v node_modules | wc -l
-```
-
-Store this number for the PR body.
-
-**1. Trace every codepath changed** using `git diff origin/<base>...HEAD`:
-
-Read every changed file. For each one, trace how data flows through the code — don't just list functions, actually follow the execution:
-
-1. **Read the diff.** For each changed file, read the full file (not just the diff hunk) to understand context.
-2. **Trace data flow.** Starting from each entry point (route handler, exported function, event listener, component render), follow the data through every branch:
-   - Where does input come from? (request params, props, database, API call)
-   - What transforms it? (validation, mapping, computation)
-   - Where does it go? (database write, API response, rendered output, side effect)
-   - What can go wrong at each step? (null/undefined, invalid input, network failure, empty collection)
-3. **Diagram the execution.** For each changed file, draw an ASCII diagram showing:
-   - Every function/method that was added or modified
-   - Every conditional branch (if/else, switch, ternary, guard clause, early return)
-   - Every error path (try/catch, rescue, error boundary, fallback)
-   - Every call to another function (trace into it — does IT have untested branches?)
-   - Every edge: what happens with null input? Empty array? Invalid type?
-
-This is the critical step — you're building a map of every line of code that can execute differently based on input. Every branch in this diagram needs a test.
-
-**2. Map user flows, interactions, and error states:**
-
-Code coverage isn't enough — you need to cover how real users interact with the changed code. For each changed feature, think through:
-
- **User flows:** What sequence of actions does a user take that touches this code? Map the full journey (e.g., "user clicks 'Pay' → form validates → API call → success/failure screen"). Each step in the journey needs a test.
- **Interaction edge cases:** What happens when the user does something unexpected?
-  - Double-click/rapid resubmit
-  - Navigate away mid-operation (back button, close tab, click another link)
-  - Submit with stale data (page sat open for 30 minutes, session expired)
-  - Slow connection (API takes 10 seconds — what does the user see?)
-  - Concurrent actions (two tabs, same form)
- **Error states the user can see:** For every error the code handles, what does the user actually experience?
-  - Is there a clear error message or a silent failure?
-  - Can the user recover (retry, go back, fix input) or are they stuck?
-  - What happens with no network? With a 500 from the API? With invalid data from the server?
- **Empty/zero/boundary states:** What does the UI show with zero results? With 10,000 results? With a single character input? With maximum-length input?
-
-Add these to your diagram alongside the code branches. A user flow with no test is just as much a gap as an untested if/else.
-
-**3. Check each branch against existing tests:**
-
-Go through your diagram branch by branch — both code paths AND user flows. For each one, search for a test that exercises it:
- Function `processPayment()` → look for `billing.test.ts`, `billing.spec.ts`, `test/billing_test.rb`
- An if/else → look for tests covering BOTH the true AND false path
- An error handler → look for a test that triggers that specific error condition
- A call to `helperFn()` that has its own branches → those branches need tests too
- A user flow → look for an integration or E2E test that walks through the journey
- An interaction edge case → look for a test that simulates the unexpected action
-
-Quality scoring rubric:
- ★★★  Tests behavior with edge cases AND error paths
- ★★   Tests correct behavior, happy path only
- ★    Smoke test / existence check / trivial assertion (e.g., "it renders", "it doesn't throw")
-
-**4. Output ASCII coverage diagram:**
-
-Include BOTH code paths and user flows in the same diagram:
-
-```
-CODE PATH COVERAGE
-===========================
-[+] src/services/billing.ts
-    │
-    ├── processPayment()
-    │   ├── [★★★ TESTED] Happy path + card declined + timeout — billing.test.ts:42
-    │   ├── [GAP]         Network timeout — NO TEST
-    │   └── [GAP]         Invalid currency — NO TEST
-    │
-    └── refundPayment()
-        ├── [★★  TESTED] Full refund — billing.test.ts:89
-        └── [★   TESTED] Partial refund (checks non-throw only) — billing.test.ts:101
-
-USER FLOW COVERAGE
-===========================
-[+] Payment checkout flow
-    │
-    ├── [★★★ TESTED] Complete purchase — checkout.e2e.ts:15
-    ├── [GAP]         Double-click submit — NO TEST
-    ├── [GAP]         Navigate away during payment — NO TEST
-    └── [★   TESTED] Form validation errors (checks render only) — checkout.test.ts:40
-
-[+] Error states
-    │
-    ├── [★★  TESTED] Card declined message — billing.test.ts:58
-    ├── [GAP]         Network timeout UX (what does user see?) — NO TEST
-    └── [GAP]         Empty cart submission — NO TEST
-
-─────────────────────────────────
-COVERAGE: 5/12 paths tested (42%)
-  Code paths: 3/5 (60%)
-  User flows: 2/7 (29%)
-QUALITY:  ★★★: 2  ★★: 2  ★: 1
-GAPS: 7 paths need tests
-─────────────────────────────────
-```
-
-**Fast path:** All paths covered → "Step 3.4: All new code paths have test coverage ✓" Continue.
-
-**5. Generate tests for uncovered paths:**
-
-If test framework detected (or bootstrapped in Step 2.5):
- Prioritize error handlers and edge cases first (happy paths are more likely already tested)
- Read 2-3 existing test files to match conventions exactly
- Generate unit tests. Mock all external dependencies (DB, API, Redis).
- Write tests that exercise the specific uncovered path with real assertions
- Run each test. Passes → commit as `test: coverage for {feature}`
- Fails → fix once. Still fails → revert, note gap in diagram.
-
-Caps: 30 code paths max, 20 tests generated max (code + user flow combined), 2-min per-test exploration cap.
-
-If no test framework AND user declined bootstrap → diagram only, no generation. Note: "Test generation skipped — no test framework configured."
-
-**Diff is test-only changes:** Skip Step 3.4 entirely: "No new application code paths to audit."
-
-**6. After-count and coverage summary:**
-
-```bash
-# Count test files after generation
-find . -name '*.test.*' -o -name '*.spec.*' -o -name '*_test.*' -o -name '*_spec.*' | grep -v node_modules | wc -l
-```
-
-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.`
+{{TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT_SHIP}}

 ---

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+/**
+ * Shared fixture for test coverage audit E2E tests.
+ *
+ * Creates a Node.js project with billing source code that has intentional
+ * test coverage gaps: processPayment has happy-path-only tests,
+ * refundPayment has no tests at all.
+ *
+ * Used by: ship-coverage-audit E2E, review-coverage-audit E2E
+ */
+
+import * as fs from 'fs';
+import * as path from 'path';
+import { spawnSync } from 'child_process';
+
+export function createCoverageAuditFixture(dir: string): void {
+  // Create a Node.js project WITH test framework but coverage gaps
+  fs.writeFileSync(path.join(dir, 'package.json'), JSON.stringify({
+    name: 'test-coverage-app',
+    version: '1.0.0',
+    type: 'module',
+    scripts: { test: 'echo "no tests yet"' },
+    devDependencies: { vitest: '^1.0.0' },
+  }, null, 2));
+
+  // Create vitest config
+  fs.writeFileSync(path.join(dir, 'vitest.config.ts'),
+    `import { defineConfig } from 'vitest/config';\nexport default defineConfig({ test: {} });\n`);
+
+  fs.writeFileSync(path.join(dir, 'VERSION'), '0.1.0.0\n');
+  fs.writeFileSync(path.join(dir, 'CHANGELOG.md'), '# Changelog\n');
+
+  // Create source file with multiple code paths
+  fs.mkdirSync(path.join(dir, 'src'), { recursive: true });
+  fs.writeFileSync(path.join(dir, 'src', 'billing.ts'), `
+export function processPayment(amount: number, currency: string) {
+  if (amount <= 0) throw new Error('Invalid amount');
+  if (currency !== 'USD' && currency !== 'EUR') throw new Error('Unsupported currency');
+  return { status: 'success', amount, currency };
+}
+
+export function refundPayment(paymentId: string, reason: string) {
+  if (!paymentId) throw new Error('Payment ID required');
+  if (!reason) throw new Error('Reason required');
+  return { status: 'refunded', paymentId, reason };
+}
+`);
+
+  // Create a test directory with ONE test (partial coverage)
+  fs.mkdirSync(path.join(dir, 'test'), { recursive: true });
+  fs.writeFileSync(path.join(dir, 'test', 'billing.test.ts'), `
+import { describe, test, expect } from 'vitest';
+import { processPayment } from '../src/billing';
+
+describe('processPayment', () => {
+  test('processes valid payment', () => {
+    const result = processPayment(100, 'USD');
+    expect(result.status).toBe('success');
+  });
+  // GAP: no test for invalid amount
+  // GAP: no test for unsupported currency
+  // GAP: refundPayment not tested at all
+});
+`);
+
+  // Init git repo with main branch
+  const run = (cmd: string, args: string[]) =>
+    spawnSync(cmd, args, { cwd: dir, stdio: 'pipe', timeout: 5000 });
+  run('git', ['init', '-b', 'main']);
+  run('git', ['config', 'user.email', 'test@test.com']);
+  run('git', ['config', 'user.name', 'Test']);
+  run('git', ['add', '.']);
+  run('git', ['commit', '-m', 'initial commit']);
+
+  // Create feature branch
+  run('git', ['checkout', '-b', 'feature/billing']);
+}
@@ -416,6 +416,150 @@ describe('REVIEW_DASHBOARD resolver', () => {
  });
 });

+// ─── Test Coverage Audit Resolver Tests ─────────────────────
+
+describe('TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT placeholders', () => {
+  const planSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'plan-eng-review', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+  const shipSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+  const reviewSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'review', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+
+  test('all three modes share codepath tracing methodology', () => {
+    const sharedPhrases = [
+      'Trace data flow',
+      'Diagram the execution',
+      'Quality scoring rubric',
+      '★★★',
+      '★★',
+      'GAP',
+    ];
+    for (const phrase of sharedPhrases) {
+      expect(planSkill).toContain(phrase);
+      expect(shipSkill).toContain(phrase);
+      expect(reviewSkill).toContain(phrase);
+    }
+    // Plan mode traces the plan, not a git diff
+    expect(planSkill).toContain('Trace every codepath in the plan');
+    expect(planSkill).not.toContain('git diff origin');
+    // Ship and review modes trace the diff
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Trace every codepath changed');
+    expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Trace every codepath changed');
+  });
+
+  test('all three modes include E2E decision matrix', () => {
+    for (const skill of [planSkill, shipSkill, reviewSkill]) {
+      expect(skill).toContain('E2E Test Decision Matrix');
+      expect(skill).toContain('→E2E');
+      expect(skill).toContain('→EVAL');
+    }
+  });
+
+  test('all three modes include regression rule', () => {
+    for (const skill of [planSkill, shipSkill, reviewSkill]) {
+      expect(skill).toContain('REGRESSION RULE');
+      expect(skill).toContain('IRON RULE');
+    }
+  });
+
+  test('all three modes include test framework detection', () => {
+    for (const skill of [planSkill, shipSkill, reviewSkill]) {
+      expect(skill).toContain('Test Framework Detection');
+      expect(skill).toContain('CLAUDE.md');
+    }
+  });
+
+  test('plan mode adds tests to plan + includes test plan artifact', () => {
+    expect(planSkill).toContain('Add missing tests to the plan');
+    expect(planSkill).toContain('eng-review-test-plan');
+    expect(planSkill).toContain('Test Plan Artifact');
+  });
+
+  test('ship mode auto-generates tests + includes before/after count', () => {
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Generate tests for uncovered paths');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Before/after test count');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('30 code paths max');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('ship-test-plan');
+  });
+
+  test('review mode generates via Fix-First + gaps are INFORMATIONAL', () => {
+    expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Fix-First');
+    expect(reviewSkill).toContain('INFORMATIONAL');
+    expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Step 4.75');
+    expect(reviewSkill).toContain('subsumes the "Test Gaps" category');
+  });
+
+  test('plan mode does NOT include ship-specific content', () => {
+    expect(planSkill).not.toContain('Before/after test count');
+    expect(planSkill).not.toContain('30 code paths max');
+    expect(planSkill).not.toContain('ship-test-plan');
+  });
+
+  test('review mode does NOT include test plan artifact', () => {
+    expect(reviewSkill).not.toContain('Test Plan Artifact');
+    expect(reviewSkill).not.toContain('eng-review-test-plan');
+    expect(reviewSkill).not.toContain('ship-test-plan');
+  });
+
+  // Regression guard: ship output contains key phrases from before the refactor
+  test('ship SKILL.md regression guard — key phrases preserved', () => {
+    const regressionPhrases = [
+      '100% coverage is the goal',
+      'ASCII coverage diagram',
+      'processPayment',
+      'refundPayment',
+      'billing.test.ts',
+      'checkout.e2e.ts',
+      'COVERAGE:',
+      'QUALITY:',
+      'GAPS:',
+      'Code paths:',
+      'User flows:',
+    ];
+    for (const phrase of regressionPhrases) {
+      expect(shipSkill).toContain(phrase);
+    }
+  });
+});
+
+// --- {{TEST_FAILURE_TRIAGE}} resolver tests ---
+
+describe('TEST_FAILURE_TRIAGE resolver', () => {
+  const shipSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+
+  test('contains all 4 triage steps', () => {
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Step T1: Classify each failure');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Step T2: Handle in-branch failures');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Step T3: Handle pre-existing failures');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Step T4: Execute the chosen action');
+  });
+
+  test('T1 includes classification criteria (in-branch vs pre-existing)', () => {
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('In-branch');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Likely pre-existing');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('git diff origin/');
+  });
+
+  test('T3 branches on REPO_MODE (solo vs collaborative)', () => {
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('REPO_MODE');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('solo');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('collaborative');
+  });
+
+  test('solo mode offers fix-now, TODO, and skip options', () => {
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Investigate and fix now');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Add as P0 TODO');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Skip');
+  });
+
+  test('collaborative mode offers blame + assign option', () => {
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Blame + assign GitHub issue');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('gh issue create');
+  });
+
+  test('defaults ambiguous failures to in-branch (safety)', () => {
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('When ambiguous, default to in-branch');
+  });
+});
+
 // --- {{PLAN_FILE_REVIEW_REPORT}} resolver tests ---

 describe('PLAN_FILE_REVIEW_REPORT resolver', () => {
@@ -611,11 +755,11 @@ describe('Codex generation (--host codex)', () => {
  test('Codex review step stripped from Codex-host ship and review', () => {
    const shipContent = fs.readFileSync(path.join(AGENTS_DIR, 'gstack-ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
    expect(shipContent).not.toContain('codex review --base');
-    expect(shipContent).not.toContain('Investigate and fix');
+    expect(shipContent).not.toContain('CODEX_REVIEWS');

    const reviewContent = fs.readFileSync(path.join(AGENTS_DIR, 'gstack-review', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
    expect(reviewContent).not.toContain('codex review --base');
-    expect(reviewContent).not.toContain('Investigate and fix');
+    expect(reviewContent).not.toContain('CODEX_REVIEWS');
  });

  test('--host codex --dry-run freshness', () => {
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ export const E2E_TOUCHFILES: Record<string, string[]> = {
  'plan-eng-review-artifact':  ['plan-eng-review/**'],

  // Ship
-  'ship-base-branch':    ['ship/**'],
+  'ship-base-branch': ['ship/**', 'bin/gstack-repo-mode'],
  'ship-local-workflow': ['ship/**', 'scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts'],

  // Setup browser cookies
@@ -95,8 +95,11 @@ export const E2E_TOUCHFILES: Record<string, string[]> = {
  'gemini-review-findings': ['review/**', '.agents/skills/gstack-review/**', 'test/helpers/gemini-session-runner.ts'],


-  // Ship coverage audit
-  'ship-coverage-audit': ['ship/**'],
+  // Coverage audit (shared fixture) + triage
+  'ship-coverage-audit': ['ship/**', 'test/fixtures/coverage-audit-fixture.ts', 'bin/gstack-repo-mode'],
+  'review-coverage-audit': ['review/**', 'test/fixtures/coverage-audit-fixture.ts'],
+  'plan-eng-coverage-audit': ['plan-eng-review/**', 'test/fixtures/coverage-audit-fixture.ts'],
+  'ship-triage': ['ship/**', 'bin/gstack-repo-mode'],

  // Design
  'design-consultation-core':       ['design-consultation/**'],
@@ -1319,10 +1319,12 @@ describe('Codex skill', () => {
  test('codex-host ship/review do NOT contain adversarial review step', () => {
    const shipContent = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, '.agents', 'skills', 'gstack-ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
    expect(shipContent).not.toContain('codex review --base');
-    expect(shipContent).not.toContain('Investigate and fix');
+    expect(shipContent).not.toContain('CODEX_REVIEWS');

    const reviewContent = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, '.agents', 'skills', 'gstack-review', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
    expect(reviewContent).not.toContain('codex review --base');
+    expect(reviewContent).not.toContain('codex_reviews');
+    expect(reviewContent).not.toContain('CODEX_REVIEWS');
    expect(reviewContent).not.toContain('adversarial-review');
    expect(reviewContent).not.toContain('Investigate and fix');
  });
@@ -1450,3 +1452,58 @@ describe('Codex skill validation', () => {
    }
  });
 });
+
+// --- Repo mode and test failure triage validation ---
+
+describe('Repo mode preamble validation', () => {
+  test('generated SKILL.md preamble contains REPO_MODE output', () => {
+    const content = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+    expect(content).toContain('REPO_MODE:');
+    expect(content).toContain('gstack-repo-mode');
+  });
+
+  test('generated SKILL.md contains See Something Say Something section', () => {
+    const content = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+    expect(content).toContain('See Something, Say Something');
+    expect(content).toContain('REPO_MODE');
+    expect(content).toContain('solo');
+    expect(content).toContain('collaborative');
+  });
+});
+
+describe('Test failure triage in ship skill', () => {
+  test('ship/SKILL.md contains Test Failure Ownership Triage', () => {
+    const content = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+    expect(content).toContain('Test Failure Ownership Triage');
+  });
+
+  test('ship/SKILL.md triage uses git diff for classification', () => {
+    const content = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+    expect(content).toContain('git diff origin/<base>...HEAD --name-only');
+  });
+
+  test('ship/SKILL.md triage has solo and collaborative paths', () => {
+    const content = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+    expect(content).toContain('REPO_MODE');
+    expect(content).toContain('solo');
+    expect(content).toContain('collaborative');
+    expect(content).toContain('Investigate and fix now');
+    expect(content).toContain('Add as P0 TODO');
+  });
+
+  test('ship/SKILL.md triage has GitHub issue assignment for collaborative mode', () => {
+    const content = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+    expect(content).toContain('gh issue create');
+    expect(content).toContain('--assignee');
+  });
+
+  test('{{TEST_FAILURE_TRIAGE}} placeholder is fully resolved in ship/SKILL.md', () => {
+    const content = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+    expect(content).not.toContain('{{TEST_FAILURE_TRIAGE}}');
+  });
+
+  test('ship/SKILL.md uses in-branch language for stop condition', () => {
+    const content = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+    expect(content).toContain('In-branch test failures');
+  });
+});
@@ -1 +1 @@
 .10.0.0
 .10.1.0